Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

13 Patches Published That Effectively Bring RadeonSI To OpenGL 4.5

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Just release mesa 13 on friday

    Comment


    • #32
      Great, next 13 January is friday - release it then

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        Yes, and if the child theoretical claims are proven true by repeatable experiments, also the assumptions are proven true, within the conditions tested by the experiment.
        No. That an experiment set in accordance to some assumptions works does not imply that those assumptions are true. Imagine, for example, that you assumed that there's a god by whose will you generally feel pain when you are hit. With such an assumption, you could go ahead and test that, and you would find it to be repeatable, yet that wouldn't prove there's such a god. That's cooking ‘truths’. Note that falsificationism doesn't have anything to say here, as to negate the assumption that there's such a god is as impossible as to negate causality. Both are beliefs. It doesn't matter if causality seems true, as that's just a sensation. In ancient times people had such sensations with deities.

        Furthermore, scientific experiments add their own assumptions to the theory behind them: they assume that many factors don't affect the result. That's necessary and ok for practical purposes –this is not what I argue against–, even though in rare ocasions it makes them fail, but renders them unsuitable for yielding truths –what I insist on–.

        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        Newton's gravity laws are still 100% valid even now, within the same constraints where his laws were deemed valid by experimentation. (i.e. these laws fail to give results consistent with real-life measurements when the objects go at relativistic speeds, that is with objects that run at like 20% or more of lightspeed). But as long as you deal with non-relativistic stuff, you can use Newton's laws without ill effects.
        Newton's gravity laws are not valid because things do not behave as they state. What happens is that, at low speeds, the error is so small that our technology barely detects it. In any case, it doesn't matter if it's only in corner cases that the error pops out. There's an error, and that's enough. Of course you can build many things in accordance to them and they will work. And this, by the way, is another argument for what I have said above: two centuries ago they built things in accordance to Newton's laws, and they worked fine, yet that they work fine do not and can not imply that Newton's laws are true, for that would be contradictory.

        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        The assumptions are tested and if they aren't validated they are discarded, what is deemed true enough can be used again in the future. Welcome to scientific method.
        True ‘enough’!? That's quite mediocre logic for someone so fond of sciences.

        This is not against science. What this is against are the beliefs that science is absolutely true and that there's an essential difference between science and so-called “superstition” or religions. There are plenty of differences between sciences and religions. Their assumptions are different. Their methods are different. Science builds rockets, religions do not. But both have assumptions, so they're not radically different. An example of this situation is your beloved constitution, before which any two persons, being of course two different persons, are yet both people, i.e., not radically different.

        Comment


        • #34
          I forgot to add one final point about truth in generality when one speaks about the scientific method vs. dogmatic paradigms.

          Critically - within the scope of the scientific method the resulting inferred model need not have to be true at all, it need only be useful as that is both sufficient and complete ! Dogmatic principles however typically _do_ require/consider themselves to be universally true however not necessarily directly useful. Truth and usefulness do not have equivalency.

          In fact, usually when you model you want to remove absolute truths out from your model so your results are not baked into your actual model aka "over fitting". The idea is to motivate a model from the scientific method such that it is the absolute minimum mechanics to reliably predict a set of results under a given set of constraints.

          Mathematics is kind of half way between these two schools of thought in a sense because Mathematics does require things to be true in a absolute sense however only up to that of the axioms. You may ask, isn't then Mathematics dogmatic in that you can make up your own axioms and claim things to be true, well yes and you would be right ! You can indeed build your own Mathematics, however would its formalism be as useful as the common one, possibly not. For the interested reader, this is hot topic in Mathematics today, where in the school of maths "hot topic" means its been raging for only a few hundred years Any way, look up HoTT vs. Set Theory..

          Cheers,
          Edward.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by kalrish View Post
            No. That an experiment set in accordance to some assumptions works does not imply that those assumptions are true.
            Yeah, we all knew you have no idea of proper experimental procedures because you are an idiot with moderate philosophical knowledge playing sophist vs Socrates but getting schooled hard by the latter.
            You ever heard of Scientific control? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control
            An experiment without control is invalid, and this since a LONG time ago.

            With such an assumption, you could go ahead and test that, and you would find it to be repeatable, yet that wouldn't prove there's such a god.
            And with scientific control you would get that also that by repeating the same test without the same assumption you get the same results as with it, so the answer is that the assumption is bullshit.

            Really, you cannot argue science if you don't know the basics of it. Consider your whole point invalid, I'm answering it only for fun.

