But "Anyone who practices meditation intensely enough - with proper guidance - can reproduce the experience." is not falsifiable, since however much someone meditates without having the expected experience it can always be claimed they didn't do it properly or do it enough. If you defined how much meditation is needed, or a specific method, then it could be falsified (if someone followed all the instructions and had no such experience).
[emphasize added] The same "not enough, not properly" argument could be used in the hard sciences just as well: "You don't see that law? Don't you get the math? Didn't you do the experiment right?" etc. Again, the pupil could reply: "but I followed all the instructions, and still didn't get it" thus that particular physics law would have been falsified just on the account of an unprepared pupil.
Not true! Anyone who practices meditation intensely enough - with proper guidance - can reproduce the experience. Ergo, anyone who cannot reproduce the experience is not practicing meditation intensely enough. Your statement is unfalsifiable. What the first quote says can be just as well said of any hard-rock science, e.g:
"Anyone who builds powerful enough accelerator - with proper guidance - can reproduce results of Fermilab."
Any decent scientist will tell you that free will has nothing to do with whether or not we're "chemical machines". Most would find your argument humorous at best. Hey bud, Thanks for explaining the position of scientists on this one!
But I know from searching within myself that I have some kind of connection to something we have not yet categorized. Actually, we've categorized it, and filed it under "bovine excrement". Have you two been playing in the backyard again?
In fact I can't really see anyone being interested in the daily routine of scientists at Fermilab... Seventh-graders have demonstrated that you are completely and utterly wrong. I think that link of yours was some sort of a re-educational treatment for kids. As a bonus, Fermilab got out of them a description of scientists that scientists at Fermi lab would love to hear about themselves, expressed through kid's words.
Some answers of kids are really fun to read, like this one:
My picture of a scientist is completely different than what it used to be! The scientist I saw doesn't wear a lab coat. . . . The scientists used good vocabulary and spoke like they knew what they were talking about.
I'd claim cell phones are out of their infancy. Will they continue to improve? Yes. But at this point they're evolving into something far more than phones; they haven't improved much in that regard in years. I'd add that one direction of improvement of cell phones is to become more like classical phones in terms of the quality of transmitted sound -- I hear the other person way better over the cheapest ass classical phone than over my technologically much more sophisticated cell phone.
I'd claim cell phones are out of their infancy. Will they continue to improve? Yes. But at this point they're evolving into something far more than phones; they haven't improved much in that regard in years. I'd add that one direction of improvement of cell phones is to become more like classical phones in terms of the quality of transmitted sound -- I often hear the other person way better over the cheapest ass classical phone than over my technologically much more sophisticated cell phone.
I may be old-fashioned, but I see no need to use more than the assortment of paper I have on my desk for notes.
Paper costs ~$40 for 20 pounds; and I can pick it up, put it in my pocket, and take it to the grocery store. And if I drop it, its not damaged. An equivalent computerized system costs ~$300 (PDA) and does not respond well to being dropped. I would also have to remember to check my to do list. A note on a desk/keyboard/table/whatever is much more likely to be seen. You are not old-fashioned, you are just the modern man who knows ubiquity of gravity which is after all the ultimate measure of all things in this world, no? Plus, instead you to have to remind yourself to check todo list of the reminder you made of what to do, they could devise AI post-its with a little hammer, and when the time comes, DANG!
"The scientists say Quickies can be used to seamlessly blend the old-fashioned and modernized ways of communication". I'm sure the next step is to have the system analyze the code that the programmer is developing, and based on the comments and general coding habits, lay out the skeleton of the program (or perform some other vital function, like warn the coder of a possible logic error with his objective). That's quite alright, and the next step I envisage is that, based on the comments of the program, the system not only warns about possible logic errors, but in fact fixes them. They could develop a language for communication with the computer in which one would only describe objectives and goals, and then the system would translate that into some low-level language, understandable for machine but hard for humans to use it for direct communication with machines.
