esahione

5 ms·

1.
by esahione 3y ago
Easy to say when you have a foundation that holds all your wealth and you only pay marginal income taxes. That's pure marketing. Anarcho-capitalism is a better idea.
2.
by esahione 3y ago
I mean that rules could be constantly changing in an ad-hoc manner, in such a way that to an external observer that is not the decision maker, the rules would be chaotic and completely senseless. Like the dream: there's no rule to gras
3.
by esahione 3y ago
There's no reason for atoms to even exist man. The fact they exist and that they follow a specific rule system that is based off of abstractions is absolutely mind-boggling. Your argument is also inching towards a kind of argument by l
4.
by esahione 3y ago
Ok but isn't a formal system also an abstract logical structure? Why are atoms actually following truths from logical systems? The problem remains. Wigner clearly delineates the problem on his famous paper about the applicability of ma
5.
by esahione 3y ago
Mathematics is constantly proving things true. Physics also has theorems, for instance, the Stone–von Neumann theorem. The scientific method is a method for testing of hypotheses, yes, but that is simply one way of discovering what is true.
6.
by esahione 3y ago
Again, there's no apparent connection between logic and mathematical truths and the universe. Moreover, logic and mathematical truths are causally inert: they cannot be a cause to a physical effect. Yet it appears like all physical eff
7.
by esahione 3y ago
There's no causation line from abstractions such as mathematics to material effects. The fact material conditions follow abstract conditions is a very particular problem and different from the one you aim to solve with your reply.
8.
by esahione 3y ago
"Why" is a question that is aims to answer the cause of a property or effect. Why do apples fall from trees? Gravity. Why does gravity exist? Because matter bends space. Why does matter bend space? We don't know yet. Ultima
9.
by esahione 3y ago
Ok - but there was a why question, and now there's another one. Those are questions that we can and do answer. Therefore your initial statement is simply false.
10.
by esahione 3y ago
The anthropic principle doesn't explain why it is, in actuality, intelligible. It's only a constraint on what couldn't be the case given we exist. It's clearly a much deeper question, given even Wigner wrote a paper abou
11.
by esahione 3y ago
That's absolutely not true. Science and mathematics are constantly placing forward why questions. Placing an arbitrary barrier on the questions that can be asked is called dogma. Example: Noether's Theorems explain why there are c
12.
by esahione 3y ago
God. Coming from a former atheist that became an idealistic theist after reading enough quantum mechanics and math. Ultimately it's the only plausible explanation as to why mathematics applies to the physical world.
13.
by esahione 3y ago
That's pretty different though: the structure of mathematics seems to be more related to truth than a chair. Notice that even the universe follows that structure.
14.
by esahione 4y ago
It's not about technology. It's about the monopoly of the government as it relates to taxation and money over its land. China would do the same.
15.
by esahione 6y ago
TikTok steals kids attention and is completely useless for society. Sorry, but fuck it. We don't need more useless apps that steal peoples' attention span.
16.
by esahione 6y ago
A fourth solution: force the boomers and vulnerable to retire. Let's bail them out. Let the young take control of the economy. Everybody wins.
17.
by esahione 7y ago
Oxygen and the atmosphere.
18.
by esahione 7y ago
Humans are notoriously good at coming up with bullshit explanations for both random/statistical & deterministic phenomena. Why do we want AI to do the same? "Trust"? Please. I work in finance (investment strategy; ensembl
19.
by esahione 8y ago
Lol @ software engineers complaining about ageism and at the same time thinking retraining a 50yo truck driver is a reasonable solution
20.
by esahione 8y ago
Absolutely not. Hence why I rarely if ever drink, and only smoke pot at night before going to sleep. But it should be my choice -- even if I wanted to start IVing heroin :)
21.
by esahione 8y ago
I am, because that's the main issue right now. While you may live in CA, I currently live in TX and can go to jail for years for smoking a plant. Tell me, how should I react to an article that could be used as an argument against my ri
22.
by esahione 8y ago
But the conversation we should be having is legalization. Right now it is still illegal in most states, and people are going to jail on a daily basis because of it. Tell me, how does an article like this improve the actual problem at hand a
23.
by esahione 8y ago
I think you're reading into my argument a tad too much -- my rights end where yours begin. If I am doing any harm to anyone else, that should be illegal. Hence why domestic abuse and drunk driving are illegal and should be.
24.
by esahione 8y ago
You're comparing safety of others with safety of one's self. Of course drunk driving should be illegal, you're putting others at risk. Think of Kantian logic applied to the body. As long as I am only affecting my body when do
25.
by esahione 8y ago
My point is that it is up to the individual to take that risk, not up to society to regulate what risks an individual can take or not, especially when it comes to their own bodies.
26.
by esahione 8y ago
No -- the nanny state is what I'm not for, so my argument has nothing to do with pot but more with the perception that safety is a requirement for something to be legal/accepted by society.
27.
by esahione 8y ago
Does it really matter? Is alcohol safe? Are most medications safe? Breathing is not safe either. Living on earth as well; small rocks from outerspace have created mass extinctions over and over. The universe isn't safe and I don't
28.
by esahione 8y ago
It is sci-fi just like having the entire world's knowledge at your fingertips was sci-fi 100 years ago. If it is physically feasible, which it is given we have immune cells and they are just evolution-created versions of these nanobots
29.
by esahione 8y ago
Well, the Gaussian shows up a lot because of the Central Limit Theorem. A lot of additive processes will converge to the Gaussian.
30.
by esahione 8y ago
Everyone takes Adderall. Not just that, but a lot of the time is spent explaining things to your classmates, getting answers to match our expectations, etc. So it's not like 16 hours of reading and trying to understand the material, mo

More ›