gloriousduke

11 ms·

61.
by gloriousduke 12y ago
> way too cold or way too hot This isn't as big of a concern as it once might have been. See extremophiles. > It's possible that we'll evidence of past life on Mars, but not current. If life takes hold anywhere and has
62.
by gloriousduke 12y ago
Well they sort of already are if you take into account asm.js and the use of emscripten to compile native-language bytecode into it. But, I guess if you already have the native code for a desktop-only app...
63.
by gloriousduke 12y ago
>using reason and evidence-based approaches to evaluating claims It takes some philosophy to decide how to do science. I prefer Popper's approach for the methodology. >Or should they instead perpetually wage war against each othe
64.
by gloriousduke 12y ago
You are right, but wouldn't the grand unification provide the framework to lead to the loftier conclusions/insights/ah-hahs? Or are you saying QM and relativity and thereby their presumed common denominator are currently enti
65.
by gloriousduke 12y ago
The answer to the first question is related to an interpretation of David Hume known as Hume's Law, paraphrased as, "you can't derive an ought from an is". In other words, the results of science cannot tell us anything
66.
by gloriousduke 12y ago
No, I think only the masters of the ivory towers and those with an eye for the lucrative should decide what is printed.
67.
by gloriousduke 12y ago
> Can you honestly say that you wrote this sentence in order to be understood widely? I can't say I didn't. But perhaps my subconscious finally prodded me to go beyond lurking and post my first comment so as to ensure I engage
68.
by gloriousduke 12y ago
And yet, isn't one of the premiere goals of science, at least of the sort aiming at ontology, i.e. physics, to formulate a "Theory of Everything"? In other words, one idea to rule them all? Of course such an idea probably won