Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

ceadserv1.nku.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 122 posts

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#41

Post by jaykru »

repsilat wrote: post #5

A more traditional argument might look something like Axiom 1: ((1=0 && 1!=0) -> Pope(Russell) Proposed axiom 2: (1=0 && 1!=0) 1&2 modus ponens: Pope(Russell)

The proof Russel gives is better though, because it captures something essential in why "0=1" and "1=2" are wrong via a natural example in sets. Meanwhile you're effectively invoking in Axiom 1 the principle of explosion, which has some intuition to it—being that since there can be no valid proofs of falsehood, we can derive anything on the basis of case analysis on the possible ways (of which there are zero) we could have derived a falsehood—but not quite as nice as what Russel shows.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#42

Post by UweSchmidt »

bckr wrote: post #23
chmod600 wrote: post #18

Quotation (related only because it's from Russell): "The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living." https://en.…

And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living. EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"

I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#43

Post by ithkuil »

sneak wrote: post #37
caspper69 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when it's your opinions that are unpopular?

Opinions are not innate, can shift, and are often wrong.

Sure opinions are often wrong. However their correctness is often uncorrelated with their popularity.

What we should do though, is to learn to distinguish holding opinions that some people may find offensive, from offending people with the excuse of just voicing our opinions.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#44

Post by exmadscientist »

fctorial wrote: post #40
IncRnd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is that law written?

It's an illegal operation

"Infinity plus one" is completely legal and well-defined in multiple mathematical formalisms [0], not least of which (and my personal favorite) are the surreal numbers [1].

[0] https://blog.plover.com/math/infinity-for-kids.html

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number#Transfinite_ind...

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#45

Post by tgfjsdr »

DangitBobby wrote: post #32

I don't see how the conclusion must be that he's the Pope. It containing just him and the Pope but actually only just him is a contradiction that could just as easily be resolved by saying "it contains me and the Pope but actually just me so there is no Pope." Even if I accept the false proposition, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

It's not the conclusion, it's a conclusion: remember that one can prove everything, so yours is just as (in)valid as his.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#46

Post by nl »

fctorial wrote: post #30
de6u99er wrote: post #8

You can add infinite to both sides, then you end up with: infinite + 1 = infinite

> You can add infinite to both sides No you can't, it's illegal.

It's legal for both cardinal and ordinal numbers, as well as slightly more exotic number types.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_plus_one

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#47

Post by beaconstudios »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #42
bckr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living. EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"

I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...

My guess, Internet commentariat shifted away from live-and-let-live attitudes like (actual) liberalism or (actual) libertarianism. Don't know why, but I see an awful lot more busybodies on here, reddit etc than before. I suspect regression to the mean, aka eternal September, since the Internet and Internet social networks stopped being niche thanks to social media and the startup boom.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#48

Post by rubenfiszel »

DangitBobby wrote: post #32

I don't see how the conclusion must be that he's the Pope. It containing just him and the Pope but actually only just him is a contradiction that could just as easily be resolved by saying "it contains me and the Pope but actually just me so there is no Pope." Even if I accept the false proposition, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

The conclusion is that if the set containing "the pope and bertrand russell" has only 1 member, then it must follow that the pope and bertrand russell are the same person/member. An implicit axiom is that, since the pope is in a set, it exists (or at least in that set), so that other conclusion of yours does not follow directly.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#49

Post by atoav »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #42
bckr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living. EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"

I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...

As someone who grew up in a right wing province of southern Austria with neo nazis (and old original nazis) nextdoors I can tell you precisely what changed.

Fighting for the other persons right to speak their thought is a good and noble thing as long as the other person doesn't fight against your right to say what you like and as long as their words don't turn into actions. The more of this happens the more tolerance becomes a luxury only those not directly involved can afford.

Let us substitute something else for right wing/fascist extremism for a moment: Dschihadism. When do we stop tolerating Dschihadists? And when do we start treating every Dschihadist as a potential terrorist, which should be surveilled, silenced, imprisoned and ultimately even killed? The answer is very clear: when the frequency with which people violate other peoples fundamental rights in the Name of Dschihadism starts to rise too much. Be it their children or women who are at times forbidden basic human rights, be it the victims of their violent attacks. This is way beyond being just speech, this is anti-humanistic ideology and it should be stopped just at the point where words become actions.

Now if you ask how things changed so quickly: A significant part of the US public came closer to these actions (with a strongly visible part trying to stop the counting of a democratic election with violence). During the Trump years it wasn't just speech that was problematic. People got killed, people got attacked, people got their rights violated in many ways based on that speech. And there is a threshold beyond which tolerance makes you complicit.

Don't become the kind of person that tolerates the NSDAP party rise while closing your eyes to all the clearly visible actions that follow their Brandreden (=German for "inflamatory speech").

You can totally say something I don't agree with and I will fight for your right to do it, but as soon as you step over the line and violate other peoples rights, you waived your right to be tolerated by me.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#50

Post by UweSchmidt »

atoav wrote: post #49
UweSchmidt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...

As someone who grew up in a right wing province of southern Austria with neo nazis (and old original nazis) nextdoors I can tell you precisely what changed. Fighting for the other persons right to speak their thought is a good and noble thing as long as the other person doesn't fight against your right to say what you like and as long as their words don't turn into actions. The more of this happens the more tolerance…

I can agree with your examples of truly extreme and hostile behaviour (even though the level of which hasn't changed much in the last 15 years where I noticed the change? In fact, the post-9/11 dschihadism scare was, in retrospect, overblown and of course exploited politically)

OP however just seem to hint vaguely to unwanted opinions that should lead to loss of work, implicitly handing the power to a social media mob (or possibly organized groups posing as such) that enforces unwritten rules and targets people with precarious employment or small influencers who depend on their sponsors.

I'd prefer if we'd spell it out in a law and keep the enforcement to the courts, thanks!

Post reply on HN