You’re not helpless to look up facts. If you’re asking where to look go to the source. For the example I mentioned you can look at her platform. Your stance seems to be very close to the “how can we know anything” which is often pushed as a mindset when a group of bad actors calls everything into question to avoid accountability. Truths can be known, things can be confirmed.
As for court, I said it’s more trustworthy, but not absolute by any means. It’s controlled by people, and people are not infallible.
Names are arbitrary and I think the officiation of my name is only useful for financial purposes. I can read and type for sure, but who is to decide that the way I’m doing it is correct? Besides, these are working knowledge rather than truth of the matter. We can work with electricity without knowing it’s full nature. Apparently electricity is incredibly weird.
You can clearly understand the concepts I’m conveying. We’re having a conversation. Acting like we can’t know anything is silly.
Yes, we can use things without knowing how they work, but even then we know how to use it. You know how to type to express yourself, and clearly you’re doing it right because I can read it. I feel like this is trying to be existential but is just very 13 year old “deep thoughts”.
What can a computer know? Only what signals you feed it. Whether those signals are true or not can’t really be determined. Doesn’t matter if you send a million of the same thing. Labeled as “peer review”. There is no determining what is the certain truth of something. It’s the reason we have English prime.
Yes there is. You’re acting like objective truths don’t exist. Water is made of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms. We know this, we can repeat it, it is predictable. This is why the scientific method exists.
I mean you’re expressing a lot of strong opinions for someone who says they don’t know anything. You seem to know enough to disagree with me at the very least lol.
Objective truths only exist in information handling from a singular perspective. That water you’re talking about can just as easily be part of a simulation. A better example of an objective truth is that 2 inputs in an AND gate turned on outputs on. You can show me something you call an AND gate and show me a million results with various inputs and outputs and I can learn to trust it even, but I can’t determine with absolute certainly that it’s an AND gate. I’ll still play with it though. It’s working knowledge, not absolute truth. You should look up English prime.
Ahhh so we’ve devolved to “everything could be a simulation were living in.” But of a cop out since that’s all “what ifs” with no proof, the thing science and reality is based on.
Again you keep mixing up concepts. You are taking a situation where you only know inputs and outputs and the unknown is a black box. We can go and look at a logic gate and look at the circuit and say, yes, it is an AND gate. We can just look at how it’s structured and know for sure. Logic gates have physical characteristics that govern how they operate.
By your own logic you could be absolutely wrong about all this but you feel confident enough to keep arguing it. Does that mean you’re arguing a point you don’t understand or even know is true?
You’re not helpless to look up facts. If you’re asking where to look go to the source. For the example I mentioned you can look at her platform. Your stance seems to be very close to the “how can we know anything” which is often pushed as a mindset when a group of bad actors calls everything into question to avoid accountability. Truths can be known, things can be confirmed.
As for court, I said it’s more trustworthy, but not absolute by any means. It’s controlled by people, and people are not infallible.
Nothing is knowable. The map is not the territory and mappers have motivations.
So you don’t know your own name, how to read or type? Impressive.
Names are arbitrary and I think the officiation of my name is only useful for financial purposes. I can read and type for sure, but who is to decide that the way I’m doing it is correct? Besides, these are working knowledge rather than truth of the matter. We can work with electricity without knowing it’s full nature. Apparently electricity is incredibly weird.
You can clearly understand the concepts I’m conveying. We’re having a conversation. Acting like we can’t know anything is silly.
Yes, we can use things without knowing how they work, but even then we know how to use it. You know how to type to express yourself, and clearly you’re doing it right because I can read it. I feel like this is trying to be existential but is just very 13 year old “deep thoughts”.
What can a computer know? Only what signals you feed it. Whether those signals are true or not can’t really be determined. Doesn’t matter if you send a million of the same thing. Labeled as “peer review”. There is no determining what is the certain truth of something. It’s the reason we have English prime.
Yes there is. You’re acting like objective truths don’t exist. Water is made of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms. We know this, we can repeat it, it is predictable. This is why the scientific method exists.
I mean you’re expressing a lot of strong opinions for someone who says they don’t know anything. You seem to know enough to disagree with me at the very least lol.
Objective truths only exist in information handling from a singular perspective. That water you’re talking about can just as easily be part of a simulation. A better example of an objective truth is that 2 inputs in an AND gate turned on outputs on. You can show me something you call an AND gate and show me a million results with various inputs and outputs and I can learn to trust it even, but I can’t determine with absolute certainly that it’s an AND gate. I’ll still play with it though. It’s working knowledge, not absolute truth. You should look up English prime.
me when I love solipsism
Ahhh so we’ve devolved to “everything could be a simulation were living in.” But of a cop out since that’s all “what ifs” with no proof, the thing science and reality is based on.
Again you keep mixing up concepts. You are taking a situation where you only know inputs and outputs and the unknown is a black box. We can go and look at a logic gate and look at the circuit and say, yes, it is an AND gate. We can just look at how it’s structured and know for sure. Logic gates have physical characteristics that govern how they operate.
By your own logic you could be absolutely wrong about all this but you feel confident enough to keep arguing it. Does that mean you’re arguing a point you don’t understand or even know is true?