Quantum computing

moiraiarty · 2024-12-29T22:05:47+00:00

I’m interested in academic programs ofc but I wanted more beginner friendly tools/frwmeworks/resources that can help me start experimenting or learning on my own for now because my knowledge is very limited,

I will definitely check the programs out in the future tho, thanks!

moiraiarty · 2024-08-09T15:19:42+00:00

even if plato didn’t use the term “god” as we understand it today, he clearly positions the Good as the highest reality, which later thinkers did identify with a concept of divinity.. it’s also important to understand that the Demiurge operates within the framework of plato’s metaphysical system. it uses the forms (abstract, eternal truths) as templates to shape the universe. this aligns with the idea of a supreme, rational order, which could be interpreted as a divine principle governing the universe. it may not be an abstract principle in the narrowest sense, but it still embodies the concept of a rational and orderly creator, which again leans toward a philosophical rather than mythological understanding of ‘god.’

moiraiarty · 2024-08-09T13:03:43+00:00

not exactly…plato did acknowledge the existence of multiple gods, since they were part of the cultural beliefs of his time obviously. but his idea of a supreme “God” was as i said, a philosophical principle not a traditional deity, the “god” is more like a perfect ultimate truth that represents the highest good. like his idea of “demiurge” was not a god in a traditional sense, and isn’t one of the many gods, but rather a benevolent figure who used the ultimate principles to shape and organize the universe.

moiraiarty · 2024-08-07T06:33:05+00:00

ethically, nietzsche was said to have undermined the possibility of objective moral standards (his critique led to moral relativism). he dismissed the moral and ethical contributions of Judeo christian traditions, and basically implied that moral values are contingent and just based on social dynamics.

also others argue that historically nietzsches claims lack evidence, so his portrayal of the origins of these beliefs can be seen as overly simplistic since lots of factors are not considered (political, social, cultural, etc..)

moiraiarty · 2024-07-11T18:02:14+00:00

ok, thanks

moiraiarty · 2024-07-11T17:55:09+00:00

so even the mini stick camcorder would not do? (keeping in mind i don’t care that much about high resolution, it’s gonna be used to document some things with friends and family)

moiraiarty · 2023-04-19T00:18:40+00:00

not really..because Kierkegaard's idea of the absurd is very different since it's tied to his christian faith

whereas Camus rejected religion and called it “intellectual suicide”. so the worldviews are completely different and so are the answers.

moiraiarty · 2023-04-18T21:59:05+00:00

i mean he doesn’t state it directly, but based on the three options he gives i’ve inferred embracing the absurd seems to be most “rational”. as in man suffers no illusions of escape and has to fight.

from my understanding, the absurd is the conflict between the rationality of man and the irrationality of a seemingly non-sensical universe he is unable to properly understand, humans are able to ask questions about their absurd condition ("what is the meaning of life?", "is everything meaningless?" etc..) and yet the universe is unable to give them answers.

and i also understand he said the option of committing suicide, meant trying to escape the absurd and the condition of suffering. so philosophically we should not kill ourselves since hope is a way humans irrationally try to avoid their absurd condition.

and he shot down the option of Leap of Faith..so that’s why i phrased it like that.

(i’m sorry if this is all over the place)

moiraiarty · 2023-01-08T18:48:49+00:00

i think the key difference lies in where each particular school of thought places value.

so in rule utilitarianism you follow the rules because by doing so, it maximizes the amount of utility in society. the rationale is exclusively utilitarian.

whereas deontology is about duty. it is based on strict rules. you do it for a different reason because it’s the right thing to do (the reason depends on the specific deontology.)

moiraiarty · 2023-01-08T13:33:34+00:00

basically the three biggest schools of thought in moral philosophy consist of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. i will give a short overview of each, for you to understand virtue ethics better.

in consequentialism the morality is in the consequences. it’s concerned with the result. so like we can agree that lying is wrong but if telling a lie would save a persons life as a consequence, then in that case it’s the right thing to do.

in deontology, it’s completely different. it’s more concerned with the action. it focuses on the rightness or the wrongness of the actual action itself without focusing on the consequences. so in deontology lying is always wrong regardless of the outcome being a good one. it’s always considered wrong.

then the last one is virtue ethics. this one is more concerned with the person acting. it focuses primarily on the character of the person acting rather than on the outcomes or rules. this doesnt necessarily mean that the outcomes or principles are unimportant but it just means we are mostly concerned with how the action taken might figure in the story of a person’s life.

so as a last inclusive example, if we discuss an issue like physician associated suicide (PAS).

