▲ 18 ▼ e/acc has solved the "is-ought" problem with thermodynamics! (twitter.com) submitted 2 years ago by titotal@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems 19 comments fedilink hide all child comments Brain genius Beff Jezos manages to butcher both philosophy and physics at the same time!
[–] sinedpick@awful.systems 22 points 2 years ago (2 children) Solving the is-ought problem is super easy when you change what "ought" means. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dgerard@awful.systems 22 points 2 years ago (2 children) P=NP if N=1 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] self@awful.systems 13 points 2 years ago from the same CS minds who brought you “the solution to the halting problem is trivial, just ask the computer if it halted. hyperturing!” permalink fedilink source parent [–] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 7 points 2 years ago "This... statement... is... false! (don't think about it don't think about it don't think about it...)" "Uh, true, I'll go with true." permalink fedilink source parent [–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 6 points 2 years ago I dislike how often people pull this trick. 'here are 5 definitions of this thing, we are going to pick one, prove something for it, and claim it also holds for all the other definitions, and never tell people we are working with a non-standard thing'. I get that the goal is to make the non-standard definition the standard, it is activism masking as logic, but eurgh. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dgerard@awful.systems 22 points 2 years ago (2 children) P=NP if N=1 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] self@awful.systems 13 points 2 years ago from the same CS minds who brought you “the solution to the halting problem is trivial, just ask the computer if it halted. hyperturing!” permalink fedilink source parent [–] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 7 points 2 years ago "This... statement... is... false! (don't think about it don't think about it don't think about it...)" "Uh, true, I'll go with true." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] self@awful.systems 13 points 2 years ago from the same CS minds who brought you “the solution to the halting problem is trivial, just ask the computer if it halted. hyperturing!” permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 7 points 2 years ago "This... statement... is... false! (don't think about it don't think about it don't think about it...)" "Uh, true, I'll go with true." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 6 points 2 years ago I dislike how often people pull this trick. 'here are 5 definitions of this thing, we are going to pick one, prove something for it, and claim it also holds for all the other definitions, and never tell people we are working with a non-standard thing'. I get that the goal is to make the non-standard definition the standard, it is activism masking as logic, but eurgh. permalink fedilink source parent