This sounds like social anxiety more than newfag oldfag dyanmics.

lurk moar, newfag

This sounds extremely pessimistic and negative. I'm really not sure what you're getting at. The value of anonyminity is that this is lessened greatly and people will forget things.

>>120114
That's why Anonymity is great. It heavily reduces the burden that one needs to put on themself to be that brazen newfag and enter in their opinion with the rest of the posters. But what I'm lamenting isn't the difficulty of anonymous communication or entering into communities like these, but rather my lack of resolve to enter into forums or more named communities where the connections that matter are. Since when you're always anonymous you're always just going with the flow and being strung along by what happens outside your influence. But if you were to integrate into those named communities even slightly maybe you could have a better influence on what happens or be better prepared in a worst case scenario and be with others to set something new up.

Mostly just regret and anxiety around the AB situation.

aren't anons cutest when they're almost retarded

just stop worrying and post, get a feel for it.

I am not "scared" of participating. I am repulsed by the communities themselves.
>>120116
Most online communities are mostly about social networking nowadays.
And the post evaluation mechanics are incredibly disgusting to me.

>>120116
>Mostly just regret and anxiety around the AB situation.
FUCK

-Global- [proton] Regarding DNS issues; for now I still do not have a reply from registrar but the domain remains in 'serverHold' state from nic.tv (registry) ...
-Global- [proton] Current assumption should be that this is legal hold on domain ...
-Global- [proton] I'm giving registrar another 12h for reply before purging everything, all servers except for IRC are currently down and encrypted at rest ...
-Global- [proton] We have no intention of continuing to endanger ourselves or anyone else here by continuing to operate site if it has been noticed by authorities.

This is what they get for not inviting me

Aren't you thinking a bit too much?

>>120125
Kids are starving in Japan
So eat it!

I'm not afraid of anything anymore

>>120130
I thought so too until today, a big dog ran towards me and started barking. I got really scared...

>>120128
A shame. But for what is Life without Death?

>>120132
>what is Life without Death?
Children usually first come to comprehend their own mortality past the age of 10.
Are you implying that it's fine to kill children before that point, since they weren't really alive anyway?

>>120133
I don't think comprehension of mortality is the bar for sentience, so of course it is not fine to murder children; they are still very much sentient despite their immaturity.

>>120138
>sentience
That's not the topic.
The question was about life.

>>120133
saying life is given value through mortality is about two miles away from saying life is given value through its own perception of mortality. So you'd do good to explain those jumps you're making.

>>120139
You're the one who likened the comprehension of death to the ability to die. Your argument implies a certain degree of intellectual development is necessary to be conferred personhood, which is typically judged by either sentience or decision-making ability.

>>120140
Value is not an intrinsic value of matter. It's an assigned attribute.
That's a passive sentence. Who is the one doing the assigning?
It's obviously a human.
Death too is just an abstract future until it happens. Your death exists only within your mind for now.
And if that is what makes your life worth living... then... you know.

>>120141
>Your argument implies a certain degree of intellectual development is necessary to be conferred personhood
Whereas yours implies the requirement of death to be alive.

>>120143
Who is the one doing the assigning? That's me. I can say life gains a value through mortality per se. No one needs to be aware of their mortality for them to gain that value. I also feel like youre reading way too much into the simplest phrases. When someone ponders "what is life without death" only a mind thats itching for a fight would jump on the idea that there is a discussion about the definition of life to be had.

>>120144
I am not "itching for a fight", I am discussing the claim with you.
> jump on the idea that there is a discussion [] to be had.
If there is no discussion to be had, what's the point of saying it?
>Who is the one doing the assigning? That's me.
Then it's fundamentally just a statement that you don't like immortals. A meaningless position in a universe where immortality is not a thing. But then, you don't want to discuss it, I guess.

>>120143
>Death too is just an abstract future until it happens.
Does the past cease to exist once it has happened?
This claim seems absurd. Time is not an abstract thing but a fundamental and measurable concept of reality; the future is just time in the positive direction from the perspective of a particular reference frame. To say future and thus time is abstract is to say that an object 10 ft. in front of me is abstract until i go and pick it up.

