d4rkn0d3z

7 ms·

31.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
"Normal" is what people are until you get to know them. I like genuine wierdos and freaks.
32.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
It's not hard to build an internet that serves the people but nobody will pay you to do it, and if you are so brazen as to do it yourself then you will be investigated, harrassed, arrested, and beaten. Having been visited with every so
33.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
Incidentally, in the above quote Merlin is speaking on behalf of the committee of animals to the King.
34.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
"We find that at present the human race is divided politically into one wise man, nine knaves, and ninety fools out of every hundred. That is, by an optimistic observer. The nine knaves assemble themselves under the banner of the mos
35.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
Intelligent life on earth is DNA/RNA based, not one or the other. If you take the mean rate your interpolation from now back the origin of such life with that particular mean rate of numerical growth in base pairs holds with error ma
36.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
No evolutionary clock models used, instead a numerical model was used. 1) The rate of change not being constant is not significant as long as its variation is normally distributed about some mean. I expect that changes in environment are r
37.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
Indeed the error range here is about 1.5 to 2 billion years. So from the paper we know that life began its growth in complexity about 6-9 billion years ago. This is strictly from numerical arguments. Evolution is just a random choice in
38.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
How do you think we determine the age of the universe? The age of rocks? Do you not accept carbon dating? You could call this technique "complexity dating". First you show there is exponential growth (or decay) occuring natural
39.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
The "obligatory" doesn't apply since that paper did not extrapolate. It would be the exact opposite. I'm pretty sure the issue you raise is averaged away quite neatly by the math.
40.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
I read a paper a long while back that used purely numerical arguments to first show a common rate in the growth of complexity across biological and non-biological systems under similar conditions. It then plotted this exponential growth ba
41.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
"Here’s one last advantage of dividing intelligence into well-defined problem-solving and poorly defined problem-solving: it reminds us to give some respect where respect is due." There is another way of looking at this. A proble
42.
by d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago
Manifold: Any m dimensional hyperplane embedded in an n dimensional Euclidean space, where m is less than or equal to n. More simply put, a manifold is any set that can be continuously parameterized, with the number of parameters being the
43.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Logic does not exist in a physical sense, but try to think without it. For example, try to think without the law of noncontradiction. Can you categorize?
44.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Nice example of hurling meaningless invective.
45.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Not following youtube, sorry.
46.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
See above.
47.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I don't at all begrudge you your logical predictive fictions.
48.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I would disagree, completeness is not required consistency is all you need really. QM is consistent.
49.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Deep necessity, we follow logic so we are not grunting beasts.
50.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I mean there is no perspective from which one can obtain a view of all properties of all systems that will not be invalid to another observer.
51.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
To clarify he’s not claiming objects don’t exist, just that they don’t have observer independent properties. -- that's right!
52.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
This is what I mean.
53.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
QM does not deny you existence, it rather denies you a complete objective description of how you exist. Or perhaps it says that your existence is not an objective phenomena.
54.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I think otherwise. I am precisely saying that QM as a formalism denies ontological truth in the first instance. You have to do something like the BM guy above is embarking on.
55.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
The idea is that there is no "complicated system", or at least that you are not permitted to concieve of one without describing it in physical detail.
56.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
To what approximations do you refer? Here we discard Copenhagen and move forward.
57.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
"It appears to me that some people have become accustomed to working with approximations, and have accepted the map for the terrain." No, here we are discussing the formalism without approximations associated with an instance of i
58.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
What were you hoping for?
59.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
I agree that language other than math fails us here. Nevertheless, I humbly try to convey thoughts that occur in me with these tools.
60.
by d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
Thank you so much, I don't.

More ›