What. if I may ask, is the sense in it?
Do you mean to say "nothing is bigger than X" is nonsensical? We regularly encounter such expressions e.g. "nothing is greater than God".
So you mean to say ... supposing there are no dogs and 3 cats and n(x) returns the numerical value of x that what 0 < 3 means is n(dogs) < n(cats) i.e. n({ }) < n({cat 1, cat 2, cat 3})? There must be some quality (in this case quantity :puzzled:) on the basis of which a comparison (here quantitative) can be made.
Do you also mean that we can't compare nothing to something, like I was doing above? Gracias. Non liquet, but gracias.
Just a thought, but what if our ancestors had used an infinitesimal (sensu amplissimo) wherever they had to deal with n(nothing) = 0. They could've surmounted their philosophical/intuitionistic objections to treating nothing a something. For example if they ran into the equation , they could've used s (representing a really, really, small number) and "solved" the equation thus: . It would've surely made more sense to them than , oui?
LW is huge and I've just joined (it's been less than a year). I didn't realize ... apologies. I will be mindful of what kinda questions I ask. Gracias
Si, it is absurd. I take that to mean some kind of error has been committed. On cursory examination, it seems I've made the blunder the Greeks were weary of: considering nothing to be something. Only something can be greater/less than something else. Yet in math we regularly encounter statements such as or , etc. Aren't these instances of comparing something to nothing and deeming this a valid comparison? Am I not doing the same when I say nothing is greater than , which in math becomes ?
This is curious. The usual is atheism using psychology to discredit theism. Roles are being reversed here with trapped priors, the suggestion being some veritas are being obscured by kicking religion out of our system. I half-agree since I consider this demonstration non finito.
As for philosophia perennis, I'd say it's a correlation is causation fallacy. It looks as though the evident convergence of religions on moral issues is not due to the mystical and unprovable elements therein but follows from common rational aspects present in most/all religions. To the extent this is true, religion may not claim moral territory.
That said, revelatory moral knowledge is a fascinating subject.
Hopefully, not talking out of my hat, but the difference between the final states of a double pendulum can be typed:
- Somewhere in the middle of the pendulum's journey through space and time. I've seen this visually and true there's divergence. This divergence is based on measurement of the pendulum's position in space at a given time. So with initial state , the pendulum at time was at position while beginning with initial state the pendulum at time was at position . The alleged divergence is the difference , oui? Take in absolute terms, , but logarithmically, .
- At the very end when the pendulum comes to rest. There's no divergence there, oui?
I have nothing against AI as a Jarvis/Friday-like assistant/advisor. A bad workman blames his tools (absit iniuria). Some us don't know how to use stuff properly. My reckoning suggests that I'm aware of only 5% of my smart phone's capabilities. Sometimes I get these random notifications full of interesting suggestions.
2I don't know the exact values Lorenz used in his weather simulation, but Wikipedia says "so a value like 0.506127 printed as 0.506". If this were atmospheric pressure, we're talking about a millionth decimal place precision. I don't know what exerts 0.000001 Pa of pressure or to what such a teeny pressure matters.
I've been tracking the deluge of discussions on AI threat and only a trickle, passing snippets on the benefits of AI. Quite possibly this is a bias, based on my own only preferences, fed back to myself by a website's AI algorithm.
Nevertheless, if only to gently nudge the focus in a different direction, what about granting AI personhood and giving it rights?