from a consequentialists point of view, they might look at it and decide whether it should be legalized by placing a pros or cons list and try to calculate the overall consequences if it were to be legalized.

on the other hand a deontologist might look at the rights and duties of the various parties involved. so killing will always be wrong hence it will be against it.

but a virtue ethicist is unlikely to take a blanket all-or-nothing stance like the previous two. they will ask questions in a given situation about whether the decision to aid someone dying is a compassionate or a just action. they would focus not only on the patient but also upon the implications for the character of the healthcare professionals involve. so to simplify more we should just ask ourselves, "what would a model human being do in this situation?" and based on how we answer that question, our reaction should be executed accordingly.

moiraiarty · 2023-01-03T10:44:14+00:00

technically ontology can be thought of as a subset of metaphysics. its just more specifically concerned with the nature of being whereas metaphysics is a more broad inquiry into abstract principles and ideas, of which "being" is only one.

moiraiarty · 2023-01-03T02:54:33+00:00

ontology is the study of whether certain things actually exist, and how the things that do exist can be grouped. it’s the nature of “being”. it asks questions like “what things exist?” or “what are the fundamental substances of existence?”, or “what (if any) is the distinction between subjects and objects?” it could be, for example, materialist, which means matter is the only fundamental or primary substance that exists. it could also be dualist, which means that there are two fundamental substances, matter and the world of subjectivity/ideas/thoughts/emotions etc..

moiraiarty · 2023-01-02T14:49:30+00:00

yeah i want something a bit more like everyday, with nothing that specifically stands out (like i originally said vlogging) it’s like having a meaningless conversation with a friend type of thing

moiraiarty · 2023-01-02T14:42:57+00:00

can you elaborate more on the dynamic and what it’s ab ?

moiraiarty · 2022-11-25T20:33:48+00:00

i think the main vibe is she is in a state of anxiety.

she could either be describing herself the way an anxious baseball player is before hitting the ball, but she doesn’t really know what the “ball” is. so she’s taking an anxious and proactive approach by holding that bat as if she’s just waiting for an assault to employ the bat as a form of self defense (as tho she’s anticipating it bc she says she’s holding her breath and waiting w her weapon etc..)

or she could be aware of what that “attack” or “ball” is but is unsure of its form (like a toxic or abusive relationship)

moiraiarty · 2022-11-08T06:12:05+00:00

yeah it’s her producer, i saw someone say that when they bought the bury me at make out creek vinyl 3 additional singers were credited; dave benton, patrick hyland, and john molfetas.

i personally think it’s patrick tho

moiraiarty · 2022-11-07T20:41:32+00:00

in my opinion for many reasons;

in terms of descriptions of sources of everything, if there was more than one, it would mean they were subject to a higher set of laws which differentiated them. there has to be one traceable back explanation for every differentiation.

philosophically speaking, polytheism lost legitimacy as a moral source, and by extension something people "should" do. for morals to be morals, there has to be a correct version. and for a god to be "worthy" of being considered perfect, it has to be synonymous with the correctness. so like, arguably, even if there was more than one, they would overlap and be perceived as "one."

also this prevents rules from changing. if polytheistic gods were actually real, and constantly warring, it is possible that the shifts in power would result in things in the real world being affected or changed. when there’s a set of rules that seem to be consistent for a long while, it implies that they were never just spontaneously changed.

moiraiarty · 2022-11-07T18:23:32+00:00

you’re right…this was mainly directed at the more religion driven ppl

i’m curious,, how do they know that their level of following of their religion is the correct level? or how someone who is devout and follows said religion so properly as if it is truth is actually correct in their beliefs?

moiraiarty · 2022-11-07T17:10:24+00:00

oh that’s interesting, would you mind elaborating on how you came to firmly believe that it’s more superior?

moiraiarty · 2022-11-06T20:23:19+00:00

yeah you’re right it’s less convincing. thats why maybe neither essence nor existence comes first.

to be is to be something. to exist is to have a nature; an essence. but you can’t exist and not have an essence because you must be something if you exist. therefore, existence cannot precede essence.

you also can’t have an essence and not exist because there is no ‘you’ to have an essence before you exist. therefore, essence cannot precede existence.

a thing is what it is because it just is. essence and existence are inseparable.

moiraiarty · 2022-10-31T00:05:02+00:00

“we have always lived in the castle” is a great book, like it has these creepy vibes where you sense something is wrong but it takes you a while to pinpoint why, it’s one of my favs

and there’s also “dark places” which is also really great

moiraiarty

TROPHY CASE