13 Patches Published That Effectively Bring RadeonSI To OpenGL 4.5

[kalrish]

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.

[trek]

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 /.

absolutely, I was probably too tired to search something about the topic, sorry

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!

sorry again, I should simply ignore what it is out of my scope, but in the future I would suggest to create a new topic on the "General Discussion" area to continue the discussion and simply post a link here

my apologies!

[DrYak]

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 /.

[funfunctor]

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.

Actually no, an axiom by its very definition can neither be proved nor disproved. An axiom is in fact an *assertion of truth*! That isn't as bad as it may sound though.

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!

[fuzz]

I'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

Thanks man! I remember using your overlays for steam on Gentoo way back before we had ABI_X86 settings in portage. Hah, that was fun dealing with all those 32 bit libs!

[LeJimster]

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...

Lol, I don't mind philosophy or science. But your right.. I'm eagerly looking for peeps comments on the new mesa ogl 4.x work and had to skip through all that off topic bs.

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.

[trek]

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...

[kalrish]

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:

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.

[kalrish]

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.

[starshipeleven]

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