ukj

6 ms·

1.
by ukj 1mo ago
In your CONTRIBUTING.md add a human-first readability rule. Ordinary English accessible to your average person - for extra irony ask the agent to generate the rule content. When technical language is necessary instruct the agents to use ASD
2.
by ukj 3y ago
The deep irony in valuing matter more than valuing values is never wasted on me. You still haven't figured out that "matter" is yet another man-made concept? An abstract idea. A collective noun. Itself a (very useful) "f
3.
by ukj 3y ago
That's why the best strategy is divide&conquer - run the razors concurrently. Assume complexity then move towards simplicity. Assume simplicity then move towards complexity. One of them will succeed sooner than the other. Dialectic
4.
by ukj 3y ago
You seem to be speaking from a place of greatly diminished self-awareness. Notice how you are constantly appealing to abstract unobservables to make your claims. No shame in that - all science does it. Quantities, numbers, fields, processes
5.
by ukj 3y ago
Obviously you can look at all the parts from whatever perspective you want. It is your philosophical predisposition to dismantle things and understand how they work. But when you are done learning you need to put all the parts back together
6.
by ukj 3y ago
You seem to be missing the point. Ignoring for a second that the laws of thermodynamics themselves are based upon a handful of idealizations (the idealization of "thermal equilibrium", the idealization of "perfectly isolated
7.
by ukj 3y ago
For much the same reasons as grouping cars and engines separately is erroneous. It's not really a car without an engine.
8.
by ukj 3y ago
Ok… I reject your reality and substitute my own. In this reality I don’t have to do the mental gymnastics where the formal *sciences* aren’t sciences. In this reality there is at least one unfalsifiable (not even in principle) true claim: t
9.
by ukj 3y ago
It's pointless to speak of usefulness without specifying a utility function. It is just as possible to differentiate as it is to integrate. If it is determined a priori that unfalsifiable propositions are not useful, then knowing the r
10.
by ukj 3y ago
In the spirit of bullshit-busting and critical thought here's a thought experiment... Alan Turing: The claims made in the Halting Problem is genrally true, and is therefore unfalsifiable even in principle. Carl Sagan: Propositions that
11.
by ukj 3y ago
We who? Don't "we" also need a grouping to make it even clearer that some fields can't produce any falsifiable theories if other fields don't produce at least some unfalsifiable theorems? A terra firma of sorts. It&
12.
by ukj 3y ago
Is it the "philosophy of science"? What is now called "science" was once called "natural philosophy"? Maybe it's the science of science? Maybe it's the philosophy of philosophy? Maybe it's the sc
13.
by ukj 3y ago
You may not see it as exclusionary but many people do. Just look at the comments! It's precisely the grouping I am talking about. If you group science in such a way so that logic/mathematics/computer science falls outside the
14.
by ukj 3y ago
>Not by this definition. Which is precisely the problem with all definitions I am drawing attention to - they are exclusionary in nature. Sometimes creating distinctions is useful. Sometimes erasing distinctions is even more useful. How
15.
by ukj 3y ago
Your failure to understand what I am saying is abysmal. >That is what I said. I showed a mathematical statement and I showed how you could falsify it. >Since you said "mathematics is not falsifiable" I have shown your statem
16.
by ukj 3y ago
I merely attempting to reciprocate/mirror your tone. You are the one (self)identifying it as "rude". I have some idea about what you do and don't know about definition and definability (in general) given the words you&#x
17.
by ukj 3y ago
The problem with all ideas is always their reification. Computers may be deterministic, but humans aren't. The same software/idea produces wildly different understandings; and behaviour in differnt humans. What always seem like gr
18.
by ukj 3y ago
Hickam's dictum is also provable. In the domains where simplicity prevails Occam's razor is more probable. In domains where complexity prevails Hickam's dictum is more probable.
19.
by ukj 3y ago
In asking a statement to be falsified (in principle) you are assuming it to be true (in principle). Is is true? What makes it true? >A concept which will in no way ever make a difference, is meaningless. So what would falsify this statem
20.
by ukj 3y ago
I am talking about (theoretical) computer science, not (practical) software engineering. This should've been clear in the context of my question: "Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science?
21.
by ukj 3y ago
I am struggling to spot the charity in all your condescension. metaphysics /ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪks/ noun the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity,
22.
by ukj 3y ago
What makes this assertion; or the assertion “If it isn’t disprovable - it isn’t science” true?
23.
by ukj 3y ago
The study of being qua being; or science qua science; or mathematics qua mathematics; or X qua X for any X. Metaphysics. Or as it is commonly referred to in computer science: function self-application. One example of which being the Y combi
24.
by ukj 3y ago
Someone should tell you that there is a difference between a conjecture and a theorem. Theorems are unfalsifiable.
25.
by ukj 3y ago
One way to view metaphysics is as the science of science. So if the science of science is not science - is that not a contradiction?
26.
by ukj 3y ago
It is in the nature of definitions to include some things and exclude others. If the definition of “science” excluded computer science as a science; would you say the definition is correct?
27.
by ukj 3y ago
Personally, I am weary of the notion of “actual science” since science is not a well-defined term. The demarcation problem isn’t solved; and philosophers like Fayerabend in his book “Against method” suggest that science is more of an anarch
28.
by ukj 3y ago
How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? The scientific metaphysic relies on so many declarative/prescriptive statements which are themselves exempt from the criteria for science and are thus se
29.
by ukj 3y ago
Repeatability and verifiability aren’t the be-all/end-all criteria for knowledge/truth. Thus is over-selling science as the only avenue to truth/knowledge. Where does it leave formal/mathematical/theoretical knowled
30.
by ukj 3y ago
The fact is you are talking about the meaning of words. Be they English words; or Mathematical words. If you are going to talk about the correspondence theory in the same breath as you are talking about any language - you need to solve the

More ›