sonusario

10 ms·

1.
by sonusario 7mo ago
I wonder if it stems from any of the "AI uprising" stories where humanity is viewed as the cancer to be eradicated.
2.
by sonusario 3y ago
Do you still find this true when taking type aliases into account?
3.
by sonusario 3y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KtzyZKSuls
4.
by sonusario 3y ago
Glad you got responses because I sat there thinking it could mean un-readable from the vantage of different styles.
5.
by sonusario 4y ago
Try not to blink challenge?
6.
Bobby Mc Ferrin – By the Sea(youtube.com)
2 points by sonusario 4y ago|0 comments
7.
by sonusario 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-neutral_fuel https://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/fugitive-methane-and-...
8.
by sonusario 6y ago
So, is this to say we approach the irreducible best with induction?
9.
by sonusario 6y ago
What about "parsimony in explaining the available data" indicates that it is irreducible though?
10.
by sonusario 6y ago
How do we know when we have arrived at something that is irreducible?
11.
Surprise breakthrough, scientists create quantum states in everyday electronics(news.uchicago.edu)
6 points by sonusario 7y ago|0 comments
12.
by sonusario 7y ago
> I don't like it because it suggests that freedom and security are somehow at odds with each other, which is already an authoritarian framing of the situation, and really just nonsense. Agreed. I think part of the issue stems from
13.
by sonusario 7y ago
> It just takes a very, very long time, but there have been dogma updates and clarifications throughout the centuries, and even admissions of being in the wrong. Clarifications, yes. Changes in dogma, no. Catholic doctrine has not change
14.
by sonusario 7y ago
The Final nail: You agree with the following claim: The specific observation of water boiling at 125°C in 1 atm falsifies the claim "water only boils at 150°C+ in 1 atm". Since being falsifiable is your requirement for making warr
15.
by sonusario 7y ago
More nails for your argument's proverbial coffin... ;) === > Seriously? You are seriously contesting that a defining characteristic of religion is that it makes non-falsifiable claims? "Yes, DUH!", hence the question. What
16.
by sonusario 7y ago
> There is no contradiction with my own position, and there is no certainty involved, nor is certainty needed. How do you know there is no certainty involved? How do you know certainty is not needed? If you are not certain, why not say &
17.
by sonusario 7y ago
"Yes, DUH!" he said as though he were certain, contradicting his own position, a position he's not completely sure exists.
18.
by sonusario 7y ago
> Like, even if you were justified in being absolutely certain on some claim, I don't see how that is of any use whatsoever for a conversation. Then what was the purpose of your demanding, "I won't answer any further quest
19.
by sonusario 7y ago
> Could you give one example of such a claim? It is certain that you can't be certain of the claim "there is no thing anyone could possibly be certain about". You can't be certain "there is no thing anyone coul
20.
by sonusario 7y ago
> Just to avoid that confusion: "certain" is not the same as "so incredibly sure that it would be world-shattering to discover otherwise", even though the former often is used colloquially to mean the latter. I'm
21.
by sonusario 7y ago
> I won't answer any further questions about whether I am certain about something until you show that there is anything anyone could possibly be certain about. So apparently you are uncertain that you've just stated "I won
22.
by sonusario 7y ago
> Would you say that my claim is... ? And by asking a question, you have no answer for mine? You seem to think that claims aren't true or false if we don't know whether they are true or false. What your doing is equivocating th
23.
by sonusario 7y ago
Anything you've said with > ... reliability is a property of the claim itself ... I have never stated that I thought this. You may have thought my wording implied that, but that has never been what I was getting at. You've in
24.
by sonusario 7y ago
You > "But there simply is no such thing as "the reliability of the claim" that is distinct from "the reliability of the method used to arrive at the claim...". Also you (in response to my question "And clai
25.
by sonusario 7y ago
> What is "the reliability of the claim itself", if it is not the reliability of the method that is used to estalish that claim? Wut?? If you can't see that "the reliability of the claim itself" =/= "th
26.
by sonusario 7y ago
> ... which is why just making things up is not a reliable way to determine truth. Your argument states "Science says that untestable claims about reality are unreliable" and not "Science says that making things up is not
27.
by sonusario 7y ago
> 1)... 2)... 3)... How do you determine that a claim is not falsifiable? How do you determine that a claim is unreliable? When you say "Science says", do you mean "Science is defined as such ..." or "Science has
28.
by sonusario 7y ago
> 1)... 2)... 3)... How do you determine that something is not testable? How do you determine that something is unreliable? When you say "Science says", what do you mean? When you say "Religion says", what do you mean
29.
by sonusario 7y ago
[part 2] > Yes, you said that to be physical is to be able to have measurable effect [...], but then denied that the measurable effects of the potential of the universe to change state (namely, the measured change in state) implies that
30.
by sonusario 7y ago
[part 1] > I don't really know yet what assumptions to build on that you would share. Then just start with something, and if I don't agree with your assumptions then we can decide where to go from there. It doesn't have to

More ›