Sentrovasi
@Sentrovasi@kbin.social
- Comment on YSK : Moral values of being nice, forgiving and generosity are justified by game theory to be successful strategies 10 months ago:
I saw this and immediately thought about Nicky Case's game on The Evolution of Trust. I was really glad to see it was referenced in the video as the main inspiration for it!
(https://ncase.me/trust) - Link because I think everyone should try it for themselves as well.
- Comment on Any recommendations for time loop games? 10 months ago:
Slay the Princess is a relatively light game (largely narrative) that has this as part of its conceit.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 11 months ago:
It's unfortunate that you've chosen to focus on a semantic nitpick as the only thing to reply to rather than all the other more interesting talking points.
It's also unfortunate that you've chosen to condescend throughout all the posts you've written, which really makes me want to not rely to you.
That said, you've already shown a brutal contradiction:
Wikipedia:
'to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments'Tutors:
'contribute to an axiomatic system'Wolfram:
'a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof. The word “axiom” is a slightly archaic synonym for postulate.'What these definitions all say that I think you're wilfully choosing to ignore (or just not reading carefully enough) is that these are all assumptions meant to make a system internally logical.
It's also amazing how you can say
'Saying 1 + 1 = 2 serves as foundation for further deductive reasoning [...] is generic, imprecise, and worthless'
when that is literally what half of your definitions also say.
'Saying 1 + 1 = 2 is Axiomatic is like saying Oxygen is an axiom or axiomatic. To further build the periodic table. No, Oxygen just is, a fundamental piece of reality which is also true!'
You're still not getting it, which means you're not reading anything I've said at all about human-centric perception (which is a shame given how much time I've had to spend trying to parse your poor semantics.)
There's a difference between the element and atoms of Oxygen that do exist in our world and the name and observed properties of Oxygen that we have derived and given to Oxygen. The strange thing is that I think while everyone else agrees that the testing, observing, and ascribing of properties to something is science, you think that the existence of oxygen itself is science (and therefore science is truth?)
Fundamentally your dogmatic clinging to axioms as somehow underpinning some universal truth when they are meant to be convenient frameworks to build upon shows a very shallow understanding of the building blocks with which humans have built our understanding of the world. I highly recommend you take the scientific method to heart and try posting these "deep" thoughts in other places to see if anyone else agrees that they're deep. If they don't, I invite you to revise your hypothesis and reassess whether what's "true" to you really is true to the mathematicians and scientists of the world.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 11 months ago:
We can take your axiom, 1+1 = 2, and break it down into where fundamentally one of your biggest misunderstandings is.
We came up with the equivalence of 1+1=2, and deemed it true. Someone else in this comment section already brought up the idea of axioms, and while 1+1=2 is a theorem rather than an axiom, it is built on axioms that have been defined as fact for the rest of the framework to stand.
Science (and Math) is a purely anthropic system or framework. 1+1=2 isn't a universal constant if we look at the fusion of two Hydrogen atoms into one Helium atom (with extra energy being released!) The very idea of what 1 is can change depending on your reference point and may not stay the same between observers. While 1+1 may stay the same in the world of pure Mathematics (and a very robust world it is we have created!) it is much harder to apply them to real life (does this make Mathematics "true-er" than reality?)
- Comment on Isn’t the use of strict behaviorism to explain animals kind of obnoxious? 11 months ago:
I think you're free to believe what makes you happy :)
But making assumptions can be dangerous in science, and misconceptions, especially in the information age, can be very hard to disabuse. I'm happy for shows to not jump to conclusions just so twenty years later we're not stuck with myths that may actually be harmful to how we understand the animals we all love.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 11 months ago:
This is really strange in two ways.
One, you're not describing science but existence. Science is nothing if not a framework of knowledge based on the scientific method. To somehow come up with a definition of science that separates it from the scientific method actually removes all qualities of knowledge from science (do you think religious people also don't define their knowledge as "what is"?) On the whole, basing your definition of "Science" as how laymen define science seems to be a strange way to try to make a supposedly mathematical argument - from imprecision and abstraction?
Two, to conflate Science with existence essentially is concocting a truism - like when someone asks you to solve for x you've chosen to define x as whatever you want then solve it. Science as the sum of empirical human knowledge is an approximation of x, and as a mathematician I'm sure you understand the significance of how an approximation of something is a world apart from the thing itself. You cannot say that science is truth, therefore science is true - that is a pointless statement that completely drops all the reasons why science is more truthful than religious knowledge or any other form of knowledge.
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 11 months ago:
"If the story of Adam and Eve wasn't true and correct, then there wouldn't be any humans."
You have a very binary understanding of what is necessary for something to be true that is almost dogmatic.
The rules of chemistry need not be true and correct for formulas to succeed. People were doing correct things for the wrong reasons, even scientifically, for centuries, if not millennia. Think about things like surgeons not washing hands, inefficient gunpowder, bloodletting, or the attempts at a unified theory of Physics - we know that not everything is correct, yet the formulas don't fail at small enough scales/slow enough scales/within certain observational parameters.
