301–310 of 455 posts
It's an article about QM. On Vice. About a QM thought experiment. On Vice. Why would there be any expectation of scientific rigor whatsoever? "retrocausality, may seem like science fiction grist at first glance" Stop there, vice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
ad hominem? "add Vice and 'em", I say, to your list of unreliable sources, for exaggeration, arguments of convenience, burying any counter-evidence...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, of course not :) Entropy as direction of time just means that the chaos on the whole increases. So, to create an ordered structure, like a cell organism, the by-product is more chaos around it.
To add, life just speeds up the chaos by orders of magnitude, it's a perfect entropy catalyst.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2016/09/20/new-book-links-flow-of-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hmm... Vice might be incorporated.
Corporations are people too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
I have also come to this conclusion. I have had experiences that cannot possibly be explained unless at least some future events already exist. This also explained the "probabilistic" nature of quantum behaviors; it's only probabilistic to us because we are unaware of the influence of future events. I now believe it's extremely likely that the universe is superdetermined, and I gave up the idea of actual free will lo…
you can't just drop something like this and then walk away without telling the rest of the story
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Pointing out or calling out people posting BS, that is clearly BS, does not fall into any category of logical fallacy - those arguing the case that it does on the other hand ... I've heard people in that field talk about the possibility of loops in the time dimension, but infinitesimally short period of time is involved and local. Not enough to call it the past though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations are people too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Ugh this point is so old. Corporations have “legal personhood”, which shares almost nothing in common with actually being a person in the understood sense. It’s just a legal term, in the same way a state of matter and a state in the US have nothing in common except the same letters make up the term.
(Also, juridical persons and natural persons are a lot more similar than US states and states of matter; it is not just a distantly related etymology; the former literally refers to having legal attributes of the latter.)
It's an article about QM. On Vice. About a QM thought experiment. On Vice. Why would there be any expectation of scientific rigor whatsoever? "retrocausality, may seem like science fiction grist at first glance" Stop there, vice.
The main thing I didn't like about it was pretending it's all scientists involved and not philosophers. The article talks mostly about Huw Price—and from phrases like "Scientists, including Price", you'd think he's a scientist. He's an Australian philosopher. He was my professor for a couple of philosophy-of-science-related courses at Sydney Uni 20 years ago. He started the Centre for Time there I believe. He's a gre…
Is it bad to upvote an article on HN, just because I think the comment quality is enlightening? Philosophers professing to be scientists has been troubling me more and more the past few years.
Also, gotta say many of the top comments are pretty interesting here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Pointing out or calling out people posting BS, that is clearly BS, does not fall into any category of logical fallacy - those arguing the case that it does on the other hand ... I've heard people in that field talk about the possibility of loops in the time dimension, but infinitesimally short period of time is involved and local. Not enough to call it the past though.
PP is technically - which is to say logically - correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main thing I didn't like about it was pretending it's all scientists involved and not philosophers. The article talks mostly about Huw Price—and from phrases like "Scientists, including Price", you'd think he's a scientist. He's an Australian philosopher. He was my professor for a couple of philosophy-of-science-related courses at Sydney Uni 20 years ago. He started the Centre for Time there I believe. He's a gre…
Thanks for the links. Is it bad to upvote an article on HN, just because I think the comment quality is enlightening? Philosophers professing to be scientists has been troubling me more and more the past few years. Also, gotta say many of the top comments are pretty interesting here.
Hmm, I don't recall ever coming across a philosopher professing to be a scientist.
> Is it bad to upvote an article on HN, just because I think the comment quality is enlightening?
Not bad—I and others do it all the time, when you want more people to see the existing comments and to comment more. Often the worst articles provoke the most interesting conversations.