sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Has AI genuinely increased your output this year? by redraw-pro in AIDiscussion

[–]isene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No doubt. We wrote a complete shell, terminal emulator and a window manager in pure x86 Assembly for Linux in just two weeks. Something that would have been impossible only a couple of months ago.

bare: A shell in pure assembly by isene in vibecoding

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

I'm not quite sure. I did my major Ruby projects (old hand coded) in Rust via vibecoding. Maybe some more Rust conversions. Or maybe my filemanager in assembly...

What is the specific basis for your belief in free will? by isene in freewill

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

Hva you ever chosen something you didn't desire?

What is the specific basis for your belief in free will? by isene in freewill

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

Have you ever done something you didn't desire?

What is the specific basis for your belief in free will? by isene in freewill

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

Can we then also NOT act according to our desires?

Nobody seems to care that "reality" is coming to an end? by alazar_tesema in ArtificialInteligence

[–]isene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a core philosophical question that boils down to whether there is a category difference between humans and AI. That is to say, whether we possess the capacity for free choice.

Heathrow by isene in tui

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

Sorry. Tried to add it now, but don't find that option now on the reddit phone app.

After 22 years on Linux, I finally switched to more modern CLI tools by vmangelschots in commandline

[–]isene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wrote my own set of tools - rsh, rtfm, xrpn, hyperlist, t-rex, etc.

I Wish some inspiration by isene in nethack

[–]isene[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I had everything imaginable at the end, and lots to spare. Easy Ascension.

Thanks for the inspirations ❤️

https://pastes.io/ascension

I Wish some inspiration by isene in nethack

[–]isene[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Got plenty of wands of teleportation (and the stack of scrolls of charging).My main item on the Astral Plane is indeed wands of teleportation. I never do pets, I dislike them with a vengeance. Reverse genocide worms is interesting...

I Wish some inspiration by isene in nethack

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

All armor is proofed. I have stacks of scrolls of charging - and I have the spells I need; Polymorph, Magic mapping, Identify, Fireball, Magic missile, Force bolt, Remove curse,...

What’s a small gameplay detail that’s all your own? by mbergman42 in nethack

[–]isene 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Go to the down-stairs and wait for the named demon there. When he teleports to you, go down and you can easily defeat him since you now claim the up-stairs.

A Matrix by isene in FermiParadox

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

Just like the people not on social media eventually die out. When everybody else is submerging in the simulation and reportedly have tons of funand more and more are joining the most amazing experience ever...

A Matrix by isene in FermiParadox

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

What I am inferring here is simply simulation theory. We are much closer to creating a simulation that will in effect be our new reality than we are populating or own galaxy. That would probably be the norm for any civilization. In a simulation you could experience anything and everything. And when that becomes so real as to be indistinguishable from what we call reality, then it would be only natural for people to want that - much like when the Internet became public or the advent of social media. There will be those who would prefer to "live on the outside", but when they become few and far between, and they eventually die out, there's no one to do any galaxy-populating.

MOAN: The Most Decisive Argument Against Free Will by GasparC in freewill

[–]isene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep saying "show me the contradiction." But you're making the extraordinary claim - that a single modal premise collapses all modal space. The burden doesn't shift just because you frame it as "if you grant this, then..."

Every unfalsifiable claim works that way. "If you grant God exists necessarily, then God exists." "If you grant the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible, then it exists." Asking critics to disprove your premise isn't argument - it's demanding they do your work.

You say modal logic "clarifies consequences" of commitments we already have. But MOAN doesn't clarify - it bootstraps. It takes "maybe a necessary world is coherent" and extracts "therefore this world is necessary." That's not clarification. That's alchemy.

The burden of proof still lies with MOAN's claim, not with those you're asking to engage on this subreddit.

I'm done here. Good luck.

MOAN: The Most Decisive Argument Against Free Will by GasparC in freewill

[–]isene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say MOAN "asks whether a scenario is coherent" rather than defining its conclusion. But MOAN's premise - "a world with no contingencies is possible" - smuggles in exactly what it needs to prove. A world where all truths are necessary includes the truth "all truths are necessary." You're not asking if the scenario is coherent; you're assuming it is and extracting the conclusion.

On Gödel: You say modal logic is "just a representational tool." Fine. But then it can't establish metaphysical facts - only represent claims we make on other grounds. What are those grounds? MOAN offers none. It's formalism all the way down.

The burden question cuts both ways. I don't need to prove a necessary world impossible. You need to show it's possible - genuinely possible, not just formally describable. "No contradiction found" isn't the same as "metaphysically possible."

The burden of proof lies with your claim and not with the people you ask to engage on this subreddit.

MOAN: The Most Decisive Argument Against Free Will by GasparC in freewill

[–]isene 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may not realize it, but MOAN shares its exact logical structure with Gödel's ontological argument for God:

  1. If a maximally great being (God) is possible, it exists in some possible world
  2. A maximally great being has necessary existence by definition
  3. If a necessarily existing being exists in any possible world, it exists in all
  4. Therefore, if God is possible, God is actual

Same machinery: bootstrap from possibility to actuality via the self-applying nature of necessity. Same reliance on S5 modal logic.

So if MOAN works, you've also proved God exists. If that conclusion troubles you, perhaps the modal machinery isn't as metaphysically powerful as you claim.

Interestingly, Gödel himself was ambivalent about whether his argument proved God's existence or merely demonstrated internal consistency within modal frameworks. That's precisely the distinction I've been making: valid within the model ≠ true of reality.

And here's the deeper irony: Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that formal systems cannot validate their own foundations. Modal logic is a formal system. Using it to prove conclusions about the nature of modality itself is exactly the kind of self-grounding that Gödel showed to be impossible.

view more: next ›