You're right that science aims for truth, but that doesn't mean it can attain anything more than our closest approximation of the truth (limited by human perspectives and resources). We believe in it because it is what works, for now. And the beauty of this is that if one day some incontrovertible proof for a higher being does come up, we will recalibrate all our theories to account for it (presumably after very, very stringent checks.)
- Comment on "Belief in Science" Oxymoronic Explainer for SecOps/Mathematicians/Programmers 11 months ago:
If all it takes to make science truth is to provide quotes of famous people calling it truth, then religion is probably truth a thousand times over.
A lot of the arguments and evidence you bring to the table are circular and only true from the reference point of whatever internal logic you've decided to assemble for yourself. Does this mean you're surrounded by Chinese shills? Probably not, but that is also apparently the truth you've decided to believe in, evidence be damned.
What people are trying to make you see is that epistemologically, absolute truth is a ridiculous bar that, if you set as the hurdle for science to meet, is only going to disappoint you time and again.
Scientific knowledge does not have any special status or truth value conferred on it beyond the very educated guesswork of scientists and the time and effort and money that goes into verification. It's an endeavour that relies entirely on empiricism and the flaws that come with having limited human perceptions.
Does this mean that science is exactly the same as religion when it comes to reliability? Of course not, because the things that you choose to believe in when you believe in science are different, more accurate and reproducible.
To claim that science has some ineffable attribute that puts it above any other belief, on the other hand, is discounting and discrediting the effort and very nature of scientific knowledge, and ascribing to it the kind of mystic quality that is exactly what makes religious knowledge so ridiculous.
- Comment on Which controller did you start with? 11 months ago:
Sega Saturn controller. Unplugged while my Uncle played Sonic and told me I was Tails.
- Comment on Which controller did you start with? 11 months ago:
Sega Saturn controller. Unplugged while my Uncle played Sonic and told me I was Tails.
- Comment on He has a point 11 months ago:
It feels like less of a big deal than you're making it out to be, but I might be too old and cynical.
- Comment on He has a point 11 months ago:
Given that five days of the week are weekdays, it already would suck 5/7 of the time, but people already make do.
- Comment on What were your top favorite video games as a kid? 11 months ago:
I'm thinking about the games I played in my childhood that influenced what I like to play now, so it might be only halfway relevant to the question.
First monster collector: Pokemon Blue. Digimon World 1 was also one of my favourites, because of how real it felt, like a real monster. The one other monster game I really got into as a child was Dragon Warrior Monsters 2, I think I played Cobi's journey. It helped that a lot of my friends were playing it.
First builder: Simcity 3000. Started my lifelong love for city builders, even though I'm not great at them per se.
Theme Hospital and Dungeon Keeper 2 were my introduction to management sims and also my favourites for a long time.
As a kid I absolutely loved this RTS called Warbreeds because of the ability to graft any weapon onto any unit. Nowadays though I just find such mechanics fiddly, but as a kid it felt so sci-fi. In terms of time spent playing, though, the standout RTS was probably Starcraft.
I also played on a lot of MUDs as a kid. Wheel of Time (but had never read the books), Discworld (but had also never read the books), Aardwolf and I think one or two others. I was amazed at how it felt like I could do so much (even though most of the "free" actions were just emotes.
My first graphical MMO was I think Maplestory, which was a huge part of my social life as a kid. I think I miss the feeling of being part of a big community than the MMO experience itself, honestly. Nowadays when I try getting into MMOs it feels like that feeling of being a part of a giant community of people is gone.
- Comment on xkcd #2839: Language Acquisition 1 year ago:
Vocabulary presumably means learning the meaning of something, which means the parents must have been pretty dedicated in teaching the child the word "twelve" without poisoning their mind with knowledge of how to say any other numbers.
- Comment on Isn't it weird that we have exactly five fingers and five toes on each hand and foot. 1 year ago:
It's a burn and also true. If a genetic mutation becomes prevalent enough, it's no longer really considered to be a "mutation".
- Comment on In its first week, Immortals of Aveum had a peak count of just 751 players on Steam. 1 year ago:
I've literally never heard about it until this post.
Looking at the reviews seems like a shame as the only complaints are the hardware limitations. Still won't be getting it until I finish (at least some of) my backlog.
- Comment on Lemmy is more left leaning because the rights popularity seen on other social media are driven by bots that are not here. 1 year ago:
As someone who skews quite far left ideologically but believes that people on both sides have been painted into polarised caricatures in each others' minds by social media, I wholeheartedly agree.
- Comment on Want to truely let reddit die and walk away? dont delete your posts, tamper with them. 1 year ago:
I've let it go, and so should you.
- Comment on Welp that answers a lot of why all .ml are down 1 year ago:
Yes, it stands for Mali, no, it's not why lemmygrad used the domain name. Do you think all the services like Grammarly and Bitly are all Libyan services as well? Because I've got news that may just blow your mind.
Please stop copy-pasting ignorance.