My problem is writing, I often spend time writing a post, then read it again and decide to redo it completely. If I actually had something very interesting to say that would definitely contribute then I wouldn't care so much about how it looks. This is why I avoid posting on /qa/.

>>120159
>Does the past cease to exist once it has happened?
Physically, yes.
You cannot interact with things that used to be there but no longer exist.*
>the future is just time in the positive direction from the perspective of a particular reference frame.
Wrong.
Determinism has been proven wrong by quantum physics.

>To say future and thus time is abstract is to say that an object 10 ft. in front of me is abstract until i go and pick it up.
That's a false equivalence.
Whatever you think about the future, even if you accept determinism, is guesswork.
An object 10 ft. away can be observed and measured. That's why physicists can say a lot of things about the universe, but are not incredibly good advisors in regards to politics.

*you can still feel the effects of things from the past. And with light traveling from distant galaxies you can see into the past. But that is not the same thing as interaction with the past.

>>120166
There exists a restricted set of possibilities that the future can take based on actions that happened in the past and are happening in the present. We are able to provide a range of possibilities for the future and the past based on present conditions and vice versa. These possibilities may be infinite but they are restricted. We can say with certainty that you will not be visiting the other side of the observable universe within a year, riding a conventional rocket.

Before going too much further into this discussion, do you also consider the scientific concept of energy abstract? When talking about time I am meaning the scientific concept of time, that is a measurable quantity and directly tied to the scientific concept of distance through the concept of space-time.

>>120167
All "concepts" are abstract. But that's just nitpicking.
>that is a measurable quantity
The measured quantity depends on who is doing the measuring.
But I never said time was not real. I said your future is not real. You turned future into time. Those are not the same thing.
There is no way for you to measure the future. Your argument falls flat when applied to actual topic.

>>120171
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “future”. When I say “future”, I mean some event or object in the forward direction of time. 10 minutes in the future is just like 10 meters in front. I guess I agree there is no way to measure the “future” because it’d be like measuring the “in front”. “future” is really more of an adjective than a noun that describes what time direction (positive or negative) something is in. “future” being used as a noun is more a quirk of English and how it describes things in the time axis.

>>120172
>10 minutes in the future is just like 10 meters in front.
No, it very much is not.
First of all, time is not a dimension in the same way that the others are. We are moving through time in a single direction. Forward. There is no backward.
The object 10 meters away from you is there for you to interact with at a distance, but can also be approached. It can be ignored for 10 minutes and will still be there. You and it both are traveling through time. Therefore the object 10 meters away from you is technically also 10 minutes away from you. It is also an hour away from you because it will still be there then. This is how nonsensical that declaration is that a thing is 10 minutes away from you.

And you are shaping the future right now. By planning to do something, you are aiming for a specific outcome. The future is not yet real. The thing that is awaiting you 10 minutes from now depends on whether or not you now get off your ass to make a coffee, or choose not to, because you don't like coffee.
The future is not yet real.

>>120173
>The object 10 meters away from you is there for you to interact with at a distance, but can also be approached.
And that is exactly how time works, albeit only in the forward direction. Being restricted to move in a single direction in a dimension does not all of a sudden make the forward or backward positions from the current point any less real.

>It is also an hour away from you because it will still be there then.
This is exactly the sort of phenomenon that particles moving at the speed of light experience. A photon experiences it's entire history in the same exact moment. An observer traveling at the speed of light causes such extreme time dilatation that all events take no time to "complete" and thus happen all at once.
It's also worth bringing up that due to the relativity of time, it's possible for two observes to see events A and B but observer 1 sees the order as A -> B and observer 2 sees the order as B -> A. So for someone else it's possible for them to see the your future, when you are an hour away from the object; then see your present, when you are 10 minutes away from the block.

The attached video goes over the concept of how other observers can view what is your future, past, and present in different orders than you've experienced them. The follow up videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EagNUvNfsUI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnKzt6Xq-w4 go more into arguments for and against determinism and thus the existence points forward and backward in time.

