Burrito Now, Pay Later • Hacker News Board

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#361

Post by monero-xmr » Thu, May 15, 2025, 6:58 AM UTC

hgomersall wrote: post #360

blagie wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure. I can describe some of the paradoxes in our social systems in-depth, but it's often the poorest people saying we can't afford social improvements.

In this case, many low information Turkeys have been convinced of the benefit of Christmas.

The USA has the global reserve currency and we have monetized our social welfare through advanced mechanisms of currency debasement. To say we aren’t printing currency to finance our lifestyle is absurd - we have been doing that through various mechanisms since WWI

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#362

Post by gopher_space » Thu, May 15, 2025, 6:13 PM UTC

x-complexity wrote: post #359

gopher_space wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other way around. What does leaded gasoline have to say about the connection of physics/chemistry/math to the concepts of vice and virtue. What do we know, today, that might connect these in people's minds?

> The other way around. What does leaded gasoline have to say about the connection of physics/chemistry/math to the concepts of vice and virtue. Again, there are no connections between (physics/chemistry/maths) and (vice and virtue), even with the inclusion of (leaded gasoline). Graph-wise, it looks like: (physics/chemistry/maths) --(chemically describes)--> (leaded gasoline) while (vice and virtue) sits in an isolat…

> Even so, the two cannot be connected without adding the human-centric context node to the graph.

The entire graph is human-centric context. It doesn't exist outside of our PoV. If you have an undergraduate degree (or a high school diploma from last century) you've taken classes on this specific subject and forgotten what you've learned.

> This stands in contrast to (physics/chemistry/maths), which can be derived outside of the human experience.

Think about this statement. How would you possibly know if something can be derived from outside of the human experience? We only have the human experience as a base. Your claim requires access to a peer-level-or-greater intelligence that we have not met.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#363

Post by x-complexity » Fri, May 16, 2025, 1:46 AM UTC

gopher_space wrote: post #362

x-complexity wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other way around. What does leaded gasoline have to say about the connection of physics/chemistry/math to the concepts of vice and virtue. Again, there are no connections between (physics/chemistry/maths) and (vice and virtue), even with the inclusion of (leaded gasoline). Graph-wise, it looks like: (physics/chemistry/maths) --(chemically describes)--> (leaded gasoline) while (vice and virtue) sits in an isolat…

> Even so, the two cannot be connected without adding the human-centric context node to the graph. The entire graph is human-centric context. It doesn't exist outside of our PoV. If you have an undergraduate degree (or a high school diploma from last century) you've taken classes on this specific subject and forgotten what you've learned. > This stands in contrast to (physics/chemistry/maths), which can be derived ou…

> > Even so, the two cannot be connected without adding the human-centric context node to the graph.

> The entire graph is human-centric context. It doesn't exist outside of our PoV.

(physics/chemistry/maths) can exist outside of the human-centric context: To claim otherwise is to axiomatically require a form of untouchable uniqueness to humans, which is not true.

> If you have an undergraduate degree (or a high school diploma from last century) you've taken classes on this specific subject and forgotten what you've learned.

I'm ignoring the ad-hominem attack in this sentence.

> > This stands in contrast to (physics/chemistry/maths), which can be derived outside of the human experience.

> Think about this statement. How would you possibly know if something can be derived from outside of the human experience? We only have the human experience as a base. Your claim requires access to a peer-level-or-greater intelligence that we have not met.

The only change needed is to switch out the axiom

"Humans are universally unique intelligence-wise"

with

"Humans are not universally unique intelligence-wise"

From this change, the rest follows suit: If humans are not universally unique, then a non-human that's as-intelligent-or-better can re-derive (physics/chemistry/maths) within their non-human context with a strictly >0 probability of occurrence, even if the probability is infinitesimally tiny.

Given the >0 probabilistic nature of the whole logical chain being true, this means that the idea of (physics/chemistry/maths) being a universally "humans-only" experience is cannot be held true as it contradicts with the derived logic chain.

The proof of existence of said non-human(s) is not needed to prove the logical axioms themselves.

Re: Burrito Now, Pay Later

#364

Post by gopher_space » Wed, May 21, 2025, 5:37 PM UTC

x-complexity wrote: post #363

gopher_space wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even so, the two cannot be connected without adding the human-centric context node to the graph. The entire graph is human-centric context. It doesn't exist outside of our PoV. If you have an undergraduate degree (or a high school diploma from last century) you've taken classes on this specific subject and forgotten what you've learned. > This stands in contrast to (physics/chemistry/maths), which can be derived ou…

> > Even so, the two cannot be connected without adding the human-centric context node to the graph. > The entire graph is human-centric context. It doesn't exist outside of our PoV. (physics/chemistry/maths) can exist outside of the human-centric context: To claim otherwise is to axiomatically require a form of untouchable uniqueness to humans, which is not true. > If you have an undergraduate degree (or a high scho…

Intelligence has nothing to do with this. Humans are universally unique in their point of view. We're filtering reality through limited but specific senses and making arbitrary classifications of the data, and we're doing it on this planet after centuries of building on top of earlier concepts.

> > If you have an undergraduate degree (or a high school diploma from last century) you've taken classes on this specific subject and forgotten what you've learned.

> I'm ignoring the ad-hominem attack in this sentence.

It's not an attack, there's a hole in your thinking because you've forgotten part of your education and I'm letting you know about it. Your initial assumptions are off base due to this.

Unfortunately this format doesn't really lend itself to this kind of conversation, which I've been enjoying quite a bit. We need a whiteboard and some coffee.