Untitled @radicalideal - Tumblr Blog

Posts

pangur-and-grim

Belphie has decided that it's very, very fun to sit on my head and eat my hair

pangur-and-grim

help me, I'm having an argument. would you call my eye colour blue?

#I would’ve said hazel #but clearly I’m in the minority here

tinyyellowflowers-blog

Went to the grocery store with my kindergartener. We weighed some bananas: 2 pounds even. We weighed a watermelon: 4 pounds even. We weighed some mangos: a little over 1 pound. We weighed the watermelon AND the bananas: 6 pounds even.

“That’s funny” said the child “because 2+4=6 and two pounds and four pounds is six pounds. It’s like the same as math!”

“What happens if you add 6+1?”

“SEVEN”

“What if we put one pound of mangos on the scale?” <mangos added>

“IT’S THE SAME!!”

“OK, what’s 7-4?”

“Three?”

“What if we take the four pound watermelon off the scale?” <watermelon removed>

“Mama! Are you telling me math works In Real Life? Think of all the things you could measure!!”

cosmonautroger

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

drtanner

Baby fucking SCARPERING the instant mama looks away, lmao.

radwolf76

derinthescarletpescatarian

I love The Good Place so much, it's a fantastic show, but I will never get over how one of the first things Michael says is "Every major religion guessed about five per cent right [about the afterlife]", citing Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus as examples, and then presents an afterlife concept so Christian that I've met multiple real-life Christians who believe that that's how it works.

derinthescarletpescatarian

#you know what that's a really good point#I guess you could argue he was lying?#but that'd make zero sense

I like to think that he just doesn't know shit about religion. He wanted to sound smart and didn't bother looking up the accuracy of his patter first.

thesacredlocnar

I mean he also was lying at the time, he was literally presenting Elanor with a fake Good Place in a completely fake scenario. It's possible he lied about this too, or yeah just guessed without looking into it.

derinthescarletpescatarian

He was making a fake scenario but it would be ridiculous for him to describe his fake scenario as being five per cent of everything when it's so clearly at least 85% Christianity. Like there's no reason to say "he buddhists guessed about 5% right" about the scenario he's presenting unless he genuinely doesn't know shit about Buddhism. Which I think is the case; he just doesn't know much about human religion.

He also likes to stay as close to the truth as possible because lies are more reliable and easy to maintain that way; he was honest about Doug Forcett in the same explanation. I think he just incorrectly believed that the basics of all the religions he mentioned were pretty much the same.

earhartsease

we imagine to most even nominal white christians, it's so what they expect that they wouldn't even think of it as being "christian" - imagine landing up in that particular version of "heaven" (with its manicured lawns and frozen yoghurt shops) if you came from central asia or the amazon basin or literally any other culture other than west european/white north americas - and perhaps the writers had the same blind spot, or perhaps it was deliberate?

derinthescarletpescatarian

In the fiction that Michael was building, that neighbourhood was built to the preference of the 322 humans it was made to house, and other neighbourhoods would be tailored to their residents. (Though he did insist that they all had frozen yoghurt. "People love frozen yoghurt, I don't know what to tell ya.") Michael was aware that paradises would be specific to the cultures and individual preferences of their residents.

He simply seemed unaware that a system of cosmic justice where exhibiting enough virtue sends you to paradise for all eternity and committing enough sins sends you to hell for all eternity is very much not "all religions guessed about 5% right." Telling Eleanor that there was variation in what the specific heavens were like did not stop them from being modern popular Christianity with Jesus' name carefully whited out.

ymfingsteadilyon

I mean. It's a fantasy series that starts with the protagonists waking up to learn that most of humanity has been captured by monsters and are now being treated very, very badly — but good news! You, and these few hundred strangers, are in the control group! No need to worry about anything!

And everyone just accepts that. At no point in the first season does anyone even glance at questions like, so what are the torture-aliens getting out of this? What, exactly, makes us so sure we can trust their promises? And wouldn't this entire situation have given me some serious moral heeby-jeebies back when I was alive?

derinthescarletpescatarian

Yeah every time I watch The Good Place I realise that the vast majority of people, if they were put in Michael's torture machine, would realise that something was extremely wrong before going to bed on the first night.

