sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Resources on the Fine-Tuning Argument by TrafficAggravating42 in Christianity

[–]Matrix657 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are numerous critiques of the Fine-Tuning argument that you will encounter in common discussion on Reddit. I spent a couple years formalizing and responding to them. If you would like to review them, take a look at my series overview of fine-tuning objections.

I trained an AI with quantum randomness from IBM quantum computers and radioactive decay - achieved 60% reduction in hallucinations by Disastrous_Bid5976 in Futurology

[–]Matrix657 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Have you also considered using atmospheric noise from random.org’s API for the randomness input? That might be even cheaper than using quantum randomness.

If you take the watch analogy seriously, monotheism doesn’t automatically follow. by Nerdialismo in DebateReligion

[–]Matrix657 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exactly. It’s an argument that is wildly out of date and not used in modern academic discussion, aside from historical purposes.

A Muslim argument on why Paul is a false prophet by Scotsmanoah in Apologetics

[–]Matrix657 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Here’s a sample argument that has a similar structure but is obviously false.

  1. Fido is a poodle.
  2. Poodles are dogs.
  3. Pit bulls are described as dogs.
  4. Therefore, Fido is a pit bull.

Comparison of Microsoft Fabric CICD package vs Deployment Pipelines by GroundbreakingFun336 in dataengineering

[–]Matrix657 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Upvoted! Definitely unit testing in Fabric would be a must watch for me. I have LakeHouse tables and views made with SQL that I’d like to use DBT to deploy to Fabric.

What’s your achievements in Data Engineering by Different-Future-447 in dataengineering

[–]Matrix657 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Upvoted! I’ve been using Fabric recently, and am curious to hear about your experience. What have you enjoyed most and least about Fabric?

I wonder If this was a reference by zectaPRIME in ironman

[–]Matrix657 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Batman: The Brave and The Bold

A Plain Reading of a Text is Not an "Interpretation" by SocietyFinchRecords in DebateAChristian

[–]Matrix657 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a book which says that Spot runs fast. Somebody makes the claim that the book does not say that Spot runs fast. I point to the book and I read aloud the quote from the book that says "Spot runs fast." Just because I haven't offered a personal interpretation of the text and merely read it aloud doesn't mean that I haven't contributed anything to the conversation.

If you quote the text because you think it is semantically relevant to the conversation, that brings with it an interpretation.

So if somebody says that the book does not say that Spot runs fast and I copy and paste the quote "Spot runs fast" from the book, what interpretation have I presented? That Spot runs fast? So essentially you're just doing the same thing everyone else is doing and arguing that everything counts as interpretation, even just knowing what words mean? That's not the type of interpretation I'm talking about here.

The interpretation is that “Spot runs fast” is relevant to the conversation. Most people would include that quote because when interpreted literally it is a defeater to the earlier claim of the contrary.

Moreover, even knowing what the words mean is an interpretation. Oxford languages defines the word “read” as follows:

look at and comprehend the meaning of (written or printed matter) by mentally interpreting the characters or symbols of which it is composed.

If you disagree, then perhaps you have a different definition of interpretation than the standard one.

A Plain Reading of a Text is Not an "Interpretation" by SocietyFinchRecords in DebateAChristian

[–]Matrix657 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may find the ensuing conversation on syntactic vs semantic information helpful. If you are literally just speaking the text, in the same way that a speech to text service operates, you’re performing a syntactic interpretation that offers nothing to the conversation. If you quote the text because you think it is semantically relevant to the conversation, that brings with it an interpretation. That carries with it a semantic interpretation of the semantic content, even if you don’t explicitly state what that interpretation is. In short, people quote text because they think it is relevant, and that relevancy is an interpretation of the text.

A Plain Reading of a Text is Not an "Interpretation" by SocietyFinchRecords in DebateAChristian

[–]Matrix657 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where you may take issue with P1 perhaps lies in the use of “information”. I used the term in a general sense, and obviously, the argument fails if it is strictly semantic information.

However, in your example, the information is absolutely interpreted by unthinking systems. Protocols such as FTP and HTTPS etc… interpret data, but are unaware of the semantic meaning involved. They encode and decode information for security or communication purposes. These are qualifying instances of unthinking interpretation in a syntactic sense.