            Newton's gravity laws are not valid because things do not behave as they state. What happens is that, at low speeds, the error is so small that our technology barely detects it.
            And this is enough to state that newton's laws are true at low speeds.
            Due to other obvious reasons you cannot claim there is an error if it is undetectable by the sensors used, so according to all evidence the above is still true.

            In any case, it doesn't matter if it's only in corner cases that the error pops out. There's an error, and that's enough. Of course you can build many things in accordance to them and they will work. And this, by the way, is another argument for what I have said above: two centuries ago they built things in accordance to Newton's laws, and they worked fine, yet that they work fine do not and can not imply that Newton's laws are true, for that would be contradictory.
            You seem to default the meaning of "truth" to "absolute all-encompassing truth that is true in any and all conditions".
            Newton's laws are true and correct within specific conditions, as they give the same answers as real-life measurements within these specific conditions, and still do so and will keep doing so.

            Really, isn't something true if it is true within specific conditions now? Like the statement "the letter o is in the following word: word" This statement is true or false depending on conditions (is letter o in it?) and on the observed phenomenon (the word).

            True ‘enough’!? That's quite mediocre logic for someone so fond of sciences.
            Yes, because by its own admission you cannot use science to get to the "absolute all-encompassing truth that is true in any and all conditions" because one of its requirements is that to state something "true" you need proof and to follow a rigid procedure. You can't have true definitive proof to reach this "absolute all-encompassing truth that is true in any and all conditions" as sensors will always have a non-infinite sensitivity.

            If you ever even tried to think of science like something that wanted to reach "absolute all-encompassing truth that is true in any and all conditions", you are a complete moron and you should study what science is before wasting everyone's time.

            This is not against science. What this is against are the beliefs that science is absolutely true and that there's an essential difference between science and so-called “superstition” or religions.
            Science never claimed to reach the absolute philosophical truth, but to reach things that are "true given this list of CONDITIONS", while religion or superstition always claim they are absolutely truthfully always true and then fail to provide any kind of proof.

            But both have assumptions, so they're not radically different.
            Well, every human idea is based on assumptions anyway so I don't think you can use this to say if something is different or not from something else.

            It's like saying that cars and skyscrapers are the not "radically different" because both are physical objects.
            You are using "radically different" in a wrong way, relearn english.

            An example of this situation is your beloved constitution, before which any two persons, being of course two different persons, are yet both people, i.e., not radically different.
            Don't assume that all the world is 'Murrca and everyone speaking english is 'Murrcan. You were lucky as my nation's constitution also states that, but many places lack a constitution or such statement in theirs.

            Comment


            • #36
              unapproved post for kalrish above, it will be shown eventually.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
                In my understanding, usefulness does not necessitate an objective. A measurement of usefulness can happen after many years, even when the authors are long after their death.
                Usefulness depends on an objective in the sense that something is useful to some ends (and not others). Whether something is useful thus depends on what you want to get. If making our lives more comfortable is part of the objective, science is useful.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  An experiment without control is invalid, and this since a LONG time ago.
                  First, the fact that experiments don't yield truths is not due to lack of control; and, second, not everything is controlled. Since it seems that you either don't read or don't understand what you link, I'll quote it for you:

                  Originally posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control
                  A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable.
                  I might not be a native, but «minimize» is not «nullify».

                  And with scientific control you would get that also that by repeating the same test without the same assumption you get the same results as with it, so the answer is that the assumption is bullshit.
                  And with religious control you would get that, repeating the same test without the assumption of particles and energy, you get the same results as with it. The answer, though, is not that any one of those assumptions is bullshit, but rather that they both lead to equally coherent interpretations. Explanations, scientific or religious, are valid only as long as their supositions are accepted.

                  Due to other obvious reasons you cannot claim there is an error if it is undetectable by the sensors used, so according to all evidence the above is still true.
                  As Edward has said, there's a difference between truth and usefulness. If it's a toy cannon you're building, by all means go with Newton's laws. Measuring it will not show significant difference with a cannon built in accordance to newer theories, so it's equivalent for practical purposes, i.e., it's useful. But no way does that mean that the ball that's thrown actually moves according to Newton's laws.

                  You seem to default the meaning of "truth" to "absolute all-encompassing truth that is true in any and all conditions".
                  Of course. That's been its meaning in theoretical contexts for centuries and it shall not be redefined to save philosophy's or science's prestige, as many try.