Not because the system is obviously unfair and terrible; that's completely fine. People deal with unfair and terrible systems all the time and there's no reason why going to an afterlife that sucks on a cosmic level means that the afterlife is fake -- maybe the universe just isn't fair. No, anyone who was a fraction less self-absorbed than the four humans would've figured it out by the party.

Because Michael does the little orientation video, where he explains the system. He explains that they, the very BEST people, who did the most good in the world, made it to heaven. And everybody else? "Don't worry about it." He says this to a guy who apparently died after donating his kidneys to a stranger on a bus. He says this to a guy who apparently spent half his life fighting for women's rights and the other half for gay rights in oppressive environments. He says this to a woman who apparently arranged, against the government, a volunteer organisation to personally go out there and clear out minefields around areas frequented by children. And then they all go to a big party...

and they don't give a shit.

At that point it should be blatantly obvious that the good place is fake. Because if you gather a bunch of people together based on the criteria that they selflessly gave their lives to help others, often "bad" people, and you tell them "oh, the vast majority of those people you helped will be tortured forever, don't worry about them, you get to relax in paradise, let's have a party", you would have a riot right there at the orientation. "Good" people, by the criteria Michael proposes, the kind of people who do the things that the actors are claiming they do, would simply not accept that; it goes against everything they are and everything they do. They would do exactly what they did for their whole lives, they would exhibit the priorities and personalities that got them into the good place in the first place.

I'd sit through the presentation thinking "okay, everyone's got their brave faces on, they don't want to attack an angel without preparation, this rebellion will require work, fine," and put on a fake smile, but when they gather at the party and there's not a hint of rebellion, of rage, of righteous fury against heaven? At that point, most people would know immediately that the people around them are lying. It just doesn't make sense for 322 people to change so radically in such a situation.

Fortunately for Michael, he did select four of the most self-absorbed people in the world for his experiment, and they don't pay enough attention to notice.

coyotegirl-writer-s-block

but this begs the question of what other people in the "real" Good Place were doing? Did they just spend eternity questioning the Judge and angels and Janets and not getting an answer? What makes Chidi & Tahani & Eleanor & Jason special enough that they caused reform in Heaven, despite not being (or at least not starting out as) the very best of humanity? Would the entire system have crumbled with any four selfish clowns getting a fake Good Place? Is the plot moved not by the four main characters but by Michael's failed ambition?

derinthescarletpescatarian

The people in the "real" good place were perpetually hopeless, listless and unhappy, drugged out of their minds on things like cosmic milkshakes that slowly eroded their focus. They probably did rebel a lot to begin with. By the time we see them, it's been centuries or millennia for everyone there. And they haven't been getting memory resets.

They probably were furious when they arrived. They probably fought and pleaded against their keepers for years. And their keepers had meetings where they talked about how unhappy the humans were and what they could add to make the afterlife more fun, like unicorns and giant mini donuts (not the same as regular donuts -- Dave will explain).

But the most iron-willed human in the world can only hold up for so many centuries against an impossibly powerful force that simply will not accept that systemic problems exist and that is continually plying them with happy drugs.

#the good place #the good place spoilers

brynkiwi

Now im the “legal eagle kink meme girl” :(

spicyvampire

Btw keep reblogging my post with fun tags and keep using your tagging system as it was intended, idc what that fuckass update say, we gonna make tumblr roll that shit back

spicyvampire

But let's be clear, this is clearly some corporate speak for "we gonna force that bullshit on you someway somehow anyways" we will have to be more vigilant about tumblr constantly fucking with the reblog feature, them adding a goddamn menu button for reblogs on desktop was only the start, it genuinely feels like these people don't use tumblr or their main social media is twitter because they are constantly trying to shit all over the best tumblr features to make it more like fucking twitter, the battle might have been won but the war continues

spicyvampire

When I told you the battle has been won but the war continues this is what I meant, tumblr has rolled out once again this very exact same updated but this time it only affects the least protected users of this website aka the gifmakers, edits makers, artists and creators of all sorts, because not only is every reblog of a gifset it's own post, but now every reblog of a gifset can get flagged without OP even being aware of it

They get flagged on your blog AND in your queue, and sometimes you can't even tell what the fuck was even in the post so you can give a justification for asking an appeal

And if you aren't scrolling your own blog or queue constantly like a maniac, you won't even know the reblog is flagged cuz they get put in your Review Flagged Posts section of your app and website, somewhere NOBODY even checks, and has no number next to it to tell you how many posts are in there

I got reblogs flagged all the way to 2017 in there, and the only way to know is to SCROLL DOWN

And the cherry on that bullshit Sunday is that some of these reblogs can be flagged without you even being able to appeal them like I have a bunch of them which are simply impossible to appeal, even if yet again the post is completely innocent

Tumblr seemingly continues to find new and original ways to make this place absolutely worst for creators by taking any & all agency you got on your creation away, and they fucking hiding it behind their April fools green cat

#the bullshit continues I see

yoneda-emma

Kind of basic question while the more in-depth post is still going on, just to make sure I'm not totally off base: The collection of all sets that don't contain themselves *does* form a proper class, right? In most well-founded set theories that collection should just be the proper class of all sets, but I assume that even without well-foundedness it still qualifies? And so does any other collection of the form {x : x is a set satisfying P}?

radicalideal

Most of that is correct. Whether B := {x : P(x)} is a set depends entirely on the set theory and what P is.

• If P(x) is the formula “x is not an element of x”, then B can’t be a set in any consistent set theory per Russell’s Paradox (it would be an element of itself iff it was not an element of itself).

• If P(x) is “x ≠ x”, B is the empty collection, which is a set in every set theory I’ve ever heard of.

• If P(x) is “x = x” then B is the universe, which is not a set in any well-founded set theory (it would be an element of itself) but is a set in for example NF.

If P(x) is “x is an element of x” then B is a set in any well-founded set theory (being empty) but not in NF (otherwise its complement, the Russell collection, would be a set).

Etc.

Any set theory has to somehow specify a collection of formulas P which define sets, without running into a paradox. Of course, per Gödel, we can never prove (within that set theory) that it has succeeded for any mathematically interesting set theory. Whoops!

#math #set theory

depresseddisneyprincess

reblog this if your blog is a safe space on april fools and won’t have any jumpers, screamers, or anything scary or anxiety inducing

#probably won’t even have any posts lol

cyber-punk-rock

Can you play an instrument? (Any skill level)

Yes (which one? 👀)

Nuance (up to interpretation)

Voting ended onApr 2

I’m just curious how many people at some point in their lives have played/learned to play an instrument of any kind.

I included a nuance button bc I know there might be some folks who might be like “well I played the recorder in grade school but idk if that counts” — count it if you want or hit nuance if you’re unsure! 😊

To be clear, if you studied an instrument to any level of proficiency, even if you’re out of practice now, please select yes!

Reblog with your instrument, if you wish 🙏🏼 Or just for more accurate results

cyber-punk-rock

Boosting again! I’ve been enjoying reading everyone’s responses so far, it brings me joy to see music has reached so many lives!! 😊🫶🏼

#piano #saxophone #though not so much these days #I do sing though

yoneda-emma

To any set theory wizards following me: What's the least inconvenient way to add a hierarchy of universes to set theory, similar to the way dependent type theory does it? Specifically, I always felt that "resolving" Russels paradox by introducing proper classes and then only allowing quantification over sets was deeply unsatisfying, since on a philosophical level, this just pushes the issue up one step - I think it is intuitively clear that the "collection of all proper classes" should still be a valid object that exists, even if it can't be a proper class itself. I assume what I want is hyperclasses, but I'm having a real hard time finding basically any writing on them, and from what little I do find even these seem to usually just be considered as "collections of classes", and not a full hierarchy where an (n+1)-class is a collection of (n)-classes.... Are Grothendieck Universes (and/or Tarski Universes) already enough to solve this issue, even though they are formally just classified as sets? Also how come this isn't talked about more? I'd be fine switching out ZFC for some version of NBG or MK or even ETCS for this, but I do think that doing all of my future math in MLTT or HOTT because of this seems a bit unreasonable for now ^^

mystic-bone-mage

Admittedly this is not the sort of thing I think about in my daily set theoretic life, so take it with a set containing a grain of salt. However: what you might want are what I'll call α-sets. A set (in the sense of ZFC, or what have you) is called a 0-set. Having defined α-sets, an (α+1)-set is any collection of α-sets. Having defined α-sets for all α < γ limit, a γ-set is an α-set for some α < γ. For example, there is a 1-set of all 0-sets, a 2-set of all 1-sets, but no ω-set of all n-sets over all n < ω (that collection would be an (ω+1)-set).