Distance (space) and time are both linked together into a concept known as space-time, which is the geometric landscape in which we live. To discount any point of time as abstract is to also discount points in space as abstract. The future is a very real thing that exists, it may not exist as a single defined event but it does exist as a range of possible events.

>>120180
I believe you have made a mistake there in your videos, since two of the links are identical.
>And that is exactly how time works,
Except you cannot, in fact, interact with the past and future, and therefore it does not.
>does not all of a sudden make the forward or backward positions from the current point any less real.
That was not the point of this particular chain after all. I told you that you were doing a false equivalence by making the comparison.
>This is exactly the sort of phenomenon that particles moving at the speed of light experience.
Are you arguing that you are moving at the speed of light (in 3D space, before you intentionally misunderstand)?
>A photon experiences it's entire history in the same exact moment.
Therefore, the argument that something is an hour away from it is meaningless. It will never reach that next hour.
>it's possible for two observes to see events A and B but observer 1 sees the order as A -> B and observer 2 sees the order as B -> A.
But that is only if they are outside of each other's cone of causality (if light from neither A nor B has had time to reach the other).
>So for someone else it's possible for them to see the your future,
No, that does not follow.
The real point is that there is no universal "now" or "simultaneity" that different observers could agree on. But you are always the most up-to-date version of yourself.
>The future is a very real thing that exists,
It is not "a very real thing that exists", if it's "a range of possible events".
One of them will eventually turn out to be real. When we reach it. Even if you argue that n% probability = n% reality, then the future that we will reach, is, as of now, at 0% reality. (one over infinity)
The futures that we pass by without turning them real have been disproved for our universe. They are no longer possible in our reality.

>>120182
This may very well be my penultimate response in this discussion. Not because I don't like talking to you, but because the videos you provided provide a level of theory where I suspect I may be missing something. Seeing the risk of just blindly repeating talking points, I feel I should point out to you that this is not my intent.

>>120182
I meant to link this video too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JCRDaa3ehk and if you're looking for more supplementary material this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXdsyctD50 is also relevant.

>>120183
I don't have the time yet to reply to you right away either. Just wanted to correct my linking mistake, incase that helps fill the knowledge gap you are missing. PBS spacetime general does a good job linking to relevant video of there's to the current topic, in case there is required knowledge missing.

Quantum spiritualism is super strange group of people to get involved with. Often trying to blend religious fiction with non fiction

>>120192
It makes sense for new kinds of spiritualism to pop up when our understanding of the world has so dramatically changed in the past decades.
With the recent atmosphere of crisis, they are going to be see boosts too.

So is ab dead or what?

>>120194
She is clinically dead, in that her heart has stopped beating, brain activity is null and breathing has stopped.

However, the doctor says he can save her.

>>120166
>Determinism has been proven wrong by quantum physics.
"Proven" is a big overstatement here given the existence of the pilot-wave interpretation, but even if we assume some things are stochastic, that is not incompatible with block time. Imagine a god rolling dice when creating the universe; the randomly chosen future would already exist, but I who don't know how the dice fell don't know it.

>>120194
No, but it's temporarily out of service while they figure out some sort of hosting/domain thing. The IRC is back, but not working ideally because there's no account system.
The way people were talking it seems like we might have to set up every single torrent again, but also someone mentioned scripts exist for automating that so hopefully they get shared or I'm going to go insane

>>120110
>I envy the newfag with the willpower to leave their mark.
It's not about willpower. They're not considering that at all.

>>120194
¥-Global- [proton] We have received another update with official confirmation from registrar that domain suspension was not result of targeted legal action.
¥-Global- [proton] It is still unknown whether we will be able to recover control over our .tv domain and are awaiting further updates as registrar is working to resolve this issue.
¥-Global- [proton] Regardless of whether we will recover domain or not, a new domain will be used for tracker and image host. Current IRC domain (animefriends.moe) will be used purely for hosting IRC.
We're back.

>>120200
The ifunny logo makes it perfect

>>120209
yep, I couldn't bring myself to edit it out.