Daft Punk 2024

Pythagoras

Two robot wrongs don’t make a right.

FWIW, you're probably not being downvoted because you're challenging Einstein and there are blind devotees in this sub. You're probably being downvoted because of the pretension and lack of self-awareness. The inclusion of "logic" in your reasoning is a dead giveaway, and you've constructed quite the strawman narrative about how Einstein is being perceived. I don't think even he, nor most serious cosmologists, would say he had it all figured out. He died refusing to accept that "hidden variables" weren't at work with QM, which is largely accepted, and few still hold on with them, so he's quite clearly NOT perfect, and NOT understood as such... by anybody but your hypotheticals (and perhaps people largely ignorant). That right there shows you're reasoning with some constructed Einstein that isn't quite true to how the rest of us understand him, so from there the "logic" is flawed.

Beyond that, what is the rule saying he couldn't, within a few hundred years, get it right? I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a speed limit to these things. No, the proof is in the pudding, and the reality is he was pretty damn good at figuring it out, regardless of how far in time he was from heliocentrism. Those theories just so happen to have predicted objects and processes that have since been observed all on their own, so they're good enough for that, and that is what makes these so hard to discard, particularly when those other theories cannot do the same.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. It's not as if something else has come along and done it better, and this is just some political or egotistical resistance. Literally anybody can wax poetic about dogmas, but the more work you actually put into proving said dogma is wrong (and/or seeing all the reasons why that dogma is powerful in the first place), the more humbled you'll be.

I know enough to know when someone actually has a grasp on physics greater than mine... and I can tell you're firmly in my league when it comes to this stuff - and I know next to fuckall about it. This is why you're being downvoted. It's not a pro-Einstein conspiracy or knowledge industrial complex which somehow implicates us all... It's you out of your element. Logically, which is more likely???

We don’t disprove things though. You cannot disprove the existence of a flawless pink teapot floating in the asteroid belt, but that doesn’t mean anything. The burden of proof is not on the ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’, it is on those claiming a positive - ie the existence of benevolent deity. The PoE provides people like yourself the opportunity to answer its question. Nothing more.

Honestly he lost me at ‘legions of heathen internet trolls’.

I’m here for philosophy, not blind dogma.

What a long winded way to say that you've read some scifi/speculative fiction over the last few decades.

Can this author possibly think these are new questions and issues?

The notion that caring about suffering and bliss could ever be silly is silly. Imagine a person who doesn’t believe that people are valuable outside of their ability to experience bliss/suffering. Then, imagine trying to convince that person that it’s silly to care if they get tortured and abused or that it doesn’t make sense for them to want what makes them happy. There has never been and will never be a conscious entity that doesn’t care about happiness or suffering.

I agree that loyalty and self-sacrifice can arise in "cooperative morality," but I feel loyalty and self-sacrifice occur, and are considered "the right thing to do," in situations where no cooperation has been negotiated or even previous contact has been engaged.

I agree that loyalty and self-sacrifice can arise in "cooperative morality," but I feel loyalty and self-sacrifice occur, and are considered "the right thing to do," in situations where no cooperation has been negotiated or even previous contact has been engaged.

No where in this article do they address the accelerating expansion of the universe. I’ve heard some pretty lame rationalizations for it but nothing that really explains it. It seems to me that neither theory in their present states predict accelerating expansion so my vote is to dump both.

is them having feelings make them similar to humans? Also how can you identify feelings in them? How about mountains, plants, water? Do you view animals to have feelings because they can move around and interact?

It seems like the majority of people would accept closed individualism and would therefore have no use for this argument.

> For four decades and counting, scientists have failed to detect the dark matter particles in terrestrial laboratories

This is irrelevant because ΛCDM doesn't say that dark matter is made of particles. It could be, of course, and particle physicists would very much like that, but it's not a necessary assumption to explain our observations.

> We stop trying to make the data fit the theory

> change the theory

These two are the same thing. When scientists try to "make the data fit the theory", they are changing the theory, not the data. Obviously. Because the data is what it is.

[removed]

So in other words, the only version of the problem of evil you're familiar with/are attempting to resolve is the one that philosophers don't actually talk about anymore?

This makes your "not having read much more than their Hitchens book" comment rather unfortunate (and amusing).

This is probably asked all the time, but how do you justify the eating of animals, philosophically?

I do eat meat, but I believe that animals have feelings and are just a human as us.

There is no such thing as a "sum total of positive conscious experience." Why do you think there would be?

Or if there is, how could such a thing possibly be accessible to our limited, forgetful, mortal brains?

"Ethics" is not a meaningful context.

I assume you mean something like, "How do I assign value to experiences in the course of making choices between different possible courses of action?"

And I'll answer for myself, but with what I think applies to every human being: "Poorly, inconsistently, intuitively, and with very little reflection, reasoning, or conscious judgment in 99.9% of cases."

Conduits of the ultimate outcome posed, imagined , thought of, brought about by a sentient experience take many forms. Chose various receiving venues and grace will find you. Question it, seek, question, seek, repeat until love and service seeps into the will. When distracted open up your conduits and see where they take you. Stringing moments together will bring you purposes that get so small your ego cannot fit inside..

As I say in the article, most of the time deontological or virtue ethics are actually a better bet for figuring out how to act. But that's just because they're a more efficient way of reasoning the best thing to do. In the end the thing that matters is the sum total of positive conscious experience

In the context of ethics

That's certainly my impression as well. But it wasn't a self-evidently crazy idea or anything, and probably adds some value to the conversation even if it is a failed effort (nothing wrong with trial and error, after all).

"Good or bad" what? In what context?