3 ms·

> There's no such thing as "2" in the physical world …wat. ಠ_ಠ At this point, society has quite a lot of science and engineering relying on the fact that num

> There's no such thing as "2" in the physical world …wat. ಠ_ಠ At this point, society has quite a lot of science and engineering relying on the fact that numbers have objective meaning in the physical world.

jiggawatts 5y ago
You can’t physically represent or measure PI to more than about 20 decimal places no matter how you arrange matter. The curvature of spacetime itself will ruin any such attempt, not to mention eventually running into the limits of the observable universe itself. Similarly, according to QM, the number of fundamental particles in any system is not well-defined. They’re constantly appearing and disappearing. How do you count “people”? Easily and consistently? What about conjoined twins? Still doable? What if the twins are highly asymmetric with one twin just a bump on the head of the other? Just a few cells? Shared brain but seperate bodies? Still easy to “count”?
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  One functioning engine will get this aeroplane off the ground. Zero functioning engines will not. Yeah, pretty easy to count.
  - jiggawatts 5y ago
    Define “functioning”. An engine with one bad cylinder may still get a plane off the ground. An engine that explodes backwards at the right time might momentarily achieve flight also. Etc… Reality is much more squishy than you might think.
    - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
      That’s a fairly impressive mental contortion you’ve arranged to establish a contrarian position, but that’s all it is. If there is indeed a point you’re trying to make, I think it’s lost on me.
      - jiggawatts 5y ago
        Engine-rich exhaust can still provide thrust. People like their idealised models of the world, but they're fundamentally still just idealised and models. It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky. For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database. It's not just "M" or "F". You can have "unknown" (of course), "known but not willing to say" (whatever), intersex of all sorts, transexuals, genetically XY but physiologically female, etc... The world is complicated and messy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis Similarly, there's no clear demarcation between species in many cases. There's no such thing as a "tree" either: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th... I could go on and on.
        yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
        > It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky You appear to be presenting these ideas as though they would be new to me, which they aren't. In fact, these ideas are essentially pop-science[0]. Incidentally, the rhetoric you are employing is also used by Flat Earthers[1], so well done for that, I suppose. > For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database This example you've swiftly jumped to is a little too on the nose for me to not read it as bait. Did you think you'd found a bible-bashing Trump-voting conservative to argue against? > I could go on and on. Yes, I can see that. I will however once again invite you to try and articulate a point that you're trying to make. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnwTtr_JYCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnwTtr_JYCM

jiggawatts 5y ago

You can’t physically represent or measure PI to more than about 20 decimal places no matter how you arrange matter. The curvature of spacetime itself will ruin any such attempt, not to mention eventually running into the limits of the observable universe itself. Similarly, according to QM, the number of fundamental particles in any system is not well-defined. They’re constantly appearing and disappearing. How do you count “people”? Easily and consistently? What about conjoined twins? Still doable? What if the twins are highly asymmetric with one twin just a bump on the head of the other? Just a few cells? Shared brain but seperate bodies? Still easy to “count”?

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
One functioning engine will get this aeroplane off the ground. Zero functioning engines will not. Yeah, pretty easy to count.
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  Define “functioning”. An engine with one bad cylinder may still get a plane off the ground. An engine that explodes backwards at the right time might momentarily achieve flight also. Etc… Reality is much more squishy than you might think.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    That’s a fairly impressive mental contortion you’ve arranged to establish a contrarian position, but that’s all it is. If there is indeed a point you’re trying to make, I think it’s lost on me.
    - jiggawatts 5y ago
      Engine-rich exhaust can still provide thrust. People like their idealised models of the world, but they're fundamentally still just idealised and models. It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky. For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database. It's not just "M" or "F". You can have "unknown" (of course), "known but not willing to say" (whatever), intersex of all sorts, transexuals, genetically XY but physiologically female, etc... The world is complicated and messy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis Similarly, there's no clear demarcation between species in many cases. There's no such thing as a "tree" either: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-tree/ https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th... I could go on and on.
      - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
        > It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky You appear to be presenting these ideas as though they would be new to me, which they aren't. In fact, these ideas are essentially pop-science[0]. Incidentally, the rhetoric you are employing is also used by Flat Earthers[1], so well done for that, I suppose. > For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database This example you've swiftly jumped to is a little too on the nose for me to not read it as bait. Did you think you'd found a bible-bashing Trump-voting conservative to argue against? > I could go on and on. Yes, I can see that. I will however once again invite you to try and articulate a point that you're trying to make. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnwTtr_JYCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnwTtr_JYCM