# ydoaPs

Moderators

10535

1. ## why do people/you bleave in the bible but refute scientific evidance

! Moderator Note As this thread serves no purpose other than to denigrate religious people, it is now closed.
2. ## What are you reading?

Algebra: Chapter 0
3. ## Sets vs Omniscience

Let A be the set of all things known by God. If God knows it, it's in A. It doesn't matter what it is; if it's a piece of God's knowledge, then it's in A. Now, let's take A and construct what's called the "Power Set" of A [we'll use "P(A)" for short]. The power set is just the set of all subsets of the set. So, if our set is {1, 2, 3}, then it's power set is {∅, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {2,3}, {1, 2, 3}}, where ∅ is the set of nothing. An important fact to note is that there is a lot more in the power set than there is in the original set. In fact, for any set, its power set has a higher cardinality than it. This is a famous result called "Cantor's Theorem". Power sets are always bigger than the sets from which they are generated. If we take P(A), we can make a new set B = {"x is a subset of A"|x∈P(A)}. So we take an element of P(A) and the statement that this element is a subset of A is an element of B. And we do that for all elements of P(A). Since there is nothing else in B, this relation between P(A) and B is a bijection. So we know B and P(A) have the same size, which means B is bigger than A. Since the power set of A set just is the collection of subsets of the set, and B just is collection of statements asserting that each element of of P(A) is a subset of A, we know that every statement in B is true. Since B is bigger than A, we can conclude that there are truths that God cannot know. If God knows infinitely many things, in fact, there are infinitely many truths that God does not know.
4. ## Sets vs Omniscience

That's the reason for set B. It takes the sets and transforms them into truths
5. ## Sets vs Omniscience

I'm not sure why you thought that was a relevant response (wrong thread, maybe?), but it's trivially wrong. That would imply that there exist infinitely many universes in which the multiverse theory is false
6. ## Sets vs Omniscience

Yes, that should have been "nonempty set from which it is generated". Good catch. I'm not sure how type theory would help here. Could you elaborate?
7. ## Was the snake a liar?

But that's only a lie if you quote it out of context. In context, it's a denial of God's claim that they would die the day they ate the fruit. They ate it and lived throughout the week, so the serpent didn't lie. God did.
8. ## The Official Programming Tips Thread

I noticed that a lot of the programming questions here, while phrased in terms of coding in specific languages, are actually rooted in a broader context of programming itself. People are having problem with the ideas behind programming in general. If we help people with algorithm building, the language-specific syntax falls into place. So, this thread is for tips on programming in general. This isn't about programming in python or programming in java. This is about the fundamental heart of what one needs to do. If anything, it's tips on how to code in PseudocodeTM. I'll start: One of the biggest thing about programming is being able to break a problem down into chunks and then break those subproblems down. Keep doing that until you get a picture of what specifically you need to do to accomplish each major step. So, if your program needs to do things in three big steps, start even lower than pseudocode; start with a list. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Then, take each of those steps and do the same thing. Step 1: Step 1a Step 1b Step 1c Step 2: Step 2a Step 2b Step 2c Step 3: Step 3a Step 3b Step 3c You may or may not notice the indentation. That brings up my second tip. Use indentation, called "whitespace", in your programs and even pseudocode. Some languages require you to have whitespace indentation (like python and the never ending tabs v spaces war), but many do not. It is still good practice for writing though. Most languages have interpreters or compilers that ignore anything about whitespace other than whether there is at least one space between two letters, so it won't hurt the program but it will help you. Writing, or at least planning, with whitespace keeps ideas organized. Look at the example in the previous tip. You see each substep, and it's clear where in the logic that it belongs. It makes code easier to read and understand, even if it's not required. Speaking of readability and understanding, that's where my last two tips come in. Make good names. Names like "MyFunction" or MY_CONSTANT are bad names. They don't tell you what the function is doing or what the constant is for. Make names descriptive, and your code will be easier to understand and easier to read. Rename (or "refactor") if you need to. Many programming environments will even let you replace all instances of one name with instances of the new name, so it won't even be a long tedious thing. Renaming, if giving a new name, is a good thing. It promotes clarity. Comment everywhere. Comment to the point that you think you're overcommenting, and then comment some more. Future you will likely have no idea what your code is doing, so leave good notes for future you to use to figure it out. Your turn.
9. ## How do you know?