Here is another Dijsktra quote, from his 1972 Turing lecture:
[...]LISP, a fascinating enterprise of a completely different nature [than FORTRAN]. With a few very basic principles at its foundation, it has shown a remarkable stability. Besides that, LISP has been the carrier for a considerable number of in a sense our most sophisticated computer applications. LISP has jokingly been described as "the most intelligent way to misuse a computer". I think that description a great compliment because it transmits the full flavour of liberation: it has assisted a number of our most gifted fellow humans in thinking previously impossible thoughts.
here is a test, to find out whether you belong to the "discovery" or "invention" camp. I write down a 100 digit number[...] did I invent this number, or did I discover it? Nobody has written it down already, so I invented it. However, the number system exists already as a definite point on the number line which we all think to know, so I discovered it. Sorry I had to cut off your number. A test for you then would be to answer, invent or discover: whether I did this out of jealousy, because I like your number so much that I wish I had discovered it (bonus here would be to figure out whether this operation is really castration), or because I think what you did is like some monkey-with-the-keyboard sort of experimentation in typing that I found a bit belated due to all the developments in the theory of random numbers.
All along I'm bothered by the sloppiness of saying that math concepts "exist" without saying what existence means. Fair enough, that's the minimum of philosophical rigor.
But I don't see the justification for Platonism. That's saying the concepts exist independent of what's going on in the physical world. I don't think that's what Platonism is about. Justification of Platonism is in preferring the intelligible to the sensible: I do rather believe in the number two to be true than in those two lumps of something that might be whatever in reality. I do believe so because I believe that the Universe is created not to be chaotic, but intelligible, where everything is modeled after ideal forms of the Creator, etc. We can therefore do the "inverse problem", as you mathematicians would say, and reach the ideal as the truth of the world.
And frankly, anything unobservable yet somehow exists contradicts empiricism which is one of the more fundamental belief systems. I think what bothers you is more along the lines of the metaphysics vs phenomenology duel.
There is not much new to be said here: metaphysics let's you be with the certainty, truth, beauty, God, etc at the expense that the appropriate system does look as if not from this world, while phenomenology definitely appears to be a better way, but tell what can you tell with any rigor starting with a finite amount of appearances?
[...]my point is that we have a logically consistent definition of existence of these objects in terms of observation.
That is, an object which can be observed, exists. Personally I think that means mathematics doesn't have objects, at least ones that exist physically. I'll agree that mathematics has no objects that exist physically, if the existence is mere observation of objects. But, you also say that "we have a logically consistent definition" of such a process of observing, which in effect means that you are still resorting to mathematical-logical concepts in defining the process of observing, which must exist and not be observable to make the consistent observation possible.
For instance: we both see one apple, but we do not see the number one. Still, required consistency of our observation of the apple requires of us to resort to the idea of number one. The number one therefore does exist, as an idea: it is not observable, but it is required to make our individual observations logically consistent one with another. I think this would be the classic Platonism.
Apples and galaxies are countable because we perceive them as distinct objects but if you look very closely the 'obvious' distinction between an apple and the rest of the universe is no so obvious after all. Like how?
However, every mathematical model we develop to describe our surroundings is only an approximation of our observations.With time, we can create more and more accurate models, but there will always be something about that model that is derived experimentally, and is therefor imperfect. That's true, but all that you talk about, like "approximation", "more and more accurate models" implies mathematics, which means numbers that are taken care of through some additional mathematics. Thus the imperfection of which you speak might still be completely described through a better mathematical model.
[... universe] exists in a way such that there is no way to perfectly describe it. Physicists would tell you that using mathematical laws is the way to perfectly describe it, and, even if we don't know yet the ultimate laws, we're getting there, as you also suggest.
Or maybe there are other possibilities I have not considered. I agree.
Thing is we have an intuitive view of the world, not a mathematical one. And our intuition is demonstrably terrible at physics. Then what if the mathematical thinking is the proper intuition for understanding of the physical world?
Which would then turn the analogies of
The problem is we may conduct our little experiments etc, but we then have to interpret them. We interpret them via analogistic constructs... into isomorphisms?
