ukj

16 ms·

91.
by ukj 5y ago
Well, that is somewhat peculiar…You seem to be agreeing with me disagreeing with you. From the yardstick of “specificity” my critique of your conjecture is precisely on the grounds that it is too specific; or not general enough. In particul
92.
by ukj 5y ago
Let me generalise. There are systems of reasoning which don’t only concern themselves with Booleans (true and false). There are infinitely many non-Boolean types possible in type theory. Human constructions/models have many other int
93.
by ukj 5y ago
Why have you chosen a system with a non-contradiction axiom? Why didn’t you choose dialetheism? Seems like an arbitrary choice… Could it be that you are culturally biased in the orthodoxy of Western philosophy dating all the way back to Ari
94.
by ukj 5y ago
You haven’t really tackled the strongest interpretation of my question head on. If two different models/theories are observationally equivalent; if two (or more) different curves can be fitted to the same dataset which model is “more t
95.
by ukj 5y ago
Sorry, I am unable to assign any meaning to your question. I don’t have confidence IN my beliefs. I have confidence in the usefulness of my mental toolbox. On a scale of 0 to 100 how confident are you in your belief of this science?
96.
by ukj 5y ago
And empiricism divorced from philosophical reflection fails to understand its own limits/biases. It is still navel gazing batshit insanity, but if it works well enough nobody questions why it doesn’t work better.
97.
by ukj 5y ago
And that’s how you know somebody has only second-hand experience of science - having never reflected upon, or examined the (very human) limits of the knowledge they have been given by others. What scientific procedure would you use to est
98.
by ukj 5y ago
No. I mean precisely what I said. Science does not pursue truth. Philosophy does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
99.
by ukj 5y ago
No. “False” models can still make accurate and useful predictions. The Ptolemaic/geocentric models still work, even if the mathematics are a bit unwieldy.
100.
by ukj 5y ago
Yes. Something to that effect. Truth is a philosophical notion. It is not the concern of science. I am aligned with model-dependent realism; or epistemic constructivism or thereabouts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode
101.
by ukj 5y ago
No. I am saying leave truth/truthfulness to philosophers. Every model has predictive power. Even the God model. It predicts something existing; rather than nothing. Of course, it is a worthless prediction but it is a prediction.
102.
by ukj 5y ago
Please spare us from truth-seeking and leave that to the philosophers. In science/engineering we care about instrumentalism, not truth. All models are wrong. Some are useful.
103.
by ukj 5y ago
shrug it is no more; or less remarkable to me than multiple solutions existing for the same problem. Multiple algorithms (proofs) of theorems. Multiple different theories explaining one and the same phenomenon. The principle of equifinal
104.
by ukj 5y ago
There are, indeed, a lot of trivial truisms in the article. >once you’ve matched the solution to the scenario the solution is able to produce the desired result without modification Translation: once you have identified the context in wh
105.
by ukj 5y ago
From the lens of the Curry-Howard isomorphism where logic, category theory and type theory are just different perspectives on the same sort of mental human activity... Implication (logic) is the same thing as internal hom (Category theory);
106.
by ukj 5y ago
Math is not context-independent. The meta-mathematical assumptions (axioms) are the context. Different axioms produce different truths; or if you want - they produce different Mathematical universes [1]. Maths is relative like Physics is re
107.
by ukj 5y ago
If you keep walking down that path you'll soon be labelled a crank by the old guard. Developing a practical rather than a theoretical understanding of type theory rapidly makes you express intuitions which other people can't lex&#
108.
by ukj 5y ago
This pretty much nails it. If everyone commits to using approximately the same definitions then (at the social scale) you get normative semantics as an unintentional by-product. Everybody in your tribe uses the same terminology/notatio
109.
by ukj 5y ago
Practically nothing. By virtue of all programming being resource-bounded computations can be interpreted in Linear logic [1]. Linear logic is paraconsistent [2] not consistent. Untyped Lambda calculus is essentially an assembly language and
110.
by ukj 5y ago
Your conclusion is spot on. The untyped lambda calculus is inconsistent. If the guarantee you want from your system is consistency then you don’t want the untyped lambda calculus. As software engineers who inherently understand system fragi
111.
by ukj 5y ago
Perhaps this will be clearer: (1) Don't interpret my post as snarky (2) don't judge my comment as thoughtless and non-substantive when a thoughtful and substantive interpretation to my laconic comment exists (as you have become aw
112.
by ukj 5y ago
>There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place. I am surprised tha this surprises
113.
by ukj 5y ago
Then how about you practice your own damn rules? This one in particular Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. In the strong
114.
by ukj 5y ago
Why do you keep pretending that any intervention/strategy for dealing with the pandemic which isn't 100% effective is 0% effective? In my proffessional experience faux-perfectionists tend to be rather incompetent pragmatists.
115.
by ukj 5y ago
Honest question: do you think any of the relationships and contracts in Canada were signed with actual guns to anyone’s head? Because your metaphor is emotionally loaded and screams “libertarian bias”. Do you see all interactions/negot
116.
by ukj 5y ago
That is pretty absurd anti-authoritarian double talk also. Comparing being fired with being executed. The government isn’t punishing you because you broke a law - your employer (who happens to be the government) fired you for failing to adh
117.
by ukj 5y ago
You seem to be struggling with the fact that objective morality is a social construct. It's not about WHO makes the decision. It's about the inherent quality of the decision being made irrespective of who makes it. Of course it&#x
118.
by ukj 5y ago
I would say that there is not a single non-religious human being on this planet. Human rights are a religion - they don’t exist. We made them up so we can coexist; and so that we can improve the quality of our lives. What makes discriminati
119.
by ukj 5y ago
As it happens I am a naturalized South African - married to a black woman who had to endure apartheid. I recited your argument to her and I am quoting her response in saying… “you are a f-ing idiot - I had no choice in being born black and
120.
by ukj 5y ago
Freedom *noun* the power to act, think and speak as one wants. I can physically attack you if I want to and in your very own words my freedom is infinitely more important than your health. What is confusing you?

More ›