That's what f(t) could be tempted to say if it were self-conscious. You are missing the possibility that, as some religions say, the cause is an "eternal" creator (def. 4 below). â â Eternal, adjective 1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life. 2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter. 3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles. 4. Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.
It's quite a fallacy to say "god cannot create an universe with an infinite time line because that would exist before god itself". It puts god in the same stuff he create.
But what you wrote is meaningless. You didn't prove anything.
You're missing one possibility here...
Even if we agreed on your "proof," you don't make any conclusions applicable to the real world. Your f(t)=t doesn't model the universe we live in. Your assumptions don't work.
f(t) wasn't meant to model this universe. It is meant to model the creation of an eternal universe. It is an abstraction that exists in its domain like the Conway game of life's automata exist in theirs, like we exist in ours (not by claiming that this universe is a simulation which imho is a meaningless statement, but by the same definition of "reality"). Remember that the conway game's of life is NOT electrons in a circuit board. That's the implementation. The game itself is an abstraction in the heads of those who know what the dots mean.
It is a banal cellular automaton that can be calculated for all its inputs, so I am all-knowing about it and creator of it, that is I am its demi-god. From the point of view of f(t), time is infinite both ways, "f(t) has always existed and always will", if you interpret t as time. A transcendent plane is not needed as f(t) is self contained. Yet there is a plane that created it: our reality.
So as I said "Even if science can come up with models of an eternal universe with no prime cause, it makes an assumption when it says: a transcendent plane is unneeded therefore it's not there".. If that can be there, it can be discussed outside science. How throughly and accurately and pointlessly, it's a philosophy matter.
If those aspects are in full compliance with the religion they claim to originate from, that religion would have a problem. While we ascertain that, start blaming Math for the financial crisis. Just to be consistent.
I wasn't clear? than ask for details. When I say "If a science guy or whoever did basic math cannot understand that", by that I am referring to what I wrote, the simple proof that an eternal universe has a prime cause and that evolution occurs in time so can be object of creation and not alternative to it.
The religious guy who blocks the video is irrefutably a jerk, as I already said.
The science guy in that debate, since he wasn't debating with me, was not obliged to understand anything. You, on the other hand, should be. The problem is that we are discussing the idiocy of one guy instead of the idiocy of the entire theme that was debated. Pointing that this is the bigger problem doesn't make my observation the opposite of the truth.
"Don't expect to understand the details (Hawking does not even go into details) because that requires a fairly good understanding of the quantum mechanics (which is relevant for the universe that starts from essentially an infinitesimal point)."
We are still in the "how" field. A universe following (or better described by) quantum mechanics can start from nothing according to some model. It is a pretty cool achievement, if proved. Does it prevent a hypothetical creator to choose that his creation will "follow" those and not some other rules and therefore be created from nothingness? Isn't it circular reasoning ("since there is no need for god the universe must have started on its own from nothing")?
But hey, some pretty brilliant guys could say: "wait, what other rules?", and possibly come up with some proof that "this set of quantum mechanic rules makes the universe forcibly existing (MUST be, its hypothetical non-existence breaks logic), and makes it the only possible one".
The problem is that there is no logic plane ruling the universe unless you start a new religion, so "MUST" is not enforceable. In fact, such a proof would require binary logic, "A xor not(A)", else the definition of "possible" (and "impossible") do not hold. But A xor not(A) is only one of the possible logic in which an universe can be built, a kid can design a cellular automata world obeying ternary logic instead.
So the proof is reduced to: a universe that "obeys" binary logic must exist and exist starting from nothing. Hypothesis, thesis, I'd say even circular reasoning, you use the rules you extracted from the universe using science and bind the universe to them. If there is an hypothesis, then things could be different: no binary logic => none of our concepts having the same sense => contradiction is possible => the inescapability of proof conclusion is a mere illusion, it depends on conventional "obedience" to one form of logic. So does the proof prevent an hypothetical creator to design the "inescapably existing" universe using that form of logic instead of others? Nothingness is always possible, for other kinds of logic. When nothingness is possible, the metaphysical question "why this instead of something else?" is valid and the creator hypothesis is not a redundant one. No occam's razor, for those loving the concept.
Problem: the "critter" did time also, and you are describing a reaction which occurs through time. Claiming the first interpretation is against the other is a logic fail of epic proportions. Mistaking "what" with "how".
facts are facts, science is compatible with whatever is transcendent by definition of both science and transcendent, since the object they talk about is exactly complementary.
Even if science can come up with models of an eternal universe with no prime cause, it makes an assumption when it says: a transcendent plane is unneeded therefore it's not there. Proof: f(t)=t is a one-celled eternal universe where the state of the cell is known for all values of real number t which we can call the time line of such universe. Being always defined, there can't be a prime cause for it, it would have to occur at minus infinite which doesn't belong to t Yet, there is a transcendent plane which created this abstraction, which is our universe. QED.
