I don’t use Facebook so I don’t post in this community much, but I do get some pretty insane WhatsApp forwards like this one. Let me know if y’all want to see more of these.
The syntax is @[email protected]. It’s more complicated because fediverse. But like Facebook, my client automatically populates it for me (as soon as I type @andr it popped up as an option)
There’s still more than one kind of epistemology that’s compatible with this. You haven’t answered questions about whether you can know things by just reasoning without any empirical input, or can know things about concepts unrelated to the physical world.
You’ve pinned down that a “perfect rational agent” is relevant in your system, and that the laws of science are real, meaningful, knowable and not infinite. That’s it.
…or can know things about concepts unrelated to the physical world.
I do not fully grasp this context or dimensionality of scope. I am not implying any form of mentalism, but I doubt that was the intended meaning here.
You’ve helped me see more clearly though. I’m postulating that it is possible to statistically ground inference against infinite probability once enough background information is established and unknown scopes constrained. The data collection in-situ grounds the interlocutor against the background. Truth is known when the matter in question has a sufficient statistical constraint against this background.
I guess I’m saying intuitive reasoning has a grounding scope flaw in the present, but this flaw is solvable because the observable universe is finite and a statistical measure against it is a valid truth and condition for conscious existence within once sufficient information is known and encompassed with understanding. Does this perspective have a name?
I do not fully grasp this context or dimensionality of scope.
Most of the examples I’m thinking of are math things. A really basic example might be an infinite collection of objects, if the universe is finite. You can talk about it, and even prove things about it mathematically, but it has no physical equivalent. If I can prove that one infinity is bigger than another (which has been done) in a finite universe, is that then a form of knowledge? Some schools, like pragmatism, would actually say no.
You’ve helped me see more clearly though. I’m postulating that it is possible to statistically ground inference against infinite probability once enough background information is established and unknown scopes constrained. The data collection in-situ grounds the interlocutor against the background. Truth is known when the matter in question has a sufficient statistical constraint against this background.
I guess I’m saying intuitive reasoning has a grounding scope flaw in the present, but this flaw is solvable because the observable universe is finite and a statistical measure against it is a valid truth and condition for conscious existence within once sufficient information is known and encompassed with understanding. Does this perspective have a name?
Empiricism, plus the belief that the observable universe is tractable (which is a thing most scientists believe but nobody has proven). At least, believing you can’t do intuitive reasoning without knowing the universe is textbook empiricism.
Hindus are only a minority there, but since this has been brought up, an anecdote- years ago, the science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke had a TV show called Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious World. It was a pretty silly show about UFOs, psychic powers and the like. But the reason I bring it up is that Clarke lived for decades in Sri Lanka and he went to see the local person who did horoscopes and numerology to talk about how it was basically common practice in Sri Lanka to not do anything major without consulting one of them. And that included a couple who were there about getting married.
Damn, that brings back good childhood memories, watching an episode with my younger sister and following it up with X-Files. Thriller/horror nights were the best. 😄
In Japan, every day in the calendar has a “luck” associated with it. Weddings and other important events are always scheduled for good luck days, and bad luck days are avoided. Certain years of your life are also better or worse (eg. a woman’s 31st year might be unlucky.
At least, that’s how it was d when I lived there 25 years ago. I also think this system may have been adopted from China.
I beat Metroid: Zero Mission a few weeks ago (that’s probably the 7th game I’ve completed in 30+ years of gaming hahah) and I’m thinking of going through the rest of the series.
So people keep asking me: “why build a massive research facility at the bottom of a salt mine?” Well, I’ll tell you: science! That’s why. Those safety-obsessed, bureaucratic government types are always slowing things down. Better to move this operation indoors so we can get to work. And that’s where you come in: get your assignment at the desk, and let’s make history.
Paradise, revenge, and takedown, I played lots. While I liked them all Paradise has my vote. Has the driving mechanics and the crash mechanics of the main games but adds exploration and fun challenges.
There’s an awesome 3 level trampoline park in an old slate mine in Wales. I think its called Bounce Below. They use an old miners train to transport you in and out of the slate mine. Been there once with a school trip!
kbin.life
Newest