281–290 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be a great EPIC: Follow Truth, Love, And Freedom, if only we had a consensus of what they mean.
But: Truth is ugly; Nature is scary; Life is meaningless; Faith is silly; there is no Hope; Love is creepy; Freedom is useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, this line of thought seems compatible with the description of God in the bible to me. If you put aside all your preconceived notions of some dude in the sky and simply read the bible for what it is, you'll find things like "I am what I am", "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end", etc. The Cristian God is called the Father. And what is a father but a source? The first link in a causal…
I generally don't like discussing religion on HN, so apologies if I decline to respond to a reply, but the description of God in the Bible doesn't really fit with Spinoza's God for the mere fact that evil is wholly set apart. It exists within demons and humans but it does not exist within God. The logic of an entity with infinite attributes being God is true, but just as the natural numbers are infinite but do not co…
While Z is not a subset of N, N maps 1-1, onto to Z (i.e., they have the same cardinality). That means every element of one set has a corresponding element in the other and vice versa.
Similarly, ismorphisms, homeomorphisms, diffeomorphisms are formalizations of the idea of "different but equivalent in the relevant structures".
I do not have a deeper point to make, but I think your intro argument is not as solid as you might imagine. Plus, things get weird when you go beyond discrete infinities and into the continuum and beyond.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Undecidability is not tied to only self referential definitions, though.
The only ones I’m aware of are. Can you link me some examples? I’d like to read up on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point it’s not a gap but an empty set.
The Universe has always existed. It does not have a beginning, and it won't have an end. I'm not talking about the 13.4B old Universe we live in. I'm talking about the Universe that came before it. The Universe is cyclical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, this line of thought seems compatible with the description of God in the bible to me. If you put aside all your preconceived notions of some dude in the sky and simply read the bible for what it is, you'll find things like "I am what I am", "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end", etc. The Cristian God is called the Father. And what is a father but a source? The first link in a causal…
I generally don't like discussing religion on HN, so apologies if I decline to respond to a reply, but the description of God in the Bible doesn't really fit with Spinoza's God for the mere fact that evil is wholly set apart. It exists within demons and humans but it does not exist within God. The logic of an entity with infinite attributes being God is true, but just as the natural numbers are infinite but do not co…
Fair enough. I like discussing religion in circles like this one, because I'm convinced there is a lot of value to be found in religious traditions, but I find it hard to connect to the typical religious crowd.
it"s pretty much "scared atheist's" apology for a god
I don't know, kind of struck me as god in the machine or algorithm approach. Everything works together to create an outcome but the process is unknowable but assumed to be weighted towards kindness. I identify as an athiest and I don't hate it.
God is the totality of the universe, the Truth.
We embody God and comprehend the universe using our 5 senses (some access a 6th) which give people a connection to Truth and nature of reality.
We have FREEDOM to operate our bodies on a spectrum, free will of God. We are the universe witnessing the universe. Freedom sets off action which could be labeled "good or evil" based on the morality of the times. The strongest bonds form in LOVE.
LOVE drives voluntary cooperation from atoms to cells, to bodies to masses. Another name is the law of attraction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am 110% in support of those community principles when it comes to criticism of people. We must always assume mutual respect, practice kindness and argue in good faith. It's never not the right thing to do, whether you're motivated by persuasion or simple humanity. But can we at least recognise that there's an enormous distinction between criticism of people and criticism of ideas? In my estimation, when someone is…
Ideas shouldn't be beyond criticism, sure. But if you can't criticize an idea without being unkind, resorting to name calling, and misrepresenting someones view -- at best you aren't haven't a dialog, at worst you don't have any valid criticism to contribute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only ones I’m aware of are. Can you link me some examples? I’d like to read up on it.
https://xorshammer.com/2008/09/04/a-geometrically-natural-un...
However I do wonder if it’ll turn out that these higher dimensional geometric problems turn out to have the same structure as Godel’s proof. That the higher dimensional geometric structure is complex enough to represent their own foundation.
Although now I’m committing the same fallacy I was arguing against i.e. an equivalence between unknowns
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, this line of thought seems compatible with the description of God in the bible to me. If you put aside all your preconceived notions of some dude in the sky and simply read the bible for what it is, you'll find things like "I am what I am", "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end", etc. The Cristian God is called the Father. And what is a father but a source? The first link in a causal…
Whose understanding of Christianity? Modern day American tech workers? Because that is the traditional understanding. It sure was how Christianity was understood by st. Augustine, st. Thomas Aquinas and st. Anzelm. And how Christian philosophers still understand it today.
As I (very) slowly try to reduce my ignorance around the topic, I find that uncovering a more traditional understanding of it reveals something much more rich than I was led to believe. That's precisely my point :)