Joono, näillä kavereilla ketkä silloin sivistysoikeistoa edustivat oli jo silloin (~20 vuotta sitten) pelko siitä hetkestä kun Kokoomusnuorista tulee Kokoomuslaisia.
Physics, coding and black metal.
Vyssiikkaa, koodausta ja bläck metallia.
Apparently also politics when it doesn’t devolve into screaming into aether.
Joono, näillä kavereilla ketkä silloin sivistysoikeistoa edustivat oli jo silloin (~20 vuotta sitten) pelko siitä hetkestä kun Kokoomusnuorista tulee Kokoomuslaisia.
Onko Vihreet siirtyny vasemmalle, vai onko ne vaan pysyny paikallaan kun muut ovat menneet oikealle? Tää on siis oikee kysymys.
En itse muista että ne olisivat hirveästi kantojaan järisyttävästi (ainakaan perinteisen vasemmisto-oikeisto-akselin suunnassa) muuttaneet, mutta täytyy myöntää etten ehkä ole Vihreiden menoa niin tarkkaan seurannut. Toki nykyään kun ihmisoikeusasiat on profiloitunu vasempaan laitaan eikä vähän sinne sun tänne hajanaisesti pitkin oikeisto-vasemmisto-akselia niin koko kysymystä ei ole niin selkee miettiä.
Musta on hyvin surullista et sivistysoikeisto on vaan kadonnu aika pitkälle. Niitä oli jonkun verran omassa kaveripiirissä ja vaikka meikäläisestä ei ihan hirveen helposti oikeistolaista saakkaa, niin niitten kans tuli ihan hyvin juttuun ja vaihteli ajatuksia. En oo seurannu mitä niille nykyää kuuluu ku tiet vei eri suuntiin yliopiston jälkeen. En tiiä onko sille porukalle olemassa enää oikein semmosta edustavaa puoluetta, tuntuu et roleksipersut on ottanut Kokkareissakin aika paljon kenttää. Mut eipä tota oo kyllä oikein itellekkää puoluetta tällä hetkellä.
Sitten toisaalta taas kyllä ihan mielenkiintosta ollu kattoo ku pari kaveria jotka ei sinänsä ole vaihtanut poliittisia ajatuksiaan tippaakaan on siirtyny vaan puoluekannassa vasempaan suuntaan kun puolueet valuu oikeelle.
My simple uncontroversial claims
None of these is uncontroversial, C isn’t even well-defined. I’d argue that B is correct only if A is correct. And A cannot be correct, since it leads to multitude of cotnradictions, one of which I’m going to demonstrate.
It appears from context to be the first: the claim that indeterminism means events are not explained by their causes. But that’s just the definition of indeterminism
No, it most definitely is not. If you used this as a definition, I’m fairly certain that most physicists would absolutely not agree with your B.
If you deny that indeterminism means things aren’t determined by observable causes, then what does it mean?
Indeterminism means that if an experiment is repeated with the same parameters, there are no guarantees to get the same result. Nothing more than that.
Your definition implies that there needs to be a cause in the first place. And that is bordering on begging the question, because with that definition you are guaranteed to reach a point where there is something “unexplainable” (since there are infinite amount of layers), which can always be attributed to whatever supernatural thing you choose. There is absolutely no need for this to be the case.
In fact, you yourself quoted the textbook
the outcome is intrinsically random.
Emphasis mine. That means, there is no cause, it’s an intrinsic property of the theory, especially in Copenhagen interpretation, which is the status quo. As your definition implies a cause, it cannot apply here. There are other contradictions, but this one is simple and I only need one to show that the premise is flawed, and your other points rely on that.
you have not substantiated your claims with anything.
My only claim is that you are incorrect. There aren’t really too many papers written about that. (I hope) I’ve shown your premise to be false because of faulty definitions, what more would you need? None of the stuff you quoted is supporting you, and in fact contradicts you, unless we specifically assume that other people use the definition you’ve given, which, again, is already shown to be erroneous.
And indeterminism says that those natural things are not sufficient explanations of experimental results.
According to who, exactly? This is just not even remotely true.
If you want to continue this, link me the papers that have any support to what you are proposing, I’m tired of fighting vague, unsubstantiated claims and you dodging every point I try to make.
Go on then: what definition do they use?
Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.
You’re claiming in another comment to this thread that you have M.Sc., you should be aware of this, please stop wasting everyone’s time.
Slapping “quantum” in front of something generally makes it involve indeterminism (excepting the many-worlds interpretation)
Indeterminism is by no means non-natural, and it does not make things any less observable. We can observe quantum states just fine.
