NotAnEconomist

19 ms·

91.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
I've always wondered if 'exists' is something like that -- and hence why it can't be a property. (Well, if you believe that Kant guy.) You can sort of think of all objects -- broom, bristles, quarks, etc -- as being coda
92.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Your answer is "not even wrong" -- it's overly pedantic terms which miss the point of my question. Such as here: > If you calculate out the geodesics, no; all the parts of Earth down to its individual molecules and below &
93.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Isn't every "field" in QFT basically an aether?
94.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
> By aether, do you mean an underlying medium that allows forces to be propagated? I guess that using that definition, there is an 'aether'. That's what an 'aether' is -- that background medium which the interact
95.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
How do you control for just happening to look when someone else is happening to look, or worse, attracting looks when you check for someone looking? Here's a common interaction, which would create that feeling without anything at all u
96.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Staring is a precursor to attacks; animals which responded to other animals getting ready to attack them by posturing as if they were ready to counterattack avoided many fights. Over time, this interaction was offloaded into specialized har
97.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
But the arms are predicted to vary in those cases by the same theory that LIGO is confirming: our rotation causes frame dragging, and there's some weird Sun-Earth orbital relativistic effects as well, right? I know the Sun-Jupiter orbi
98.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
> In 1887, the Michelson–Morley experiment gave the first experimental disproof of the "aether". In what way is LIGO not a bigger, and successful, version of the Michelson-Morley experiment? I'm honestly asking, because fr
99.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
That's not an excuse for other people to sit there re-broadcasting it. There's a strong case to be made that we're actually substantially better off with certain kinds of information having a generally ephemeral and hard-to-c
100.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
The only reason you don't pay more in taxes is because you don't like the feels of not keeping up with the Joneses? Okay, but I don't regard you as an sort of moral actor for that: you intentionally don't do something yo
101.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
I think your point support theirs, actually. You don't want to pay more in taxes -- you don't believe it would make a difference, despite knowing how numbers work, and knowing that it literally would. I suspect you mean that the m
102.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
My point is the double-standard in the tech community making that argument on behalf of one kind of technology, while ignoring that weapons extend from the very basic human need for security and agency. It's a standard human fallacy, w
103.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
I think you've killed less people working on literal sniper rifles for the military than working on the addictive feed dynamics of Facebook, given the Rohingya massacre and other social ills they've supported. I think a lot of peo
104.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Uh... but "shapes" existing is literally ontology. It's discussing the existence of non-physical entities in the world, and children first come into contact with that by matching the positive version of the "shape"
105.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
> I think there's an important difference between the implicit, intuitive, relational knowledge that we build via direct interaction, and philosophical knowledge that the other poster is thinking talking about In the same sense that
106.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
It's literally ontology -- they're discovering the idea of shape as a concept, which is an equivalence of structural forms, which is an ontological concept. I mean, I get that you don't like that because it proves my point, a
107.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
> what shapes fit in what wooden holes > ontology We must be talking past each other, or something. For context, for other readers -- > Traditionally listed as the core of metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning
108.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Isn't the equivalent metaphysics all those moments we have a theory of how to examine the world, so as to come to an accurate conclusion? Metaphysics is required to make an inference -- it's the philosophical underpinning of thing
109.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
> Hence the equivalence I claimed is a precise statement They're obviously equivalent. My point is that what's easily noticeable in one incarnation of the theory is different than what's easily noticeable in the other inc
110.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Your example of lack of structure, rather than merely something we can't interpret, is algorithmically generated? I think we may be speaking past each other.
111.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Those are both examples of signals we can't interpret interfering with the signal we're trying to interpret. However, it's not like the electrical noise came to be by magic -- it's the result of many interactions that ha
112.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
I would argue the reverse: noise is data we can't interpret. You're welcome to point me at an unstructured noise source to support your point, though.
113.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Because a lot of "playing god" is thinly veiled authoritarianism -- the desire to control our fellows, out of our own egotism?
114.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Well, hold on now. I think the language and machinery of topology, even when just reconstructing the language of sets in a discrete setting, highlights interesting facets of numbers. eg, if you look at the inverse image of various mappings,
115.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
I suspect people flag it for not being very good content, and perhaps tilted in terms of its reporting on a political issue.
116.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
I find it equally likely there's an undisclosed request from the DoJ involving their accounts -- and that they're trying to get a narrative out before something like indictments come out. There's a lot of very clear slant in
117.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
This is a dumb question, but what's the difference between geometry on discrete sets and homotopy theory on discrete sets, eg, in the spirit of digital topology? Every set is open, so every set is closed. So something like a closed int
118.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
That's the point: The situation for social networks would be strictly better if you could easily migrate accounts between FB, Google, etc and subscribe to feeds from multiple networks. The situation you're calling out is exactly t
119.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
I think there's middle ground that likely is more commercially viable: 1. Everyone makes a website. 2. Those websites submit articles to content indexes. 3. Part of your website hosts your own reader client: 3.a The reader subscribes t
120.
by NotAnEconomist 8y ago
I'm confused by what you're confused by -- you seem to be attacking a strawman rather than anything I said. You're also confusing several issues: - There's no reason that people can't be responsible for their choice

More ›