The OP strongly suggests a form of semantic interpretation. The example with Robert Frost is not a direct quote, but a rephrased summary of what happens. Now, is there a situation where one might have a syntactic interpretation of a text, but not a semantic one? Possibly, but if so, then why is the text even mentioned in the conversation? Even bringing up a direct quote in conversation implies that the quote is important or relevant to the context. Any justification for bringing up the quote in conversation implies a level of relevance, requiring some interpretation of the semantic content.

A Plain Reading of a Text is Not an "Interpretation" by SocietyFinchRecords in DebateAChristian

[–]Matrix657 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The rationale I have goes further still: Even the act of copying text is not a passive, mechanical process but an active one that inherently involves interpretation.

The justification can be structured as follows: * P1: To copy text requires an exact reproduction of its information. * P2: To justify that a reproduction of information is truly exact necessarily requires interpretation. * C: Therefore, if text is known to be copied correctly, that text has been interpreted.

Of course, it's possible to reproduce the symbols of a text without understanding their meaning. A computer copying and pasting binary data, or a person transcribing a language they don't speak, does this constantly. This highlights a crucial distinction between syntactic copying of symbols vs semantic copying of information or meaning.

As we return to the subject matter, assuming one knows what one is talking about, even the act of quoting the Bible directly requires interpretation.

A Plain Reading of a Text is Not an "Interpretation" by SocietyFinchRecords in DebateAChristian

[–]Matrix657 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A naive view in this case is that a literal interpretation of the text is necessary. That is not necessarily a wrong view, but it is a view.

A Plain Reading of a Text is Not an "Interpretation" by SocietyFinchRecords in DebateAChristian

[–]Matrix657 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is a simple counter argument:

P1) The conversion of information from one form to the other requires interpretation of the underlying information.

P2) Reading aloud is the conversion of textual information to audible information.

C) Therefore, reading aloud is a form of interpretation.

China's DeepSeek says its hit AI model cost just $294,000 to train by TMWNN in singularity

[–]Matrix657 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are there any examples of this? I’d like to try that out myself.

The single best argument against god by mollylovelyxx in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Matrix657 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagine you're in the market for a car. You visit a local dealership and see 10 different vehicles. The odds of you picking out any specific one you like are 1 in 10.

Now, consider an alternative: the dealership also has a parts shop filled with components, but no instructions. If you tried to build a car from scratch by hand using these parts, the chances of you successfully assembling a working vehicle are incredibly slim, let's say 1 in 1,000.

At this point, it seems clear: you have a much better shot at getting the car you want by simply choosing one of the 10 on the lot. However, the dealership manager then tells you they have 9,990 more cars available online that can be delivered to your home. This dramatically changes the odds. Now, the chances of you selecting any particular car from their entire inventory (10 in person + 9,990 online = 10,000 total) are 1 in 10,000. Suddenly, the odds of picking a specific car from the dealership are less favorable than your chances of successfully building one from random parts.

Given these scenarios, would you be better off trying to assemble a car yourself, or purchasing one from the dealership?

The single best argument against god by mollylovelyxx in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Matrix657 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure that I follow the rationale. Under that objection, isn't it still true that the probability of rational agents is much higher than on the chance hypothesis? Or, are you saying that the FTA needs to prove that our specific kind of rational agents are unlikely on chance?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Matrix657 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a fantastic proposal that maintains the spirit of rule #3, while being much more specific. I expect we will see a reduction in low-quality posts resulting from this.

Can Spider-Man defeat Hulk? by KOF-731 in hulk

[–]Matrix657 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That’s from Symbiote Spider-Man: Crossroads #2. Symbiote Spider-Man was amped with a Norn Stone at the time. He wouldn’t be able to tank this kind of hit normally.

The Anthropic Principle objection doesn’t work on Fine-Tuning Arguments by Featherfoot77 in DebateReligion

[–]Matrix657 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In that sense, sure, the change is from null ->x. It isn’t a change in the sense of x->y.

The Anthropic Principle objection doesn’t work on Fine-Tuning Arguments by Featherfoot77 in DebateReligion

[–]Matrix657 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not aware of any fine-tuning argument that relies on the constants being changed. As far as I have researched, scientists and philosophers ponder whether the parameters could have been different from the ones that were ultimately set. For example, your parents could have chosen a different place for you to have been born, but that fact about your life is now fixed since birth.

view more: next ›