Quotations From NATHAN COPPEDGE


» More about Nathan Coppedge on Poemhunter

 

  • 'I like to iterate that normally when something has lever advantage, height advantage with applicable mass, and room to move into, this is something that applies leverage, and this is actually the most contentious piece of information standing in the way of perpetual motion, and except for all the skepticism it would be trivial to prove. Do we say that because someone has their feet below a swing that they can't sit on the seat? No, its the same thing, you can sit on the swing using your higher center of mass. You don't need to stand on the swing to apply pressure to the swing. Not in the least bit. As long as your center of mass is on the swing, and nothing else is supporting you, your full mass is applied to the swing, even if part of your body is below your center of mass. So, as long as the moving weight in my machine applies sufficient mass, it is okay if the moving weight has a base which is sometimes below the highest point of the lever, as long as the midpoint ends up being much higher, which is allowable.'
    - -Nathan Coppedge, February 2018 comment to Brian Fey (Founder / Director at Bosque Village, Mexico) on concept of a perpetual motion shrine. Brian Fey says great idea.
  • 'Actually, America currently lives in a Golden Age by historical standards. People can buy candy bars for less than people used to pay for pieces of rags. The trouble, if there is one, is the habits and baggage of prior history, the particular dilemmas such as natural disasters that strike at various times periodically, and the inability to know our own strategy in the context of prior strategies, and the ones that follow. By this point however, as arrogant and blind as Americans supposedly are, there should be reason enough to know something about how to continue history. Consider that this is the form of how not to despair. Maybe the dark side is that I'm underpaid. Maybe that brightens your day, whether you are thinking that poor people have no potential, or that money is not well spent—it turns out, neither of those theories is true.'
    - -Nathan Coppedge, February 2018
  • 'Consider: why should the ideas we are presented be believable? It has not always been so! The major discoveries of history so far depend on fundamental revisions in our assumptions about belief, our ability to stimulate ourselves, and our level of non-contradiction with the most intelligent patterns of history. We cannot assume that the geniuses of long ago think like the geniuses of today. One of the great promises is that much has been forgotten. And so, it is only with special effort so far that human beliefs have been revised, and one of the most important discoveries of genius is to counteract and overclock pre-existing belief systems. Indeed, beyond a single level of complexity, such revisions are imperative just to grasp the nature of intelligence. At this time, it has become such that someone is not well-rounded if they do not have some claim to genius. It is really as if only geniuses consider new ideas. And if there is an exception to this, it might be the presence of illusions and false beliefs which present to us a false history in which perceptions and truths are not rationally associated. So, it seems, one must be truly great to change history, but this has little to do with what people think, and it is little different than changing beliefs. We can only hope that the universe rewards us in the manner in which we perceive ourselves.'
    - -Nathan Coppedge, February 2018
  • 'We should have a broader concept—what if humans each traveled a long way before they discovered the Earth—each, to a large extent, from a different place in Outer Space. Then it is like an alien to be someone else. It is like an alien to be our neighbor. It is like an alien to have different thoughts, or to disagree about opinions. Aliens are not just beings that have different bodies, they are also things with different motivations. What prevents us from saying that in some deep sense a different species might have more in common with us than our neighbor? What if the alien does something we love, while our neighbor disagrees with us on every point? Now, if we think someone with a similar opinion is an alien, we are being un-intellectual! There is no rule which says our neighbor is not an alien. There is nothing which says we cannot love an alien for what they do. And so, when we say aliens have not been discovered, we are adopting a relative view, for we are saying that we cannot love our neighbors, for if we did love our neighbors we would say that we might not love them. But, as it is, we say that we MUST love them, because we do not really love any of them. Loving neighbors is more like acknowledging that they are aliens who might do something we love. It is less much like loving a difference of opinions.'
    - -Nathan Coppedge, February 2018
  • 'One thing that you should know is one thing I have observed, that change is often immune to meta-critique. Sincerely, the longer and more arduously we critique, the less we will know, and the less things will really change. The most profound changes are largely emotional. The smallest changes occur such as right after Platonism in philosophy, or right after Godel in mathematics: big ideas that take up space and make people stop thinking about emotional change. Sincerely, it is possible to emotionally change for long periods of time without having any big ideas. But where there is a large body of meta-critique, the only changes that can occur are intellectual, and as a result human beings will be tapped out when it comes to explaining real events which are neither precisely intellectual, nor precisely literal, yet which depend on emotions to be interpreted.'
    - -Nathan Coppedge, February 2018
  • 'If there is any spiritual communication from fraternities I wish it were written in a better language. I have a feeling the local gods sacrificed immortality and love for the sake of death and pain.'
    - -Nathan Coppedge, February 2018
  • 'One of my greatest discoveries as I studied categorical knowledge was the idea that one can be a philosopher who is a generalist at understanding the many specialized phenomenologies of experience, and it is also possible to be a specialist at generalism who develops philosophical formulas which describe big important pieces which vary according to the idea of what everything is. If everything is one thing, then one of these formulas is right or there is something contradictory about finding formulas. But if everything has more than one definition, then the idea of coherence itself is a kind of finite infinity, which is coherent of itself, but in a higher-dimensional sense, still extendable and interchangeable, producing a knowledge which is actually by most current standards quite larger than life. Indeed, there is no definite rule against hyperbolic knowledge, or improving the whole universe through the use of a special definition. Much more is in human hands than most anticipated. And I find, simultaneously, that it is quite objective.'
    - -Nathan Coppedge, February 2018
  • 'If the square root of an exponential function is a category, naive realism is indeed an alternative to coherence. But I have already gone well beyond that by proposing five other alternatives to coherence: paradoxes, irrationality, incoherence, neutrals, and informals.'
    - -Nathan Coppedge, Critique of Gödel's (less famous, but historically real) Completeness Theorem, February 2018
  • '1. Therefore, for any finite vector form of the Axiom of Choice comparable to a well-ordered set of spirals, the full set of such compositions relative to finite spiralline set order as defined parsimoniously will be equivalent to a function performed on the vectors of such spirals.2. In such sets of compositions, coordinates of equal latitude, longitude, etc shall be directly comparable, with direct correlation to any observed arity (cubic, hyperbolic, etc) simultaneously.'
    - -Nathan Coppedge, Coherent Axiom of Choice, February 2018
  • 'Think of it this way: free will is a type of determination, with a standard that may be present or absent, and on top of it all there is no determinism without determinations. All free will is slave to the preferences. There is no free will without preferences, and so perfect fulfillment of preferences is the maximal concept of the will. So, in a sense, the ultimate concept of will is... to live the dream of arbitrary behavior. But really we cannot get more than we want, if we are being honest.'
    - -Nathan Coppedge, March 2018
[Report Error]