ydoaPs

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?

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Hm.. I don't agree with this statement..

You're trying to use mathematics, to classify human-made concepts like "morality".. What is this "morality"? What is this "greater moral" or "less moral".. ?

 

If you will kill bug, are you more moral than if you will kill fish?

If you will kill fish, are you more moral than if you will kill cow? How to judge it.. ?

What if that fish, or bug, was new specie which (if you wouldn't kill it) evolve to completely new branch of organisms, which would after millions of years become intelligent, create civilization, and start flying to cosmos.. basically replacing humans after e.g. nuclear war.. ?

 

How to convert it (human-made concepts like "morality") to math number (integer? real? irrational?), so you will be able to use comparison operator on them.. ?

 

One of my beloved examples: mass extinction of dinosaurs. From point of view of dinosaurs, it was the end of their life.. the worst est day in their entire history.. From point of view of mammals (at least the one which survived), the greatest thing that could happen.

Now, some humanist-religious person would say "thanks God, that dinosaurs died! He/she did it for us to be able to appear on the Earth!".. and it'll be example of anthropocentrism, misconception which is the core of the all major religions of this world, that Earth was made for humans, and source of many modern problems, with e.g. global warming, destruction and devastation of natural environment, etc. etc.

The same might say successor of fish, or bug, after millions years from now.. "thanks God, that humans died! He/she did it for us to be able to appear on the Earth!"..

 

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.

18 hours ago, koti said:

On top of this being the most productive thread in religion since I came here, the proof is flawless...well almost flawless because its missing the GPB coolness ordering but that is always zero so it may be left out. Nevertheless, I think this is ready for the Newton Medal award. 

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

1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

I think you mean the singularity moment of the bigbang. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that the universe is inescapably requires a beginning.

Despite how often apologists with no understanding of physics make this claim, it's not true. Fyi, two of the three have publicly stated that the above quoted claim is false, while the third, afaik, has not commented on the subject. 

Pro tip: Don't get your science from people who are paid to lie to gullible people

4 hours ago, studiot said:

I am not sure where to post this so have used Philosophy (of Science) to allow latitude in exploring this subject.

I hope it will make a welcome change from the current Philosophy subject we have surely now done to surely death.

Dimensional analysis is a very powerful technique in Science and is one of the things that distinguishes Science from Pure Mathematics, but to repeat the title,

Is it necessary for all equations in Science to be dimensionally consistent?

7 apples = 3 bananas

50 minutes ago, Strange said:

Interesting.... (I think )

I only have a couple of comments:

• Shouldn't GMP be Greatness Making Property? (sorry, am pedantically editing a long document)
• Do we know that there are GMPs that are inversely related? (I am not too convinced by moral goodness vs potence.) I assume it only takes one such pair to confirm your conclusion?

And another thought: can we really have an objective ordering of GMPs? What one person/culture thinks is better might be considered worse by another. But, again, I guess you only need some objective GMPS, rather than all of them being objective.

Does a chaotic neutral god not have more options for action than a lawful good god?

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 < ... < P_n.
The greatness ordering of P is <P, ≺> = P₁ ≺ P₂ ≺ ... ≺ P_n.

Similarly, for Q, we have both value ordering and greatness ordering.

The value ordering for Q is <Q, <> = Q₁ < Q₂ < ... < Q_m.
The greatness ordering for Q is <Q, ≺> = Q₁ ≺ Q₂ ≺ ... ≺ Q_m.

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, Q_m), (P₂, Q_m-1), ... , (P_n-1, Q₂), (P_n, 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.

10 hours ago, Moreno said:

Without a citation, I would say that many novels are based around time travel. Do you believe it can become a reality?

I take it you didn't actually read the OP. It's generally good practice to do that before posting in its thread.

In linguistics, a cognates are words two different languages that sound the same and have the same meaning. English "beer" and German "Bier" are cognates. Similarly, false cognates sound the same, but have vastly different meanings. English "gift" and German "Gift" are false cognates, as an English gift is something you get someone you like and the German Gift is something you give someone you want to die, namely poison.