                  Newton's laws are true and correct within specific conditions, as they give the same answers as real-life measurements within these specific conditions, and still do so and will keep doing so.
                  They are useful, but not true. Science acknowledges reality doesn't abide by them (no matter what you have said earlier about science deeming them a ‘subset’ of the newer theories), even if it seems so to the eye and to most sensors. Even if they are enough for most purposes.

                  Really, isn't something true if it is true within specific conditions now? Like the statement "the letter o is in the following word: word" This statement is true or false depending on conditions (is letter o in it?) and on the observed phenomenon (the word).
                  Conditions are not assumptions. Assumptions of that statement are the concept of letter, the letter ‘o’, the concept of word, English, and more. Assumptions are everywhere, while only logical propositions have conditions (other things have what they call «conditions», but their conditions are not the same as the conditions of logical propositions). Both logical propositions and conditions are, in fact, concepts, and are assumed in considering your statement as a logical proposition.

                  you cannot use science to get to the "absolute all-encompassing truth that is true in any and all conditions"
                  This I've been arguing all the time.

                  … because one of its requirements is that to state something "true" you need proof and to follow a rigid procedure. You can't have true definitive proof to reach this "absolute all-encompassing truth that is true in any and all conditions" as sensors will always have a non-infinite sensitivity.
                  That sensors are imperfect is not the reason science doesn't provide absolute truths. This you would know if you stopped insulting and set out to know the difference between induction and deduction, which was such a hot topic that it makes me think you actually know little about science. Even if scientists looked at all cases (they do not) with infinite-precision sensors (which will never exist), all knowledge they would achieve would be about the cases, not the causes. The reason science doesn't provide absolute truths is that it makes assumptions and, therefore, all and any of its results depend on them. Absolute truths do not depend on assumptions. That said, it seems we both agree that absolute truths are impossible.

                  If you ever even tried to think of science like something that wanted to reach "absolute all-encompassing truth that is true in any and all conditions"
                  I believed that was its purpose, and it was natural that I believed so, given the way things are explained, as though they were true in an absolute sense. Many people nowadays, mostly naïve scientists and arrogant atheists, also have such misbelief, and believe things as stupid as that there are atoms or that science has proven that God doesn't exist.

                  Science never claimed to reach the absolute philosophical truth, but to reach things that are "true given this list of CONDITIONS"
                  Why then such terminology («true»,…) and wording («It happens because…», «There are…»)? It would be understandable to use it for the public, but it's unacceptable in proper writing, yet it's widespread there. As if they didn't actually know and wrongly believed that. Just sayin'.

                  Well, every human idea is based on assumptions anyway so I don't think you can use this to say if something is different or not from something else.
                  Every claim is based on assumptions. Since assumptions are all equally valid/invalid, as they cannot be proven (in the absolute sense), but are instead to be believed (or not), no claim, interpretation, explanation or theory is any more valid than the others so long as it's coherent with its assumptions, as they all, being derived from assumptions, inherit their validity value, which is the same.

                  Don't assume that all the world is 'Murrca and everyone speaking english is 'Murrcan. You were lucky as my nation's constitution also states that, but many places lack a constitution or such statement in theirs.
                  Even if your country didn't have a constitution or its constitution didn't state that, the mistake would have been merely linguistic, and just a possessive, something so petty it should award you the prize to the most pedantic.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                    Newton's gravity laws are still 100% valid even now, within the same constraints where his laws were deemed valid by experimentation. (i.e. these laws fail to give results consistent with real-life measurements when the objects go at relativistic speeds, that is with objects that run at like 20% or more of lightspeed). But as long as you deal with non-relativistic stuff, you can use Newton's laws without ill effects.
                    • Some physical systems include bifurcation points. In such cases any kind of deviation, irrespective of how small the deviation is, can cause the system to behave differently. The objects do not need to be moving at more than 20% speed of light for Newtonian and relativistic mechanics to diverge significantly.
                    • Some physical systems implement a Universal Turing Machine (UTM) with finite memory. If the UTM and the program running in the UTM are capable of measuring relativistic deviations resulting from sublight (less than 20% of lightspeed) speed differences then this difference can lead the machine (via a normal if-then-else statement known to every programmer) to two completely distinct states.

                    The two above points are basically just different ways of how to understand/explain the single underlying phenomenon: That any small perturbation can lead the system to a completely different state. The perturbation must be measurable of course.

                    If there's no way of measuring X then X doesn't exist.

                    A measurement measures differences.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      fuckin philosophers, please go troll another forum!
                      this thread was about radeonsi, so you can take all your superstition and science and put them up your...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X