The reason these discussions often break down right about here is because the participants have in mind completely different working definitions of “tolerance.”

For example, the social contract comment above assumes an active definition like recognizing others’ personal sovereignty, i.e. their right to act and not be acted upon. To aid understanding, we can represent mutual tolerance between people as a multinational peace treaty between nations. Intolerance is equivalent to one of these nations violating the treaty by attacking another.

Defense or sanction by neighboring states against the aggressor doesn’t violate the treaty further, of course, since it is precisely these deterrents which undergird every treaty. Likewise, condemning and punishing intolerance which threatens the personal sovereignty of others is baseline maintenance for mutual tolerance, because there’s always a jackass who WILL fuck around if you don’t GUARANTEE he will find out.

Conversely, another popular notion of tolerance — the one you may have in mind, as I once did — is a passive definition that amounts to tacit approval of others’ value systems, i.e. relativistic truth, permissive morality, etc.

This kumbaya definition is a strawman originally used by talking heads because, I suspect, it quickly invokes well-worn mid-century tropes, especially for those who grew up in the era, of namby-pamby suckers and morally compromised weaklings which still trigger strong feelings, like disgust and contempt, that reliably drive ratings and engagement. These days the only regular mention of this term is this manufactured paradox using the bad-faith definition, so the original idea is commonly misunderstood.

Pure unlimited tolerance would include tolerating someone’s breach of contract, logically speaking.

That “pure, unlimited tolerance” is what they mean by tolerance as a moral standard. Tolerance as a contract is “we have each entered into an agreement to be tolerant of each other. If you are not tolerant of me, you have broken the terms of our agreement, so I will not be tolerant of you.”

I don’t see a slippery slope here; I’d be interested to hear more about why this is a dangerous road to go down.

I don’t think so. I interpret paradoxes as being either philosophical impasses (ie, 2 conceptually true statements conflict each other in a way that makes you question where one statement’s truth ends and the other statement’s truth begins) or a situation in which a solution is unintuitive.

A Catch-22 is more of a physical and intentional impasse, where obstacles are intentionally set up in such a way that people are unable to make a choice. For instance, in the original example of a Catch-22, there is no philosophical argument saying that only insane people are allowed to not fly - it is an arbitrary rule that some higher-up established. And likewise, it is entirely arbitrary to define insane as being willing to fly.

I guess to simplify my stance, it’s a paradox if it makes you think “the universe has made this unsolvable” and it’s a Catch-22 if it makes you think “some asshole made this unsolvable”

Sounds like contradiction, yes, but it is just incorrect phrase. You do not have to be intolerant to be tolerant.

The society have to be intolerant to intolerance to be stable, not to be tolerant or intolerant.

Carry on…

It’s worse than that. It’s “believe that you must do as I say, despite my complete refusal to create worthwhile evidence of my existence, and then do what I say” or “suffer for all eternity”.

I think that’s their point; they’re saying that’s what God did. He “created a universe in which there was no such thing as evil or suffering and [gave] people in that universe free will.”

And humans screwed it up.

I’m not saying that, mind you. I’m saying I think you just agreed with the person you’re debating as a proof that they were wrong.

If Christians could agree with each other about what’s in the bible, history would be a lot more boring.

The moment of divergence is instantaneous between the clone and original. The only way it could not be instantaneous, is if both were just a brain connected to the exact same simulation, experiencing the exact same inputs. If they didn’t respond the same, then they aren’t an exact clone. Even then, the brains would be sustained with different blood, made up of trillions of slightly different atoms — although similar, not 100% identical due to quantum mechanics — with a slightly different fluid dynamics. Actually the only way they could be identical is if they weren’t brains but identical code, running in an identical simulation, with the exact same boundaries, and no possibility of probability, chaos or divergence from that code… Oh no I’ve gone cross eyed.

Sounds great! I’ll have to check that out!

Honestly though, that sounds like the only way to do cloning without completely redoing every single law in every single country, city, state, Providence, county, parish, etc. The implications of cloning fascinates me way more than the cloning itself

A different perspective,seen in buddhism and similar worldviews, is that the only “you” that exists is the consciousness experiencing reality at any given moment.

🤣🤣🤣

"All of the “is infinite power so powerful that it could overpower its own power” type questions just annoy me.

Is infinite power so powerful it can do something that it can’t do?

Yes it can. And then it can do that anyway. Otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite."

Great. Can you give me example of decreasing trend slower than that function curve?, where summation doesn’t give finite value? A simple example please, I am not math scholar.

Disclaimer: not a physicist, and I never went beyond the equivalent to a BA in physics in my formal education (after that I “fell” into comp sci, which funnily enough I find was a great pepper for wrapping my head around quantum mechanics).

So space and time per se might be continuous, but the energy levels of the various fields that inhabit spacetime are not.

And since, to the best of our current understanding, everything “inside” the universe is made up of those different fields, including our eyes and any instrument we might use to measure, there is a limit below which we just can’t “see” more detail - be it in terms of size, mass, energy, spin, electrical potential, etc.

This limit varies depending on the physical quantity you are considering, and are collectively called Planck units.

Note that this is a hand wavy explanation I’m giving that attempts to give you a feeling for what the implications of quantum mechanics are like. The wikipédia article I linked in the previous paragraph gives a more precise definition, notably that the Planck “scale” for a physical quantity (mass, length, charge, etc) is the scale at which you cannot reasonably ignore the effects of quantum gravity. Sadly (for the purpose of providing you with a good explanation) we still don’t know exactly how to take quantum gravity into account. So the Planck scale is effectively the “minimum size limit” beyond which you kinda have to throw your existing understanding of physics out of the window.

This is why I began this comment with “space and time might be continuous per se”; we just don’t conclusively know yet what “really” goes on as you keep on considering smaller and smaller subdivisions.

If Now exists outside of time, then the measurement of time weather it’s measured as a loop, forward, backward, in a spiral, etc. would have no effect on the Now. From the Now’s perspective all of time has already occurred, is occurring, and has yet to occur all at once. If Now’s position is fixed, then it would appear in multiple timelines at once, and in multiple locations at once.

Time is simply a measurement of the constant of change, which is itself a paradox, something false that continuously proves itself to be false, or something in motion that continuously keeps itself in motion. So we can say something that is false is something that is mutable and movable. Then an object that is not false, outside of the constant of change, would be immutable, in-movable, and fixed, like the Now. Time would move around it, while it remains stationary and unaffected.

I’d go so far as to say baking is superior- it never reaches temp to make the oil pop and makes a mess inside the oven, and you’re only limited on how much bacon you can cook by how many cookie sheets you own (and maybe how much bacon you have stored away in the freezer 😁). Great point on the grease, easy to collect afterwards! Makes great rice!