ofd
-
Posts
645 -
Joined
-
Days Won
11
Recent Profile Visitors
2,027 profile views
ofd's Achievements
Newbie (1/14)
36
Reputation
-
For sure. There are objective metrics to determine how good a work is. It's the ratio of true information and the length of the presentation. A mathematical formula is better than endless descriptions of a phenomenon. Those short paragraphs tell you everything you need to know about leftist movements. Compare that to the hours of output done by people like Peterson and you will realize that those paragraphs are better because they provide a better explanation with much less words.
-
I hate to say, but reddit is good for these kind of specialized interests. Usually they have one or two pages dedicated to even esoteric topics.
-
Can you be more specific? What are you interested in?
-
An Open Letter to the Alt-Right: Exploring an Alternative Solution
ofd replied to Azrael Rand's topic in General Messages
If there is a dog with rabies, you don't get angry with the dog because it is evil. You understood what caused his behaviour and you treat the dog accordingly, without venom. Your self esteem and what not is higher which might be useful when dating somebody. Reading evolutionary psychology on any topic is disenchanting it shows that what we are attracted to is (in most cases) based on simple stats (wait / hip ratio). An illusion that delivers better results than an accurate representation of the world is selected for. How do they engage in double think? -
An Open Letter to the Alt-Right: Exploring an Alternative Solution
ofd replied to Azrael Rand's topic in General Messages
It's an useful illusion that makes it more likely for you to act in a social way by increasing the worth you ascribe to your agency. You are much more than a bundle of neurons that have come up with a decision before you are aware of it. If our understanding of the world is incorrect we will make bad decisions. In the Medieval Ages, animals were condemned by trials for committing evil acts. Today we see that as ridiculous, perhaps in the future our descendants will think the same about our understanding of human nature. -
All trade is by definiton a zero sum game. You get exactly what you pay for, nothing more, nothing less. The motivation of the parties taking part is of no interest for the fiscal side.
-
An Open Letter to the Alt-Right: Exploring an Alternative Solution
ofd replied to Azrael Rand's topic in General Messages
As Donnadogsoth and Neeeel have pointed out, you can't believe in naturals laws that determine outcomes from prior states and free will at the same. The causal chains go forward and backward with nothing in between them. If you want to find an entity that has "free will" it has to be supernatural or, in other words, a soul that is not part of the causal links but can influence the physical world. -
Enjoy your ignorance as long as you can.
-
It's not a game I play, I summarize the most basic information to syllogisms in any textbook on the subject. What you wrote wasn't a syllogism. Look up how they are formed if you don't believe me. Even if you had been able to form your arguments in terms of syllogisms it would have been wrong in reality, because one of your premises (no difference between computability and determinism) is wrong. Statements about reality must conform to reality. If they don't they can be discarded. Statemens about the validity of logic don't depend on the reality, they are concerned about the form and structure of statements. If those don't conform to the rules of the logic you use, they are wrong. Read some basic intro to physics and logic. Then reflect and bow in shame.
-
The validity of the syllogism itself doesn't depend on reality, that's true. The moon consists of green cheese. This rock is from the moon. ∴ This rock is green cheese The above is a correct syllogism, because it's form (Barbara) is valid. However, it does not relate to empirical reality so it is wrong on a physical level. For syllogisms to be true both in form and in reality, the syllogism needs to follow the forms that generate truth values and the statements of the premises have to be true on an empirical level.
-
The problem is that you make statements about the physical world from that don't conform with what we can observe. Predictions are based on models that are simpler and more abstract than the process they model and that you can't make perfect measurements. Which is why you include a margin of error in your calculations. If you wanted to model a system you need a simulation that is as complex as the model you try to simulate. If you want to model the universe you need another universe and you have to know the initial state of the original universe.
-
The laws of nature are well known (more or less), you can't measure the initial state of the pendulum system well enough so that you can predict it's behaviour well into the future. The same is true for the universe where even more so you can't know the initial states to a precise degree. Hence you have the curious fact that you can't make accurate predictions into the future though the laws of nature along with the initial states determine the outcomes.
-
You have determined systems and yet you can't predict their future state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum
-
That doesn't follow. There is a difference between predictions and determination.
-
Atheism being linked in with other leftist delusions?
ofd replied to drgonzo1969's topic in Atheism and Religion
It's quite interesting when you meditate that you realize that the monkey brain is only one part and that other parts of your mind function in a similar way. Enlightenment is simply acknowledging reality and acting it accordance with it. And since your mind constructs reality, getting to know its machinations plays a big role.