And as for
Yeah all the Bell stuff
“All the Bell stuff” doesn’t have anything to do with “Didn’t some quantum nondeterminism prove the existence of effects without a natural cause?”
And no, it didn’t. AFAIK there are exactly zero physicists who argue that.
You made a ludicrous claim, and are unable or unwilling to back it up even a bit, yet somehow you feel continuing this without anything to show is a good use of anyone’s time. If you are not going to make an actual argument, I do not see value in continuing this conversation, as all it does is make this thread more difficult to read for others who most likely are not very interested watching yet another internet argument sidethread.
There have been plenty of discoveries opposed by religion X. Those historically do not have significant impact on prevalence of such a religion.
I do think answers explaining why any answer to the original question suffers from logical fallacies are equally good to those that do try to get to the OP’s intent, and I think it is good to have both. I do think the literal answers are more “straight” (and I tend to go to the literate mode when talking about science), so that’s what I went up with.
That has very little to do with anything related to the arguments you’ve made before, and I am not interested in participating in a Gish Gallop.
That is not the definition that natural sciences use for natural. Going down that rabbit hole is completely meaningless, since we are no longer talking about science at that point.
In addition, if using your definition, nothing is natural according to our current understanding.
If they were, it has nothing to do with nature being supernatural. It just means that nature’s state is not locally real. That does not tie into religion in any objective way.
In addition, both of those articles are (slightly) wrong. There was a lenghty discussion about how in r/physics when they came out. The tl;dr is that it boils down to:
Pick two.
But that has no relevance to religion other than you can make either philosophical or religious argument out of anything.
No
Slapping “quantum” in front of something does not make it magic.
Science deals with the natural, gods are by definition supernatural.
Science can not either prove or disprove existence of supernatural. It may only erode the reasoning why supernatural should exist.
That reasoning is subjective, and as such, there are no definite answers to your question unless we add additional constraints.
Gorillat on itelläki ollut käytössä, mut samaa mieltä tosta “pika”-osasta.
PSA: Älä mene lukemaan artikkelin kommenttiosiota jos haluat säilyttää aivosolusi.
Mietteeni kun itse lähetän sähköpostia ympäri eurooppaa ja kyselen lisäkysymyksiä ja työryhmien toimintaa että saan arvottua kenelle ääneni annan.
I do not really agree with cppfront being the same, given that it basically needs a full transpiler in front. A lot of the stuff there though is something that could be standardised though (and some of it absolutely shouldn’t, I’m looking at you UFCS), but I don’t think there’s much support for changing any of the core syntax.
I kinda understand the r/cpp stance, because it’s a bit difficult to draw the line there, but yeah, it feels a bit unfair. I think the first step of getting circle-like stuff into the language would be to standardise the #feature
somehow.
I’m going to steal this.
Circle is a bit weird, since instead of being a new language, it’s (or at least was when I last checked it out) technically a conforming C+±compiler, just with a lot of extensions. If we had interest, a lot of the stuff there could be standardised.
No, tämä on ollut enimmäkseen EPP:n ajama, että vaikkei tämän kannatus pelkästään oikeiston yksinoikeutta ole, niin siellä ne tätä eteenpäin vievät tahot pääosin vaikuttavat.
D’Hondt, tai miten sitä Suomessa käytetään on kyllä kohtuullisen pahaa myrkkyä minkään muutoksen kannalta. Sinänsä olisi erittäin mukava nähdä jonkin sortin siirtoäänivaalitapa täälläkin päin maailmaa, kun olen itse ollut yli vuosikymmenen vakuuttunut siitä että se on vain parempi tapa hoitaa hommat.
Meikästä koko poliittisen kentän yksipuolistuminen muutenkin on aika rassaavaa. Itsekkin joskus piraatteja äänestin (ja olin jopa toiminnassa mukana), mutta nykyään on kyllä itselläkin hyvin koditon olo politiiikassa. Muut puolueet nappasivat piraattien esiin tuomat ideat ja ottivat omiin käsiinsä, ja IMO piraateilta loppui vaan puhku uudistua samalla lailla. Toki olin selkeesti kohtuullisen vasemmalla laidalla sitäkin sakkia, mutta eipä se hirveesti haitannut, kun aika helposti sitä löysi yhteistä säveltä edistettäväksi joka tapauksessa.
Mutta joo-o. Olisihan se kiva jos olisi puolue, jota oikeesti kannattaisi. Tuntuu et nykyään joutuu olemaan aika vahvasti sillä “todennäköisesti vähiten paska” -mentalilteetillä liikkeellä.