In CS, different languages have similar ideas with similar names. Floats, ints, and doubles are everywhere. 

I'm interested in seeing your favorite examples false cognates in programming languages.

My favorite is the for loop. Python's for loop is nothing like the rest of the for loops.

Python's for loop iterates over an iterable while letting the program do stuff with the current member for each iteration. The rest of them initialize a variable, then let the program do stuff with the variable, then increment/decrement the variable. That goes on until the cessation condition is met.

Python:

for member in iterable:
  stuff(member)

C++:

for(initialize variable; cessation condition; increment/decrement){
  stuff(variable);}

For python to mimic the other for loops, it would need a while loop.

def cpp_for(initialization, condition, incrementation):
  i  = initialization
  while(condition):
    stuff(i)
    i += 1 if incrementation == 'increment' else i -= 1

What's your favorite example?

28 minutes ago, professorvaughn said:

I'm really bad at this sort of thing and this is not homework, just curious about learning how to do this type of problem.

80 is the represented number of 25% of the people
Find the other represented number for 75% of the other people

80 = 0.25x
y = 0.75x

Solve for y. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Unless I misread... this is less about (let's say) a self-driving car being forced to choose between running over an infant or a grandmother and more about us choosing to remove the battery from that self-driving car... if there's some threshold capability where that battery removal becomes an unethical form of murder. 

Probably more of a fuzzy gradient than a sharp line, but that's the idea. 

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe, but do we care? 

That's kind of the target of the thread: when should we care?

1 minute ago, Prometheus said:

 

That suggests to me that the coders anticipated the AI could develop it's own language. In this case I would say the coders are accountable for the AIs actions because it was anticipated, even if not explicitly added.

 

But anticipation wasn't your criterion; explicitly being coded was.

24 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

How about when an AI performs an action it has not been explicitly coded to do it is accountable for that action?

Facebook's AI made its own language--an act for which it was not programmed. As did Google Translate. Would deactivating either of these be tantamount to murder?

What features would be required in an AI for us to include it in our moral sphere of consideration?

Facebook just shut down an AI. With what minimum features of the AI would that be immoral?

Since it's clear that the OP is not returning in time for the homework to be submitted, the answer is "input 1 AND NOT input 2".

x 0 1
0 0 0
1 1 0

That's an odd table, so we know it's not a single gate.

not:
x
0 1
1 0

or:
x 0 1
0 0 1
1 1 1

xor:
x 0 1
0 0 1
1 1 0
nor:
x 0 1
0 1 0
1 0 0

and:
x 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 1

nand:
x 0 1
0 1 1
1 1 0

Which combinations of these gates have you tried?

Hint: It's only two gates.

but we were in the middle of a discussion

That's usually when we close them.

Surprisingly, Jebediah Kermin survived all of my rockets so far. I still haven't looked at any tutorials, but I think I will soon.

I'm playing through the career mode before I go into sandbox mode.

...Kerbal Space Program is half off on the Steam Summer Sale.

I just got it. I know that Scott Manly is one of the best tutorial sources for it on YouTube.

Anybody have other suggestions?

Imatfaal, the theory of evolution of life on Earth contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

 

So either the theory of evolution is incorrect or the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect, so which is it?

Too bad there isn't a giant ball of plasma bathing the Earth in usable energy.

 

Imagine you are in the middle of I century AD, in Roman Empire,

are you supporting Caligula.. ? Or are you against him.. ?

Are you supporting Nero.. ? Or are you against him.. ?

 

For me you are supporter of either Caligula and Nero.. Supporter of whatever government you live in..

What makes you think that?

I am amazed how little most here know about the meaning of the Second Amendment. It is exactly and totally about shooting our own government when such government gets out of control.

Why do you think that? Again, shooting at the government is the only crime detailed in the Constitution and the stated purpose of the second amendment is to make the prosecution of the crime run smoothly.

How do you get that a purpose of the amendment is to condone said crime?

If our bodies are made of atoms and there is an infinite number of atoms in the universe because the Universe is infinite, then shouldn't an afterlife be theoretically possible?

Why would that imply life after death? Walk us through your thought process.