How do you know it's not all just a dream? I'm going to guess that this is going to have a similar answer to the 'brain in the vat' hypothesis. Any takers?
10. ## If I can imagine it, it is possible!

The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true? To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that conceivability does not mean epistemic possibility. The second one is a bit harder, since there's disagreement on the exact requirements of what makes something metaphysically possible, but we do know that for something to be metaphysically possible, it must also be logically possible. That is, were things different, an accurate description of the universe still wouldn't entail a contradiction. So, we can knock this out by finding something which is conceivable, yet logically impossible. Can we imagine things which are contradictions? You might be tempted to say "No one can imagine a square circle!". But I'd like to talk about one which almost everyone intuitively conceives. People intuitively like to group things. It's how we make sense of the world. We have apples, chairs, etc. All you have to do is put things together and you have a group. In mathematics, we call these kind of groupings 'sets'. The things in these groups are called "members". Any group of members of a set is called a "subset". This does mean that all sets are subsets of themselves, but that's not of interest to us here. What we're interested in is the idea that you can group whatever you want into a set. You can make sets of sets. You can take your set of cats and your set of dogs and put them together into a new set! So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves. So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, we get a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together. This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.
11. ## William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig has recently been accused of plagiarizing parts of his Masters thesis. The following two part video presents the evidence(the title is a bit misleading; it's a joke from the channel): It seems to me that it's fairly clear-cut that he in fact plagiarized these parts of his thesis. If he did plagiarize, what are the possible repercussions? Can his Masters degree be revoked? We have: "The achievements of this century and its predecessors in the modern period have made it possible for the majority of Western men to emancipate themselves from the numerous restrictions that afflicted men in past centuries."-Easton "The achievements of this century, and indeed, the modern period as a whole have made it possible for the majority of Western men and women to liberate themselves from the numerous restrictions that shackled persons living in past centuries."-WLC and we have: "The individualism that we notice as early as the Renaissance, but which could be in the possession of only a few in that age, has now become possible for the majority."-Easton "The individualism that sprang from the Renaissance, but which could be the possession of only an elite few in that age, has now become possible for the majority."-WLC This isn't even good plagiarism; it is middle school level copy/paste-modify type plagiarism.
12. ## What is Time?

I thought clocks measure other clocks.
13. ## Energy, Cost and Subsidy in Power Production

! Moderator Note This thread has become nothing but Trolling/counter-Trolling/bickering. It is now closed.
14. ## How is energy conserved when length contracts?

Energy is conserved, but not invariant. Within a frame, energy in equals energy out, but between frames, energy need not have the same sum.
15. ## Italy invented the compass.

! Moderator Note This thread started off in a grey area and isn't going anywhere. Upon staff review, this thread is closed.
16. ## Could be a great idea!

! Moderator Note Link in the OP removed. If you want to discuss your speculations here, present them here.
17. ## Removal of the down-vote, yes or no?

Theoretically, improved quality means more up votes, so increased quality over time will "get rid of" the negative reputation. It's not an insurmountable task like it would be were we using the old system where a downvote from somebody with enough positive reputation *cough* swansont *cough* would have such a strong effect that the damage to the reputation would be effectively infinite. And we have both natural and artificial buffers to reputation abuse. Posters notice abuse and often upvote to counteract the unnecessary downvote. Also, we have a special user group that habitual rep abusers get put into. That being said, staff don't read all threads, so we don't notice all abuse. If you think somebody is abusing the reputation system, report a post that was abused and tell us about it. A great way to help with both issues is to be very generous with positive rep. A post doesn't need to win a Pulitzer prize to deserve some rep. The problem there is that it could lead to feuds of reputation abuse. Iirc, we had that sort of problem when you could leave a comment with your rep. Though, that was before I became a demigod. Just so you know, staff *can* see who reps what posts, and it's not always who you think. For example, a few posts above, one poster got a negative rep and the immediately following post is replying with a snide comment. One might reasonably think that the poster making the snide comment left the rep, but they didn't (I checked).
18. ## Scientific Method in climate science

! Moderator Note Upon staff review, this thread will remain closed.
19. ## quantum mechanics related problem

