Most here won't recognise an idea unless it is backed by an authority, that is, one of the local gods (i.e. a developer) or a scientist (preferably American). Since there's already Edward for the former, let the later be represented by the chapter Why Science (Natural Philosophy) is Bullshit and the book Axioms it is part of, written by Robert G. Brown, an American physicist and programmer at Duke University. Lest such authorities as a Mesa developer and an American physicist be doubted, you'll swallow your arrogance and recognise I was right, won't you?
And let's not rant about how discussions are driven by authority instead of truth and so are a socratic myth and, most of the times, a way of losing one's time and getting pointlessly irritated, nor about freedom of expression, which lets morons spread bullshit and thus thwarts freedom of truth.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
13 Patches Published That Effectively Bring RadeonSI To OpenGL 4.5
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by DrYak View PostWell at least those "Reader's Digest" "Philosphy of science" trolls are a refreshing change from all the "BTRFS and SystemD are the Evulz !!!!" trolls as of late.
Or all the Trump/Clinton astroturfing trolls that are currently polluting /.
Originally posted by funfunctor View Postbtw, I would not go as far as to say these posts are trolling, I myself am a mesa developer and I only signed up to this forum because of this topic of the deep philosophy of the domains of logic!
my apologies!
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Well at least those "Reader's Digest" "Philosphy of science" trolls are a refreshing change from all the "BTRFS and SystemD are the Evulz !!!!" trolls as of late.
Or all the Trump/Clinton astroturfing trolls that are currently polluting /.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by atomsymbol
As my final statement in this discussion, I would like to note that, in mathematics and sciences, a useful result supports (verifies) an axiom and a non-useful result unsupports (disproves) an axiom. The process itself is very akin to back-propagation in artificial neural networks.
This is actually a very interesting thing to think about carefully as it is the embodiment of "the problem" with modern mathematics and it has divided mathematics into two fundamentally apposed paradigms of thought. Mine is constructivism however I shall leave you to come up with your own thoughts and allow you to change them over time as your thinking evolves about the topic. A good place to start is perhaps the classic axiom of choice in set theory as an exemplification.
btw, I would not go as far as to say these posts are trolling, I myself am a mesa developer and I only signed up to this forum because of this topic of the deep philosophy of the domains of logic!
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by FireBurn View PostI've squashed these patches and one to enable OpenGL 4.5 on i965 on my mesa-9999 ebuild in the FireBurn overlay for those that want to test it on Gentoo
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by trek View Postfuckin 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...
Anyway, getting back to these patches... Fantastic work. Things are really moving forward. I'm seriously considering going Vega 10 next year even tho Nvidia still have advantage in Linux games right now.
Leave a comment:
-
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...
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostAn experiment without control is invalid, and this since a LONG time ago.
Originally posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_controlA scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable.
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.
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.
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).
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"
Science never claimed to reach the absolute philosophical truth, but to reach things that are "true given this list of CONDITIONS"
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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by atomsymbolIn 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment: