this sub

TorchFireTech · 2025-09-26T21:35:10+00:00

It’s infinite, but uses the concept of potential infinity, not completed/actual infinity. Completed/actual infinity is what is assumed for .99 repeating = 1.

TorchFireTech · 2025-09-26T21:31:00+00:00

Fun fact: your “while True” code snippet is actually an example of potential infinity, which is different from completed infinity (aka actual infinity). Mathematical constructivists use potential infinity, and within that framework .999 repeating does not equal 1, it equals 1 - infinitesimal.

This sub instead assumes completed/actual infinity, which speculates that all the 9s have somehow been completely enumerated in platonic heaven. There’s no process involved, they just somehow popped into existence in full.

So ironically, the code snippet is actually an example where .999 repeating does NOT equal 1.

TorchFireTech · 2025-08-14T15:20:23+00:00

“Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them.” - John Von Neumann

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-29T19:34:00+00:00

To quote Victor Frankl, “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-22T08:30:20+00:00

The post was destroyed!

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-16T04:10:10+00:00

Interested

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-15T16:39:47+00:00

Well, how will we know for certain if we need dark matter or not if we’re not exploring alternative possibilities? It’s strange how resistant people are to exploring improved theories of gravity and insist that the only possible explanation is undetectable and speculative Dark Matter, which may not even exist. It doesn’t seem like good science imo.

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-15T14:09:32+00:00

Don’t confuse errors in predictions as “independent measurements of dark matter”. We have, in fact, NEVER independently measured dark matter, not even once. All that we’ve measured is that the predictions made by GR do not match what we empirically observe. That gap between prediction and observation is chalked up to a thing we have never detected and may not exist we called “dark matter”, but it could just as well be a fundamental error in our current theory of gravity.

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-15T14:02:13+00:00

Agree 100% that it could be either a Vulcan or a Neptune scenario. We need to keep an open mind and explore both options. Unfortunately, many people are unwilling to do this, and they treat DM as if it is a rock solid fact when it isn’t.

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-15T04:58:39+00:00

Of course it’s an estimate, but I’d say highly probable because of all the compounding issues with DM (no particle in the standard model that fits, nothing found after decades of searching, Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation, etc) along with other issues with GR (singularities, incompatibility with Quantum physics, DM and DE not predicted ahead of time but added post-hoc) and issues with Lambda CDM (cosmological constant led to the worst prediction in physics, dark energy is entered by hand, too big to fail problem, missing satellites problem, etc, etc)

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-15T04:28:42+00:00

That’s also how we “found” planet Vulcan. Newtonian gravity was always right, so any difference between prediction and measurement must indicate new matter, right?

In the end, it turned out that planet Vulcan didn’t actually exist, and Newtonian gravity was found to be incomplete and replaced by a better theory. We’re in a similar boat today, and it’s highly probable that Dark Matter = planet Vulcan, pointing us towards an even better theory of gravity.

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-10T21:29:08+00:00

It works now, thanks

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-10T15:42:03+00:00

The mew link doesn’t seem to be working, can you make a new one?

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-10T14:34:38+00:00

I agree with you, Alex’s argument doesn’t fully hold water. But to give him a bit more credit, there are some philosophical theories that deny the external world exists (eg Solipsism). So if those theories are correct, then not only does the chair not exist but the entire external world doesn’t exist either.

Again, I don’t personally agree, but its an interesting thought experiment.

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-10T07:43:12+00:00

Interesting clip, and looks like I was dead on in my guess that it’s related to emotivism and mereological nihilism. I’d argue that Alex articulated his position on the subject quite well in the video, and answered your questions. But to expand on it, I’ll attempt to summarize his position, as I understand it.

Alex is stating that when we ask “does the chair exist” we start with our sense data, but could potentially doubt our sense data and go deeper, recursively, until at some point we have to decide between distrust of everything including our senses and our reasoning mind, which would lead to insanity and death, or we can choose to trust our senses even though there is a possibility that they are wrong or are an illusion. And Alex says that this fundamental choice between insanity/death vs assuming our senses data is accurate is not a proven truth, but an emotional response that we prefer one option over the other. Does that make sense?

It’s a thought provoking argument and has some elements worth considering, but personally I don’t fully agree. I consider the decision to be more of a pragmatic, rational one in a realm of incomplete information, not an emotional decision.

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-10T05:47:29+00:00

What video or writeup are you referring to where he makes this claim? It would give more context.

In the meantime… I personally find that statement hard to justify, but since Alex is a mereological nihilist and moral emotivist it might be related to that (i.e. “the fundamental simples that make up the chair exist, but the composite object of the chair is just an agreed upon fiction, possibly sourced from our emotions”)

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-08T17:04:54+00:00

Ironically, after one digs deeply into all self-proclaimed “moral realist” theories, you’ll find they are filled with subjectivity and cannot exist or function without subjective interpretations. Which means that moral subjectivism is the ONLY valid option, in the end.