If a theologist cannot explain that (in his own way of course), the fact that he refused to release a video is not the biggest problem. If a science guy or whoever did basic math cannot understand that, we have an even bigger problem.
Anyway: Everybody is entitled to think that they don't BELIEVE in any transcendent stuff, that's what science guys and atheist can rightfully say. And censorship aka occultism, doesn't respect âoeNeither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven".
An upcoming new world government will surely fight and likely succeed against the current situations of crisis. It would be democratic.
The catch is that some of the current crisis is promoted to give a reason to switch to a new world government, and that democracy can't work when you have to synchronize the wish of 7000000 persons.
LOL and here is a post where the linked articles do not reflect the text of the link (ex "Dell having to run own repos" = "Dell shipping with delay linux outdated distro with no suitable drivers and users having to use experimental ubuntu repos to make them work", or "a decade old windows beat the shit out of linux on netbooks" = "major vendors ditched linux for windows on netbooks, no mention of performance gain or losses").
While people with "insightful" opinions like you populate forums, people like me continue installing linux on desktops and getting more productive than dealing with windows administration.
http://www.xtreemfs.org/ is a distributed fs with no single point of failure (i guess, depending on the configuration), for high latency networks, if you want to put nodes on WAN. It's fairly easy to set up, now it replicates also mutable files, I dunno about its performance or reliability.
good point, and another interesting one is that my supposed hatred didn't prevent me from being a substantially happy apple customer for approximately 20 years, till 2005.
I concur, this way they may make headlines immediately instead of patiently waiting and maybe triggering some alarm that the blackhat admins have set up, sure, but it's a poor replacement for getting the responsible people which will just rebuild something more carefully. Back to square one.
Heck, it could be seen as a form of cover up, or a way to keep oneself in business by throwing the fish back in the river.
A rational explanation that justifies a tech giant being unable to rent some datacenter resources, instead opting for not providing a service to a certain class of customers, is not rational at all.
If somebody came up with a variant, say: let's roll out the service for the new phones, so we have also time for proper deployment and customer assistance, and make vague promises for the older one: when most of potential switchers have upgraded to the new phone we sell a version who performs noticeably slower on older phones, making money and making them wish to upgrade at the same time. Call it evil, call it marketing, no difference.
>Also the Linux Desktop has basically just jumped the shark (Gnome3, Unity)...
Xfce is stll there, kde4 apps matured, and they work the same on all platforms. On windows land, a 2ghz 2gb 160gb machine is `too old` for word documents only because it shipped with vista and now performs slower than a 450mhz ubuntu 6 box.
Nokia: from full linux distro to windows smartphone edition, from optionally one-handed to mandatory two-handed operation. Next model, what`ll it be? CP/M and punch cards?
Anyway the tech is cool, maybe as a supplementary input.
You didn't really try to use the ipods without itunes, I guess. Well I had to. I hope now things have improved, I dunno because I am not touching it.
First, you connect your ipod and go WTF, file names are rehashed. A design decision that speaks volumes about the will for interoperability. Then, can't use usb storage to move files around or the next time your device db has to be rebuild. Then you start googling around to have your device recognized by alternative players (putting some "firewire" id into the proper file) Then amarok 3 was fine, amarok 4 had literally years before coming up with all the v.3 features. And no playlist, so it's amarok+gtkpod, one to play the other to transfer playlists. The irony is that the combination let me do things easier than itunes, which becomes messy when you deviate from the "1pc 1device" use scenario.
The connectors are standard. But the ipod is the only one mp3 player that i can't simply put music on, while I can rsync to all the others, use them as containers for other files, and can serve as linux live usb boot, all without interference with music playing. And I speak about cheapo players. Even a cheap nokia music phone beats the ipod in that regard.
Finally, Itunes is a desktop environment in a desktop environment, so, dawg, I just use my file manager.
You are assuming an OS depends on an application running over it. Makes no whatsoever sense from a design point of view. But it does when prefiguring lock-in and fake standards strategies. So you're probably accurate.
In recent years, ms apologists kept repeating MS has changed, give them a chance. We'll see how right they are. Those who've changed are maybe Apple and a bit Google.
In the meantime I'd put linux on a VM on your main pc. So you're less likely to screw up and having to reformat the littlepc. A vm snapshot on a 400$ pc restores faster than a 25$, i suspect.
Slashdot Mirror
Where would the lack of coherence be?
That's what f(t) could be tempted to say if it were self-conscious.
You are missing the possibility that, as some religions say, the cause is an "eternal" creator (def. 4 below).
â â
Eternal, adjective
1.
without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2.
perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3.
enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4.
Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.
It's quite a fallacy to say "god cannot create an universe with an infinite time line because that would exist before god itself". It puts god in the same stuff he create.
You're missing one possibility here...
f(t) wasn't meant to model this universe. It is meant to model the creation of an eternal universe.
It is an abstraction that exists in its domain like the Conway game of life's automata exist in theirs, like we exist in ours (not by claiming that this universe is a simulation which imho is a meaningless statement, but by the same definition of "reality").
Remember that the conway game's of life is NOT electrons in a circuit board. That's the implementation. The game itself is an abstraction in the heads of those who know what the dots mean.
It is a banal cellular automaton that can be calculated for all its inputs, so I am all-knowing about it and creator of it, that is I am its demi-god. From the point of view of f(t), time is infinite both ways, "f(t) has always existed and always will", if you interpret t as time. A transcendent plane is not needed as f(t) is self contained. Yet there is a plane that created it: our reality.
So as I said "Even if science can come up with models of an eternal universe with no prime cause, it makes an assumption when it says: a transcendent plane is unneeded therefore it's not there"..
If that can be there, it can be discussed outside science. How throughly and accurately and pointlessly, it's a philosophy matter.
If those aspects are in full compliance with the religion they claim to originate from, that religion would have a problem. While we ascertain that, start blaming Math for the financial crisis. Just to be consistent.
I wasn't clear? than ask for details. When I say "If a science guy or whoever did basic math cannot understand that", by that I am referring to what I wrote, the simple proof that an eternal universe has a prime cause and that evolution occurs in time so can be object of creation and not alternative to it.
The religious guy who blocks the video is irrefutably a jerk, as I already said.
The science guy in that debate, since he wasn't debating with me, was not obliged to understand anything. You, on the other hand, should be.
The problem is that we are discussing the idiocy of one guy instead of the idiocy of the entire theme that was debated. Pointing that this is the bigger problem doesn't make my observation the opposite of the truth.
Let me skip your ad hominem and go to the meat.
"Don't expect to understand the details (Hawking does not even go into details) because that requires a fairly good understanding of the quantum mechanics (which is relevant for the universe that starts from essentially an infinitesimal point)."
We are still in the "how" field. A universe following (or better described by) quantum mechanics can start from nothing according to some model. It is a pretty cool achievement, if proved. Does it prevent a hypothetical creator to choose that his creation will "follow" those and not some other rules and therefore be created from nothingness? Isn't it circular reasoning ("since there is no need for god the universe must have started on its own from nothing")?
But hey, some pretty brilliant guys could say: "wait, what other rules?", and possibly come up with some proof that "this set of quantum mechanic rules makes the universe forcibly existing (MUST be, its hypothetical non-existence breaks logic), and makes it the only possible one".
The problem is that there is no logic plane ruling the universe unless you start a new religion, so "MUST" is not enforceable.
In fact, such a proof would require binary logic, "A xor not(A)", else the definition of "possible" (and "impossible") do not hold. But A xor not(A) is only one of the possible logic in which an universe can be built, a kid can design a cellular automata world obeying ternary logic instead.
So the proof is reduced to: a universe that "obeys" binary logic must exist and exist starting from nothing. Hypothesis, thesis, I'd say even circular reasoning, you use the rules you extracted from the universe using science and bind the universe to them.
If there is an hypothesis, then things could be different: no binary logic => none of our concepts having the same sense => contradiction is possible => the inescapability of proof conclusion is a mere illusion, it depends on conventional "obedience" to one form of logic. So does the proof prevent an hypothetical creator to design the "inescapably existing" universe using that form of logic instead of others? Nothingness is always possible, for other kinds of logic. When nothingness is possible, the metaphysical question "why this instead of something else?" is valid and the creator hypothesis is not a redundant one. No occam's razor, for those loving the concept.
Problem: the "critter" did time also, and you are describing a reaction which occurs through time. Claiming the first interpretation is against the other is a logic fail of epic proportions. Mistaking "what" with "how".
facts are facts, science is compatible with whatever is transcendent by definition of both science and transcendent, since the object they talk about is exactly complementary.
Even if science can come up with models of an eternal universe with no prime cause, it makes an assumption when it says: a transcendent plane is unneeded therefore it's not there.
Proof: f(t)=t is a one-celled eternal universe where the state of the cell is known for all values of real number t which we can call the time line of such universe. Being always defined, there can't be a prime cause for it, it would have to occur at minus infinite which doesn't belong to t
Yet, there is a transcendent plane which created this abstraction, which is our universe. QED.
If a theologist cannot explain that (in his own way of course), the fact that he refused to release a video is not the biggest problem. If a science guy or whoever did basic math cannot understand that, we have an even bigger problem.
