/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3493086
No. Numbers/Geometry/Logic are all rooted in the basic character of observation. They are internal and not external characteristics of conscious understanding.

They're features of the internal, 1st-person perspective as opposed to the external 3rd person reality which is the topic of empirical investigation.

>>3457025

>I didn't realise that pointing out one particular situation which made her uncomfortable necessarily means that she thinks she has some "inalienable absolute right" to not feel uncomfortable.

It certainly does if there is never any deviation from this recipe, which is one of the basic pillars of feminist theory. The fact that every experience of discomfort is considered noteworthy is what one may use to infer the assertion of such an absolute right.

>As said previously, about the worst she ever said about the guy was that he was a bit oblivious to the fact that it was neither the appropriate time nor place.

This is the part which I consider debatable, and the crux of the issue. The time and place was perfectly appropriate from the position of the person making the advance, and the fact that she rebuffed the advance closed the matter. Watson's assertion that the experience making her uncomfortable was sufficient grounds for her never to have had to experience the situation in question is the attitude which suggests to me the assertion of such an absolute right. She is essentially positing that her subsequent discomfort should have been anticipated and prevented action.

>just realise that you might make the other person feel uncomfortable and you might come across as a jerk

Yes, that's the risk every guy takes when he does that, and it's a perfectly natural part of any such negotiation from a position of incomplete information. The feminist argument is traditionally that there is something intrinsically wrong with such action, the only justification being that it makes the other person uncomfortable; and that they have some kind of right not to feel that way.

I never quite understood how feminism got away with the argument that women have an inalienable absolute right to not feel uncomfortable at any time.

Hello and welcome to a world that doesn't revolve around you, enjoy your stay.

>>3452131
Please get your degree in communications, thanks in advance.

Energy travels in waves because physicists are obsessed with Fourier series.

Maybe people will finally read Burnham.
>pic related

Well, we can also call it the point of technological development where Kool Aid is indistinguishable from Flavor Aid.

Drinks are on me, boys.

>>3270296
Yeah, it's possible in the same way me being the King of Space is possible.

>>3270233
I'm contending that logic has little or no place in the discussion once the term "post-scarcity" appears.

>>3270284
In General Relativity a frame moving under a force is the same as experiencing gravity. Increased gravity slows time. You turn around and go home and the gravitational time dilation basically reverses whatever you did going out.

>>3270229
Consider what happens if you should ever want your twins to meet again. In order to do so you have to turn the ship around, meaning you have to apply a sufficient force to change the trajectory of the ship.

So yes, you experience time dilation, up until the point you want to go home and gloat about it.

>>3270142
No, Logic and Fairy Tales don't go well together.

>>3270159
What are you doing here, on a board devoted, in theory, to actual Science? Do you think speculating about magic is somehow scientific, just because you use pseudo-scientific language?

>>3270082
Entropy increase isn't responsible for the arrow of time? Cool story.

Oh, and everyone in here who's jerking off over the Twins Paradox (i.e. the fucking lot of you) should probably read up on how non-inertial reference frames work.

Entropy.

>>3269624
An even better question is whether or not anyone has tried addition while not being a conscious human agent.

http://youtu.be/X_BWF1YBFKw

It's only been a fundamental property of matter since Newton.

Using ethical arguments to justify economic restriction is setting yourself up for failure. If you can't find a pragmatic argument, you're going to lose every time.

We're long overdue for a Dark Age.

>>3244337
Sure, I can agree with that.

I basically think that the better we understand consciousness the more we'll come up against the epistemological issues that show up in quantum mechanics like Uncertainty, the no cloning Theorem, etc.

That's not a reason to stop working at it, of course.

>>3244280
I guess quantum mechanics isn't your thing, then. No matter how wonderful our technology is we will never be able to perfectly encode the state of an atom.

We will always have, at best, a statistical approximation that has coupled uncertainties. Thus the tired old copy and paste thought experiments are, to my mind, ridiculous and overly optimistic.

Hard determinism and free will are perfectly compatible for agents with a finite information horizon. What's the problem?

>>3244216
This is precisely the kind of thinking that was very popular around the turn of the 20th century regarding Mathematics and Physics. Such unfettered optimism strikes me as being both highly irrational and highly unscientific.

If anything we've learned that our knowledge has certain tradeoffs, and that clarity in one domain comes at a price in another.

>>3244123
The fact that you can view two different systems in such a way to produce an equivalence between them does not mean the systems are identical, or even generally equivalent.

>>3244126
The problem is the word 'identical' and it's, in fact, always the problem people have with this. The systems created by any process we can devise will never be identical, they will be isomorphic with respect to the current state of our knowledge.

The point about the evolved clock is that it shows that when you try to reductively analyze an emergent system the analysis breaks down the functions of the system. It's basically like a version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for information Entropy. If you learn how such a system works well enough to simulate it, you're basically going to destroy it.

>>3244070
You can't argue internally which is why you get the Turing Test ambiguity, but you can differentiate the two systems in two fundamental ways from the inside:

1) If I happen to be the individual in question I certainly have a significant 1st person experience which the 'copy' isn't going to recreate.

2) As the evolved clock example in >>3243928 illustrates, there's a significant difference between a deterministically implemented algorithmic system and an emergent one.