The problem is that you both are arguing about 'ideas' (physical laws) and 'reality' (observed nature). Both concepts share a single source, that's human perception,[...] I don't think so. When you see three apples, you don't see the number three, yet you can count exactly, without errors. Thus Platonism.
In the work I do--scientific calculations with a lot of fast numerics, python + fortran seems like nirvana, as each overcomes the shortcomings of the other. One could just as well use C except the efficient numeric libs and memory layout give fortran an edge. From you post it seems that you haven't done much scientific calculations, especially with a lot of fast numerics. Let me demonstrate and enlighten a bit. If the memory layout of which you speak is about column-wise vs row-vise storage of matrices, there is no fundamental difference in numerical calculations between the two. When you say
if you take a sub-array you get elements that are consecutive in memory and thus for most microprocessors will all get pulled into the cache on the same page. Slices of C-arrays have consecutive elements spaced by the row width apart in memory. Exactly the same claim can be made for the column-wise storage. When we are talking about submatrices, then neither storage scheme provides mapping between consecutive memory locations and any nontrivial submatrix.
Fortran is also very optimization friendly since things like matrix multiplies and out-of-order loops are part of the core language. Depends on which fortran you're talking about. Matrix multiplication nowadays can be done efficiently using BLAS, which is a library just like any other, thus callable from (m)any language(s). Integration of matrix multiplication into the "core" language does not guarantee efficiency of the compiled code.
(e.g. using i++ instead of ++i or doing I=4 instead of i==4 are not possible in fortran's limited syntax). Yes, those are beginner's mistakes.
The rest of your post reads like some silly futuristic science fiction, for instance:
But If I were starting from scratch and did not have a compelling need for all those wonderful fortran numeric libs, I think the optimal choice in the future is going to be
Java+ Groovy. The optimal choice for what? Numerics?
Yes, I was referring to the fact that most prostitutes were women: the demand for male prostitutes is considerably lower: hence, so is the supply (in the long run). I leave it as an exercise to you which gender differences cause this. That would be quite an exercise, nothing less than to causally explain the economic disparity between the number of male and female prostitutes from gender differences. What gender differences? It's about body-politics, which means among other things that the causality may very well be upside-down, sideways or in reverse.
Ah yes: any job that I would not be willing to do, or would not enjoy, is exploitative. As I already explained: I am not a megalomaniac and do not find that line of argumentation convincing.
Please, when you disagree with me, come with a rational argument or hold your silence. First a sigh: ah yes, perhaps to indicate that you have recognized in a hurry in what I wrote a certain line of argumentation that you disagree with, because you are not megalomaniac (you write it the second time, but never explain this attachment to megalomania). To keep my disagreements acceptable to you I better formulate them in terms of rational arguments or else... ah yes: to hold my silence... ah yes... silence.
Thanks for the link. However, I'm not convinced. A series of arguments-by-assertion, provided without empirical evidence by a biased source,[...]I would call it "stating disagreement", often in wildly propagandistic and nonsensical terms. After this summary judgment you proceed to additionally analyze two instances of this propaganda,
in order to show two distinctions: between legalization and state sponsorship; and between sex slavery and prostitution. The latter is:
there's a distinction between sex slavery and prostitution: at the end of the day, the prostitute can quit her job, spend her money how she wants, and so forth, just like the rest of us. Being free and employed, like the rest of us, prostitute is free at the end of the day in the economic matters to choose what she will do with her money or even whether she will continue to work. Maybe she will decide to quit--it is that simple in your scheme. What bothers me is that one distinction is somehow lost in the process, unintentionally I'm sure: prostitute is just like the rest of us (your emphasize), and is also she (my emphasize). Which means: either she is just like the rest of us insofar as we forget for a moment that determination of her as a woman is important (as the empirical facts go, prostitutes are by and large women, johns are men, etc.), or, the second possibility would be "us" here implies something like "us (women)".