! Moderator Note Homework Help Rules A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed.
20. ## My Favorite Proof 1 = 2 (that doesn't divide by zero)

x^2 = x + x + ... + x (x times) d/dx x^2 = d/dx [x + x + ... + x] 2x = x 2 = 1 Enjoy. Now, can you find the problem?
21. ## My Favorite Proof 1 = 2 (that doesn't divide by zero)

Yeah, as far as I can tell, it's because x is being treated like a constant instead of a function on the right hand side in the first step.
22. ## Greatest Possible Beings and Posets

I contend that the concept of an objectively Greatest Possible Being ("GPB" for short) isn't a coherent concept. As the concept is about being greater than other things, we're talking about Partially Ordered Sets ("posets" for short). To argue a fortiori, I will be making the following GPB friendly assumptions: 0) The greatness interval is bound for all Great Making Property ("GMP" for short) orderings. 1) The orderings for all GMP are chains (totally ordered). 2) The greatness orderings for each GMP are objective. There is an objective fact of the matter that more moral is greater than less moral. 3) There are objective GMP. There is an objective fact of the matter as to whether a given property is a GMP. For the beginning, we'll stick with independent GMP to make things easy and to clearly illustrate the problem. Let's look at two great-making properties, P and Q. The value ordering of P is <P, <> = P1 < P2 < ... < Pn. The greatness ordering of P is <P, ≺> = P1 ≺ P2 ≺ ... ≺ Pn. Similarly, for Q, we have both value ordering and greatness ordering. The value ordering for Q is <Q, <> = Q1 < Q2 < ... < Qm. The greatness ordering for Q is <Q, ≺> = Q1 ≺ Q2 ≺ ... ≺ Qm. Where "X < Y" is "the value of X is less than the value of Y" and "X ≺ Y" is "X is less great than Y". Now, consider two beings, A and B, who exemplify both P and Q to varying degrees. Being A exemplifies P7 and Q12, while entity B exemplifies P12 and Q7. Of the entities A and B, which is greater? To answer that question, we need to look at the product space: PxQ. That's the set of all possible combinations of values of P and Q. So, the entity A, on PxQ, corresponds with point (P7, Q12), and, likewise, B corresponds with point (P12, Q7). Even with the objective ranking, it's not possible to give an objective answer. The product ordering on PxQ only gives a partial ordering, and it's one such that there is no answer as to which of A and B is the greater being [(A ≺ B ) iff ((P(A) ≺ P(B)) and (Q(A) ≺ Q(B)))]. So, the only way to compare them is if one entity is greater in both properties than the other entity. That makes tons of entities not directly comparable. Each added GMP makes more entities incomparable. If we have three GMP, than one entity is greater than another only if it is greater in terms of all three GMP. At this point, you might be wondering, "So? GMP has the property value corresponding to the greatest greatness for all properties. It's (Pn, Qm).". And, if we only had independent properties to deal with, you'd have a point. I introduced independent properties first, so you could see that this is a problem with *ALL* GMP. Not all, GMP, however, are independent. The values of some GMP are linked to the value of other GMP. Sometimes, the more one GMP is exemplified, the less another is. If we then move on to great-making properties such that they aren't independent, but are rather somewhat inversely related (such as moral goodness and potence), then you can't max out the product ordering, since raising one property lowers the other. They come in pairs: (P1, Qm), (P2, Qm-1), ... , (Pn-1, Q2), (Pn, Q1) There is no place in this space of property pairs where one entity is greater than another in all properties. Thus, when we introduce inversely related GMP, we go from losing some ordering to losing all ordering. There is no objective ordering such that a GPB exists.
23. ## Greatest Possible Beings and Posets

I don't actually agree with that assumption. It's part of arguing a fortiori. An argument has more force if you make assumptions that make it harder to make your point, but support the point against which you're arguing. In this case, specifically, denying this assumption in the argument would be tantamount to circular reasoning. It would be arguing that there is no fact of the matter that there is a Greatest Possible Being because there is no fact of the matter that there is no Greatest Possible Being. While logically valid, it's not persuasive, and is in fact an informal fallacy.
24. ## graviton / space / dark matter / dark energy ?

! Moderator Note Everybody play nice. Don't make me turn this car around.
25. ## Greatest Possible Beings and Posets

Newton Medal award? I don't know what that is, but it sounds shiny, and I just can't turn down shiny things.