Philosophy Now Forum

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
What is this truth that you found based upon fear and lies?

I can't tell you. You have to find it for yourself.

Blogger and MIT computer scientist Scott Aaronson has written a nice expository article on the subject. http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/limitsqc-draft.pdf The bottom line is that any problem solvable by a quantum computer is already solvable by a classical computer. The only thing quantum comp...

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
Philosophically, if you start out with fears and lies...what do you think you will end up with?

The truth, since all paths lead to the truth.

neither. it's best to not have existed at all. What is it, then, that did not exist at all? Does it have a name? Is it "you?" What does it even mean to imagine that one has never existed? It's a contradiction. You have to exist in order to even ask the question. Some guy named Descartes s...

the freedom of persons over what belongs to them; their minds, their bodies and their property. May I exercise my freedom over my body by having an abortion at 9 months minus five minutes? May I exercise my freedom over my body by shooting heroin? With my kids in the house? With your kids in my hou...

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Apparently you don't understand that 0 multiplied by any number is the same as 0/0. Why don't you check this out with a math teacher to verify?

That's as wrong as wrong can be. If 5*0 = 0/0 then dividing both sides by 0 gives 5 = 1/0. And multiplying both sides by 0 gives 5 = 0.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:With philosophical undertones to these conversations (which are a blast). This is the way conversations should be done (can you picture Hex in a conversation with an AI? He would be torn to shreds):

Tell me more about philosophical overtones.

You can define 0/0 to be anything you like. But you can not define 0/0 in a manner consistent with the other laws of algebra. Say you declare that 0/0 = 1. We know that 0 = 0. Multiplying both sides by 5, we have 0 * 5 = 0 * 5 = 0, or 5 * 0 = 0. Surely you agree with that. Now dividing both sides by...

It's not defined. That's the mathematical answer.

Thank you for posting that. I finally understand what epistemic means. Contrasted with ontic. I'm an epistemicist. I believe we build mathematical models based experiment and observation. Just as when Newton said "I frame no hypotheses" when challenged to explain the mechanism of gravity. ...

I had speculated about the density of digits 0-9 and guessed that they're evenly distributed among the decimal representation (including the numbers before the period) for π, e and the square root of 2. As it turned out I was right and someone alerted me that the Wolfram website had that informatio...

I had speculated about the density of digits 0-9 and guessed that they're evenly distributed among the decimal representation (including the numbers before the period) for π, e and the square root of 2. As it turned out I was right and someone alerted me that the Wolfram website had that informatio...

A monk in the Zen monastery heard that his best friend had achieved enlightenment. The monk excitedly went over to his friend and asked, What is it like to be enlightened? His newly-enlightened friend said: It's just as miserable as ever!

How about you? Do you find when your mind/brain is distracted or thinking about something else or relaxed, you think better? (I recall Henri Poincare saying that after thinking hard about a problem, he comes up with answers later on when his mind becomes preoccupied with something else or being rel...

Moyo wrote:

wtf wrote:Yes, the primes are unevenly distributed

so we make them even and see what that will induce the naturals to look like or do.

All I can see is that the natural numbers look like products of primes! But we already know that.

Anyway let me know if you can develop your idea any further.