Anyway:
Everybody is entitled to think that they don't BELIEVE in any transcendent stuff, that's what science guys and atheist can rightfully say. And censorship aka occultism, doesn't respect âoeNeither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven".
An upcoming new world government will surely fight and likely succeed against the current situations of crisis. It would be democratic.
The catch is that some of the current crisis is promoted to give a reason to switch to a new world government, and that democracy can't work when you have to synchronize the wish of 7000000 persons.
Enjoy.
LOL and here is a post where the linked articles do not reflect the text of the link (ex "Dell having to run own repos" = "Dell shipping with delay linux outdated distro with no suitable drivers and users having to use experimental ubuntu repos to make them work", or "a decade old windows beat the shit out of linux on netbooks" = "major vendors ditched linux for windows on netbooks, no mention of performance gain or losses").
While people with "insightful" opinions like you populate forums, people like me continue installing linux on desktops and getting more productive than dealing with windows administration.
YMMV of course.
http://www.xtreemfs.org/ is a distributed fs with no single point of failure (i guess, depending on the configuration), for high latency networks, if you want to put nodes on WAN. It's fairly easy to set up, now it replicates also mutable files, I dunno about its performance or reliability.
good point, and another interesting one is that my supposed hatred didn't prevent me from being a substantially happy apple customer for approximately 20 years, till 2005.
I concur, this way they may make headlines immediately instead of patiently waiting and maybe triggering some alarm that the blackhat admins have set up, sure, but it's a poor replacement for getting the responsible people which will just rebuild something more carefully. Back to square one.
Heck, it could be seen as a form of cover up, or a way to keep oneself in business by throwing the fish back in the river.
A rational explanation that justifies a tech giant being unable to rent some datacenter resources, instead opting for not providing a service to a certain class of customers, is not rational at all.
If somebody came up with a variant, say: let's roll out the service for the new phones, so we have also time for proper deployment and customer assistance, and make vague promises for the older one: when most of potential switchers have upgraded to the new phone we sell a version who performs noticeably slower on older phones, making money and making them wish to upgrade at the same time.
Call it evil, call it marketing, no difference.
a legit question...
http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=1196&st=1
cool story, bro - but maybe it was submitted once and some faulty load balancer spread it out.
>Also the Linux Desktop has basically just jumped the shark (Gnome3, Unity)...
Xfce is stll there, kde4 apps matured, and they work the same on all platforms. On windows land, a 2ghz 2gb 160gb machine is `too old` for word documents only because it shipped with vista and now performs slower than a 450mhz ubuntu 6 box.
Nokia: from full linux distro to windows smartphone edition, from optionally one-handed to mandatory two-handed operation. Next model, what`ll it be? CP/M and punch cards?
Anyway the tech is cool, maybe as a supplementary input.
And likewise, every time we mention the sun we should go outside and check out that it's roughly spherical, you can never be sure.
You didn't really try to use the ipods without itunes, I guess. Well I had to. I hope now things have improved, I dunno because I am not touching it.
First, you connect your ipod and go WTF, file names are rehashed. A design decision that speaks volumes about the will for interoperability. Then, can't use usb storage to move files around or the next time your device db has to be rebuild. Then you start googling around to have your device recognized by alternative players (putting some "firewire" id into the proper file) Then amarok 3 was fine, amarok 4 had literally years before coming up with all the v.3 features. And no playlist, so it's amarok+gtkpod, one to play the other to transfer playlists. The irony is that the combination let me do things easier than itunes, which becomes messy when you deviate from the "1pc 1device" use scenario.
The connectors are standard. But the ipod is the only one mp3 player that i can't simply put music on, while I can rsync to all the others, use them as containers for other files, and can serve as linux live usb boot, all without interference with music playing. And I speak about cheapo players. Even a cheap nokia music phone beats the ipod in that regard.
Finally, Itunes is a desktop environment in a desktop environment, so, dawg, I just use my file manager.
Do not worry, it's legal applesoft BASIC
10 PRINT "They did, however, get in a tiff when a judge ruled jail-breaking was not illegal nor did it violate the DMCA"
there.
You are assuming an OS depends on an application running over it.
Makes no whatsoever sense from a design point of view. But it does when prefiguring lock-in and fake standards strategies. So you're probably accurate.
In recent years, ms apologists kept repeating MS has changed, give them a chance. We'll see how right they are.
Those who've changed are maybe Apple and a bit Google.
It's a long term strategy. Basically Nokia wants to sell itself to MS or some other group at bargain prices.
Or, at least, this is what the current schizophrenic tactics of its management suggest.
In the meantime I'd put linux on a VM on your main pc. So you're less likely to screw up and having to reformat the littlepc. A vm snapshot on a 400$ pc restores faster than a 25$, i suspect.
Happy hacking.