sdht0

12 ms·

31.
by sdht0 3y ago
Thank you. I'll be posting my answer soon (tm).
32.
by sdht0 3y ago
What it will help with is better support for software and drivers. I can imagine Microsoft will be more motivated to build a Linux version of MS Office if there was enough user demand. They have a MacOS version for example.
33.
by sdht0 3y ago
Actually, can you explain more why you think P is not implying N? EDIT: I may have been using P incorrectly when I meant FC=rules. See below. --- P = Our universe is regular to a high degree of accuracy. P is a provisional truth. It is true
34.
by sdht0 3y ago
To add to that, they also provides Tailnet lock [0], which protects from the only way the coordination server can mess with the tailnets, by connecting unauthorized nodes. [0] https://tailscale.com/kb/1226/tailnet-
35.
by sdht0 3y ago
I posted a quite long comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39795173 > the empirical observation P (in my prev comment) at least suggests Q (which = N). > Again, my position is that P and M vs N have noth
36.
by sdht0 3y ago
Okay I'll try to lay out my reasoning from base up. I hope you'll find some time to indulge my brain dump and let me know at which point we begin to diverge in our reasoning. --- We can only be sure of two things with 100% certain
37.
by sdht0 3y ago
Thanks. Yes nice and helpful summary of your earlier comment. I'll respond more later, but briefly myself: From my earlier comments: "I'm not saying that the First Cause is definitely impersonal. I'm only claiming that
38.
by sdht0 3y ago
Quite well put, thank you. > And in a universe where unicorns popped into existence at random points in history, the same would apply -- the FC would be causing such things, but how would we know that it is choosing to do so? So this par
39.
by sdht0 3y ago
Also https://www.tug.org/texlive/doc/texlive-en/texlive-en.html#x...
40.
by sdht0 3y ago
See: A plan to stabilize the new CLI and Flakes incrementally https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136
41.
Mapping a Universe of Open Source Software (2019)(tweag.io)
1 points by sdht0 3y ago|0 comments
42.
by sdht0 3y ago
In short: Q: Why do lions exist and unicorns don't, even though it could have been otherwise ? A: Because of the physical laws and initial conditions of our universe . Q: Why these particular physical laws and initial conditions an
43.
by sdht0 3y ago
Yeah for sure. Money and kids, as you had warned :)
44.
by sdht0 3y ago
So it seems I completely misused the word artifact above. I'll try again. So my naturalist view is bottom up rather than top down. It is not that H2O exists and I'm trying to explain if the parts explain the whole. I'm saying
45.
by sdht0 3y ago
To clarify, H and O and H2O are weakly emergent entities out of the artifacts of electrons/protons, similar to the copper in your example. The behavior of electrons and protons/neutrons completely explain the behavior of atoms and
46.
by sdht0 3y ago
Thank you for detailed response. > to summarize where we are at this point I think it's a fair summary, yes. I hope you understand by now my views on the words "sustains" and "caused": (possibly) passive, not ac
47.
by sdht0 3y ago
> But the physical laws of the universe are not like that. I already agreed to this when I said that "the later is just from empirical observations. As I said before, if tomorrow God does choose ;) to reveal Himself in a convincing
48.
by sdht0 3y ago
Some further thoughts: * There is a crucial assumption in the 5 proofs that I think is worth thinking about. Given that something exists (I, the world, causes, parts, etc), it follows that there must be a First Cause/God. Also given
49.
by sdht0 3y ago
Huh. Maybe you have a proper example of a hierarchical series then? I'm thinking God -> object1 -> object2 -> object3. Is this not what the book means?
50.
by sdht0 3y ago
> the whole determines the parts, not vice-versa Good. I think we can agree to disagree at this point. I try to reach the core premise of viewpoints I don't agree with and I think we have reached it here. I'll try to explain my
51.
by sdht0 3y ago
This is probably the closest we can get: Installing Windows the Arch Linux Way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxedkuUCas
52.
by sdht0 3y ago
> I disagree with the reductionist account of a table that is I think implicit here Even the proofs imply a reductionist account no? The first proof says: the table holds up the glass, the floor holds up the table and the earth holds up
53.
by sdht0 3y ago
> you wouldn't know from what I had told you which is real, which is historical and which is imaginary. This is obviously true. It is slightly amusing that this is then used to imply that God choose what things actually exist, while
54.
by sdht0 3y ago
> the equation of atheism and science Ah sorry I didn't mean to imply an association, only that both atheists and scientists, from their perspectives, would have no qualms with (and in fact should necessarily accept) an impersonal
55.
by sdht0 3y ago
> Technology has been quite detrimental to humanity I don't think we can make a blanket statement like that. Technology does connect us, makes us smarter, give us vast access to knowledge, etc. And yes, it also enables the bad habit
56.
by sdht0 3y ago
For sure. I read some more of Feser's writings. And the more I read, I more I see that the quibble is less about what is and more about what we should call it. The major thrust of the book is that the proofs show the God exists,
57.
by sdht0 3y ago
> prove the existence of something that is other than the universe I'm not sure. I think the proofs show some base entity that is needed to sustain the universe. But is it something apart from the universe? Whatever exists, say God
58.
by sdht0 3y ago
Yes the first one, if the distinction needs to be made. I'll even go further and claim that distinction itself is meaningless and only matters when say organizing university departments. What needs to be kept in mind is emergence. Chem
59.
by sdht0 3y ago
Sorry I couldn't get back sooner. > pp.205-229 I am on the ebook, but I assume you mean Chapter 6, which I did read but as you can imagine, the arguments are not convincing to me. I think the meaning of the terms omnipotent, omnisci
60.
by sdht0 3y ago
There is a lot more I can say of course, given its a book length discourse. I'll just say one more thing. The book criticizes and rejects the idea that "science is the only genuine source of knowledge". I think this is a comm

More ›