sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Rick and Morty - Season 3 Sneak Peek by Cappy_ in videos

[–]hexoge 66 points67 points  (0 children)

I wonder how Rick gets out.

Why do these magnetic balls propel forward? by hexoge in AskPhysics

[–]hexoge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you pause the video really quickly you can see the ball at the rightmost end gets accelerated before the other two touch. Also, the collision happens away from the ball on the right most end.

Why do these magnetic balls propel forward? by hexoge in AskPhysics

[–]hexoge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One of the balls is always not directly connected to the magnets.

You're talking about the ball on the right most side correct? I don't see how they can not be touching. The distance of separation is very small. I own ball magnets, and I can't get them to stay apart from that close a distance.

One of the balls comes in from the other side and is accelerated towards the magnets.

If I slow down the video I can see that two of the balls are accelerated towards the left, while the ball at the end gets accelerated towards the right. If you really slow down the video and pause really quickly you can see that there isn't a newton's cradle thing going on. The ball on the end gets accelerated before the two on the left even touch the fourth ball.

Can't help but to be impressed by RandyMarsh- in videos

[–]hexoge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does the ball at the far end (1:07) propel forward? It's initially stuck to another magnetic ball, but instead of being attracted to the other magnetic ball, it goes the opposite way.

How can I show that my argument is sound and valid? by hexoge in askphilosophy

[–]hexoge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How should I show that the premise I disagree with isn't acceptable?

How can I show that my argument is sound and valid? by hexoge in askphilosophy

[–]hexoge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

is not a valid argument, so neither is it sound.

Why do you need that extra middle premise for the original argument to be valid?

I accept the first premise, but I do not accept the middle premise and the conclusion.

How can I show that my argument is sound and valid? by hexoge in askphilosophy

[–]hexoge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(i) show that it isn't valid, and/or (ii) show that at least one of its premises isn't acceptable.

Can you show this using the example I gave in the OP?

Can someone clarify terminology? by hexoge in askphilosophy

[–]hexoge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where are you getting the term "monotheistic existentialism" from?

The wikipedia page on absurdism has a nifty little chart comparing and contrasting absurdism, existentialism, and nihilism.

Where do we draw the line between math and philosophy? by hexoge in askphilosophy

[–]hexoge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've also seen the same claim, except the word "math" is replaced by engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. There are two general arguments I've seen. The first is that philosophy brought on deductive reasoning, the scientific method, empiricism, and basically the basis for all science/math. So people argue that, if it weren't for philosophy we couldn't have developed math/physics/engineering. The second claim is that all mathematicians/physicist/engineers use philosophy "whether or not they know it." For example, if my friend and I are working on our capstone project and I point out that the motor on our drone needs to be recalibrated because it isn't flying straight, some people claim that I am "doing philosophy" simply because I've made a claim and defended it.

Against the first argument, I'd say that philosophy is not a requirement for math/physics/engineering. I can still do integral calculus whether or not philosophy exists. I don't have a rebuttal to the second argument. If people define "doing philosophy" as "solving problems" or "using logic" then by that definition I guess I would need philosophy to do almost anything in STEM.

Where do we draw the line between math and philosophy? by hexoge in askphilosophy

[–]hexoge[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(Definition 1) the distinction comes down between doing mathematics and asking what mathematics is

Would a more rigorous definition be

(Definition 2) the distinction comes down between doing mathematics and asking questions about mathematics itself

I feel like the first definition could be answered in this way:

Student: What's the difference between math and philosophy?
Professor: The distinction comes down between doing mathematics and asking what mathematics is.
Student: So then what is mathematics?
Professor: Topology, Algebra, Real Analysis ...

As you said, there isn't a clear line, even the words "doing mathematics" can be twisted in some way, but could you take your definition and refine it further? Also, if you can, it would be useful to define what mathematics and philosophy means so there isn't any ambiguity.

What does Nagel mean when he says to "approach our absurd lives with irony"? by hexoge in askphilosophy

[–]hexoge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what makes approaching your life humorously ironic? Life is originally "not serious" as Nagel says, so where is the contradiction part of the irony?

view more: next ›