I won't be considering the axiomatic framework of α-sets in depth right now, but if there's interest I can write something up another time (perhaps when I'm not on the toilet). I think the analogy with Grothendeick universes is a good one, but we're going to run into the same ontological issue here (ie, Grothendeick universes think they are proper classes, but we typically consider them sitting inside some bigger Grothendeick universe that thinks the smaller one is a set).

If we let V^α be the (α+1)-set of all α-sets, then for an inaccessible cardinal κ, we can perform essentially all of ordinary mathematics inside of V^{κ}. The emphasis is given to show that we've not actually solved the problem we were trying to address here; we have simply pushed it up κ many levels of abstraction, and for our effort we get to come up with a whole new axiomatic framework.

Okay, so maybe the solution to our issue will get spit out if we stop trying to have a "top node" to our hierarchy. Maybe considering the entire universe of α-sets for any α will give us what we want. If it doesn't, then I'm happy to tell you that the 1-set of all 0-ordinals is a 1-ordinal, that the (α+1)-set of all α-ordinals is an (α+1)-ordinal, and that we can do this construction over and over, transfinitely, considering α_β-sets indexed by the β-ordinals α. Of course, why stop there? Next we can consider α_{β_γ}-sets, where α is a β_γ-ordinal. We can do our transfinite iteration of transfinite iterations transfinitely many times! But that's where we should stop; I have a headache.

yoneda-emma

Ah, thank you! The whole "there is a 1-set of all 0-sets, a 2-set of all 1-sets, etc." is exactly what I was thinking myself (considering thats what agda does), and "Grothendieck universes think they are proper classes, but bigger Grothendieck universes think the smaller ones are sets" does sound reasonable as a resolution to "how do Groethendieck universes establish this hierarchy without going beyond proper classes" Your $V^α$ aren't directly related to Von Neumann universes, right? They just happen to use the same letter?

radicalideal

I think this is just the same as assuming there is a proper class of inaccessible cardinals {kappa_alpha}, and then an alpha-set is just an element of V_(kappa_alpha). Which is pretty tame as large cardinal axioms go.

#math #how are y’all getting Greek letters btw?

yesornopolls

Does the thought of a 12 hour train trip sound better than a 8 hour plane ride?

Yes

Voting ended onApr 6

fuckyeahxfactor-blog

New 'Bootcamp' boyband.

According to sources a new boyband has been formed at Bootcamp with 5 solo contestants thought to be more promising as a group.

The boyband made up of auditionees: Louis Tomlinson, Harry Styles, Liam Payne, Niall Horan and Zayn Malik

(Liam being one of this years re-auditonee’s) The boyband are yet unamed.

Previous groups formed at Bootcamp have usually been doomed from the start and although usually making it through to the live shows don’t go much further. Futureproof, Hope and Miss Frank to name the most well known,

jasper-rolls

did anything happen with this

radicalideal

Very problematic group, they keep buying people

sevarix-blogs

i'm seeing a lot of my mutuals are deficient in forehead kisses 😞

therefore, rb this to give all your mutuals a forehead kiss :)

penrenutet

How do/would you primarily organize your bookshelf? No nuance, pick the one that is most important to you

by author surname

by title

by color

by height

by genre

by release date

by recently read

by how much you like them

via the Dewey Decimal System

by some other madness

Voting ended onMar 27

#genre #if by genre you mean subject #it’s mostly nonfiction tbh

tpwrtrmnky

One unfortunate reality of liking board games and ttrpgs is that "you can read the rules so you know how to play the fucking game" is something that's unfamiliar and strange to people whose board game experience is like, Monopoly, where everyone's supposed to already "know" what the rules are and consequently play the game wrong

tpwrtrmnky

"Get used to just looking up the rules when it's not your turn, if you're in doubt" is part of the learning curve!

datasoong47

And sometimes it's just simple reading comprehension. Like, "do I have to do this thing on the card" and the card says "you may ..." Like, do you know the definition of "may"?