You do this once more, this time in bold, in an analogy between prostitutes and the whole of human beings:
I'm sure a great number, even a majority of prostitutes don't like their job and choose it for lack of better alternatives.
I'm also sure that a great number, even a majority of human beings don't like their job and choose it for lack of better alternatives, and if we were as puritanical about cooking or cleaning, we'd criminalize chefs and maids and then blame the profession when gangsters took it over. Prostitution is personally distasteful to me, but I am not enough of a megalomaniac to use that as a basis for dictating to other people what to do with their lives. [italics added]
Since it's really about a common condition of all human beings (and not about quite specific relations between one human being and another one, a woman) that they in majority do not like (distaste qualifies here as well) their jobs, be that job cooking or cleaning, or also prostitution, and since you prefer empirical evidence, non-bias and no-nonsense terminology, neither dislike nor distaste being the basis for discrimination against professions, least of all puritanism, here is my suggestion, in this midnight hour after the end of the day, how to get to the essence or get convinced in these matters: perhaps you should become a prostitute.
In fact, he says that the vast majority of Muslims are good people; his problem is with the Koran and the fundamental tenets of the religion. Although I know that you're only summarizing what the guy said, I must say that all this sounds very strange to me. Like there is all that vast majority of good people that are members of some religion despite the fact that their religion has some fundamental flaws. How is that possible? What would that mean at all?
Slashdot Mirror
Some answers of kids are really fun to read, like this one: My picture of a scientist is completely different than what it used to be! The scientist I saw doesn't wear a lab coat. . . . The scientists used good vocabulary and spoke like they knew what they were talking about.
Paper costs ~$40 for 20 pounds; and I can pick it up, put it in my pocket, and take it to the grocery store. And if I drop it, its not damaged. An equivalent computerized system costs ~$300 (PDA) and does not respond well to being dropped. I would also have to remember to check my to do list. A note on a desk/keyboard/table/whatever is much more likely to be seen. You are not old-fashioned, you are just the modern man who knows ubiquity of gravity which is after all the ultimate measure of all things in this world, no? Plus, instead you to have to remind yourself to check todo list of the reminder you made of what to do, they could devise AI post-its with a little hammer, and when the time comes, DANG!
This definition of yours coincidentally says that coincidentally is an adjective. I'd say that it is an adverb.
For instance: we both see one apple, but we do not see the number one. Still, required consistency of our observation of the apple requires of us to resort to the idea of number one. The number one therefore does exist, as an idea: it is not observable, but it is required to make our individual observations logically consistent one with another. I think this would be the classic Platonism.
(e.g. using i++ instead of ++i or doing I=4 instead of i==4 are not possible in fortran's limited syntax). Yes, those are beginner's mistakes.
The rest of your post reads like some silly futuristic science fiction, for instance: But If I were starting from scratch and did not have a compelling need for all those wonderful fortran numeric libs, I think the optimal choice in the future is going to be
Java+ Groovy. The optimal choice for what? Numerics?
You do this once more, this time in bold, in an analogy between prostitutes and the whole of human beings: I'm sure a great number, even a majority of prostitutes don't like their job and choose it for lack of better alternatives. I'm also sure that a great number, even a majority of human beings don't like their job and choose it for lack of better alternatives, and if we were as puritanical about cooking or cleaning, we'd criminalize chefs and maids and then blame the profession when gangsters took it over. Prostitution is personally distasteful to me, but I am not enough of a megalomaniac to use that as a basis for dictating to other people what to do with their lives. [italics added]
Since it's really about a common condition of all human beings (and not about quite specific relations between one human being and another one, a woman) that they in majority do not like (distaste qualifies here as well) their jobs, be that job cooking or cleaning, or also prostitution, and since you prefer empirical evidence, non-bias and no-nonsense terminology, neither dislike nor distaste being the basis for discrimination against professions, least of all puritanism, here is my suggestion, in this midnight hour after the end of the day, how to get to the essence or get convinced in these matters: perhaps you should become a prostitute.
and some lazer beans, real loud...