4 ms·

Replace "who made God" with "who made 1 = 1" Somethings are asserted (rather than argued) as axioms, because they give rise to useful interpretations of realit

Replace "who made God" with "who made 1 = 1" Somethings are asserted (rather than argued) as axioms, because they give rise to useful interpretations of reality.

alexashka 5y ago
> Somethings are asserted (rather than argued) as axioms, because they give rise to useful interpretations of reality. By who, and to what end? Most people don't even know what an axiom is. Axioms are for playing logic games in math land - there is no reason why we should adopt a similar approach to everyday life. Let me explain something about useful interpretations - we call those science. Science is when you go on to see what is, repeatedly, verifiably so. I challenge you to find a more useful interpretation of reality, than one that we can replicate trillions of times, reliably, to achieve wonders no human thought possible a hundred years ago.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  Relax! I'm pro-science, bro. I'm not pushing an agenda, simply pointing out Minsky's hypocrisy. He thinks he's transcending the "loop" of ideology, but really just displacing one with another. But thanks anyway for the patronizing explanation that absolutely no one asked for.
  - alexashka 5y ago
    The scientific method and accepting axioms because they are 'useful' or for any other wishy-washy reason are incompatible. Sorry.
Banana699 5y ago
>who made 1 = 1 The nervous system of every single animal in existence, unlike the existence of god. >because they give rise to useful interpretations of reality The problem is consensus and alternatives. If you reject the traditional answer of "1+1" and go for one of its many, many very convincing alternatives, would anybody go after you with a fork and threateningly insist you follow the $one_true_interpretation? That's what (organized Abrahamic) religions are usually criticized for, "useful" is entirely irrelevant and dependent on the objective function used, the real test of an ideology is : what if somebody chooses a different objective function? because (organized Abrahamic) religions are often totalitarian, they cope very badly with some nodes refusing the general consensus.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  I would discourage turning this conversation into a pissing contest of which ideology is responsible for more harm. (re: darwinism at the start of the 20th century) I would much rather explore how the two can coexist. Does a material and immaterial explanation of reality make sense?

Replace "who made God" with "who made 1 = 1" Somethings are asserted (rather than argued) as axioms, because they give rise to useful interpretations of reality.

alexashka 5y ago

> Somethings are asserted (rather than argued) as axioms, because they give rise to useful interpretations of reality. By who, and to what end? Most people don't even know what an axiom is. Axioms are for playing logic games in math land - there is no reason why we should adopt a similar approach to everyday life. Let me explain something about useful interpretations - we call those science. Science is when you go on to see what is, repeatedly, verifiably so. I challenge you to find a more useful interpretation of reality, than one that we can replicate trillions of times, reliably, to achieve wonders no human thought possible a hundred years ago.

disambiguation 5y ago
Relax! I'm pro-science, bro. I'm not pushing an agenda, simply pointing out Minsky's hypocrisy. He thinks he's transcending the "loop" of ideology, but really just displacing one with another. But thanks anyway for the patronizing explanation that absolutely no one asked for.
- alexashka 5y ago
  The scientific method and accepting axioms because they are 'useful' or for any other wishy-washy reason are incompatible. Sorry.

Banana699 5y ago

>who made 1 = 1 The nervous system of every single animal in existence, unlike the existence of god. >because they give rise to useful interpretations of reality The problem is consensus and alternatives. If you reject the traditional answer of "1+1" and go for one of its many, many very convincing alternatives, would anybody go after you with a fork and threateningly insist you follow the $one_true_interpretation? That's what (organized Abrahamic) religions are usually criticized for, "useful" is entirely irrelevant and dependent on the objective function used, the real test of an ideology is : what if somebody chooses a different objective function? because (organized Abrahamic) religions are often totalitarian, they cope very badly with some nodes refusing the general consensus.

disambiguation 5y ago
I would discourage turning this conversation into a pissing contest of which ideology is responsible for more harm. (re: darwinism at the start of the 20th century) I would much rather explore how the two can coexist. Does a material and immaterial explanation of reality make sense?