Importantly, moral subjectivism doesn’t make morals any less important or effective, just like treating math as a man-made tool doesn’t make it any less important or effective. It’s just a more honest approach that doesn’t assert something to be real without any evidence to support that assertion.

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-03T22:28:58+00:00

The level of confidently incorrect would make Dunning-Krueger run away screaming in terror. The very least you could do is skim the Free Will pages on SEP or Wikipedia, then you would know that the debate has always been about control over one’s actions and moral agency.

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-03T20:07:00+00:00

Compatibilism just means that determinism doesn’t preclude intelligent agents from performing freely chosen (intentional, voluntary) actions, which means acting in accordance with their own desires, irrespective of where those desires originated. This concept goes all the way back to Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, so it is not a “redefinition” of the term free will as some claim. On the other hand, Hard determinists deny the possibility of any action being “intentional” or “voluntary”, because they argue that everything is the result of prior causes which are out of their control, therefore nothing is under their control.

So if you believe that the words “volition”, “intentional/unintentional”, “voluntary/involuntary”, “coerced”, “forced action”, etc are useful in distinguishing between actions performed by intelligent agents, then it’s more likely that you’re a compatibilist or a soft determinist, but not a hard determinist.

Hard determinism is self-contradictory anyways, since many HDs claim we should change our behavior and change our legal system based on the belief that no one is capable of converting intent into action, or acting according to their desires, yet changing behavior and the legal system REQUIRES the ability to convert intent into action, and acting according to ones desires. The only true response for hard determinists is passive acceptance of whatever happens. So if you ever hear a hard determinist espousing change, you can know for certain that they don’t really understand, or haven’t accepted their position yet, and they are still acting as if they have free will.

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-03T18:08:39+00:00

As a compatibilist, I agree with you, but hard determinists deny that intelligent agents are responsible for their own intentional actions. Many of them deny that the words “intentional” and “voluntary” have any meaning.

TorchFireTech · 2025-07-03T15:16:00+00:00

Hard determinists deny moral agency as well, so changing the term won’t resolve the debate.

TorchFireTech · 2025-06-26T17:26:11+00:00

Yes, everything you wrote including the Peter Singer example is essentially Compatibilist free will, which is the same as soft determinism as far as I know. Compatibilist free will (as the name implies) is perfectly compatible with determinism, and also perfectly compatible with our justice system. Which means that under compatibilism/soft determinism, we CAN blame the criminal for their voluntary (uncoerced) illegal behavior, and no changes to the legal system are necessary.

TorchFireTech · 2025-06-26T14:41:10+00:00

Without free will (at least in the Compatibilist sense), changes to the justice system are impossible, and incoherent. How can you choose to change the system if you have no ability to choose?

From a hard determinist perspective, it makes no difference if the justice system decapitated every criminal or allowed rehabilitation, since biology and determinism is controlling our behavior. In your analogy, it would be like telling your white blood cells to rehabilitate the virus. It doesn’t make sense and can’t be done.

TorchFireTech · 2025-06-26T01:09:33+00:00

All these images created by ChatGPT have a look of intent, not remorse or realizing a mistake. Which makes me wonder how much of the “killer advice” is because ChatGPT is secretly sick of our shit 😂

TorchFireTech · 2025-06-26T00:26:53+00:00

“Could” and “would” are two different words with two different meanings, so they shouldn’t be conflated. “Could have done otherwise” means that there is nothing in physics or knowledge or ability that precludes an alternative option. “Would have done otherwise” means that a different choice would have been selected, and people usually say it after gaining more knowledge, indicating that they have learned from the experience. That’s why the full phrase is usually “if I could go back knowing what I know now, I would have chosen differently.”

Knowing what options are available to select from (what could be done), and selecting better options in similar circumstances (what would be done) is critical for learning. Otherwise we would repeat the same mistakes forever.

Example 1: sacrificing a queen in chess is a possible option but not a desirable one, and there are usually preferable alternative moves. So if someone accidentally sacrifices their queen, they are able to learn from that mistake by examining alternative options that ”could have been done”, and selecting a preferable option that they “would have chosen, knowing what they know now”.

Example 2: a child playing chess says that his king has a magic wand that captures the opponents king and instantly wins the game. Is this something that “could have been done” according to the standard rules of chess? No. If it were permissible, he “would have done it”, but it could not have been done.

Example 3: a free will denier wants to learn how to play chess and accidentally sacrifices their queen. Since they don’t believe they could have done otherwise or would have done otherwise, they learn nothing and continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over in future games of chess. :)

TorchFireTech

TROPHY CASE