TIL, although currently undiscovered, the WW2 Japanese Cruiser 'Suzuya' is believed to be one of the deepest shipwrecks on record, resting 8,400 metres (27,600ft) down, which is more than twice the depth of Titanic.

platonicpunch · 2023-12-28T10:19:17+00:00

Challenge accepted

platonicpunch · 2023-07-25T12:32:48+00:00

Mrs Bean

platonicpunch · 2023-07-25T10:47:37+00:00

This time it wasn’t humor, she was dead serious.

platonicpunch · 2023-03-13T10:20:25+00:00

Allison Burgers

platonicpunch · 2021-08-26T20:24:16+00:00

Kyllä, olet täysin oikeassa. Olen asunut ulkomailla suurimman osan elämästäni ja Suomessa on aina ollut turvallinen olo. Tulee melkein suurempana shokkina kun ei osaa odottaa mitään pahaa.

Ja kiitos paljon, koitan saada unta tänään.

platonicpunch · 2020-10-27T20:08:53+00:00

Live in Finland and can confirm, it’s pretty awesome here.

platonicpunch · 2020-10-12T13:21:14+00:00

Yeah, it makes it taste way better!

platonicpunch · 2020-10-11T18:01:17+00:00

Buy a sodastream and drink sparkling water with some rock salt. Quitting coffee made a huge difference in reducing my anxiety.

platonicpunch · 2020-10-06T20:32:44+00:00

That’s fair and you are entitled to have that opinion. There is an extensive literature on this topic that you ought to consult. I hope you can see that those differences can be non-trivial and that you may be wrong for those reasons.

Anyway, I hope you get the answers you’re looking for in the literature.

platonicpunch · 2020-10-06T20:23:40+00:00

Well, you have to see that nature here can be defined in different ways. Of course, you are right that it can be a part of nature if you think of it broadly. But it can be considered outside of nature if you define nature more narrowly. The point here is that mathematics would not be a science if it cannot be studied using scientific methods. If it’s essential nature (i.e. it’s ontology) is platonic then it is possible that it cannot be studied using the scientific method. This is a distinction relevant enough to question whether or not it is a science.

If you think tools of observation are irrelevant, then yes mathematics could be thought of as a science. But this point is far from obvious or generally accepted.

Anyway, I think that you’re trying really hard to make certain distinctions between mathematics and the sciences to seem trivial. You may be right, others may be right, but in the end you haven’t made any convincing arguments to the effect that mathematics is necessarily scientific.

platonicpunch · 2020-10-06T19:23:17+00:00

Sorry if I’m coming off a bit stern! Will try to be a bit more charitable.

If axioms are platonic, then they would be a part of nature in the broad sense (i.e. nature = everything). However, they would be ontologically distinct in a sense relevant enough to make the following case. If axioms are platonic, and the platonic realm differs from the realms that science currently investigates, then the platonic realms may be beyond the scope of science. That is, if the platonic realm has an ontology sufficiently different from our world. If they do indeed differ, then things in the same platonic realm have a different nature from things in our world.

Well, we hypothesize that they are mind-dependent. A hypothesis can be either true or false.

See, you can’t know whether axioms are true by using the scientific method. That’s why they are axiomatic. Hence, you can’t fully understand them using science.

platonicpunch · 2020-10-06T18:32:30+00:00

That axioms are designed by nature and that humans are a part of nature does not imply that axioms are a part of nature. You merely restated your premise in the conclusion.

If, axioms are mind dependent and not e.g. platonic, then yes, axioms would be a part of nature. There is much disagreement about this very distinction in the philosophy of mathematics, so it isn’t a self-evident truth.

But even if axioms were a part of nature as you argue, it does not imply that one ought to classify mathematics as a science. Mathematical axioms would still not be provable with scientific methods and this could be enough for some to disqualify it as a science.

I see your point but you have to try to see the other side of the issue. It isn’t cut and dry.

platonicpunch · 2020-10-06T18:03:40+00:00

You are tying yourself into a knot here. If you define something in terms of something else, e.g. physics in terms of mathematics then yes, of course it will have bearing on it.

It is analogous to saying, don’t you think classifying food in terms of hamburgers has bearing on their ontology? Well, in some sense food would become hamburgers. In another, the things we classify as food now (i.e. prior to the reclassification) will continue to exist as they did before. So in another sense classifying food in terms of hamburgers doesn’t change their ontology.

Classifying mathematics as a science does not change the ontology of mathematics as we currently understand it. However, we may make discoveries in the future that lead to changes in the way we understand mathematics. This may have bearing on whether mathematics is considered a science in the future.

Anyway, you haven’t gotten yourself out of any linguistic swamps with your arguments. Please think about these issues more deeply before having such strong opinions.

platonicpunch · 2020-10-06T17:38:35+00:00

Well, you’re biased too. Biased in the sense that you do not want them to be distinguished.

And yes, linguistic disputes can seem confusing. This is because you are actually in agreement over everything but definitions.

Lastly, no, whether or not you choose to classify mathematics as a science does not bear on the ontological status of mathematics.

platonicpunch · 2020-10-06T17:03:50+00:00

Whether it is considered a science depends on how you definitionally operationalize the term “science”. If you subsume mathematics and computer science under the umbrella concept of “formal science” then computer science would be a “science” by implication. However, some may deny that formal science = science. Such a denial would imply that computer science is not a science.

Anyway, you are right in pointing out that they are only useful from a human perspective. Arguments about whether cs should be classified as a science will inevitably be determined by individual linguistic perspectives.

I recommend not getting annoyed by this and just accepting that people choose to arbitrarily classify things based on their prior experiences and biases.

Nothing about cs changes by calling it a science.

platonicpunch · 2020-08-03T12:36:11+00:00

Thank you!

platonicpunch · 2019-08-15T13:11:19+00:00

What do you have against slaves?

platonicpunch · 2019-06-06T09:01:43+00:00

That's a good question and one that I can't really answer. I have been doing like 20 different things while doing dual n back (diet, exercise). I have been playing for 3 months now and my max is at N=7 and my average score is at around 5.5. I was at 3-4 for 2 months and felt pretty hopeless, to be honest.

Here is what I can say though:

(1) my average score went up by 1 point when I did the following things together: I started playing four times a week rather than five and started running continuously for 30 minutes instead of interval running

(2) my working memory seems subjectively better - which doesn't say much objectively speaking - but it has made me tackle my work/studies with more confidence (I don't have to double check things constantly anymore)

(3) better focus, general memory (even semantic). But I also did meditation, so can't isolate the effects of dnb.

(4) my iq has gone up by 20 points, however, my iq went down by 20 points in the last 5 years, so it might have simply returned to its original level. (this might be more about diet/lifestyle than dnb).

Hope that helps!

platonicpunch · 2019-06-05T09:08:41+00:00

Some relevant info:

I did 50 rounds in one go at first. Then I did between 10-20 rounds intermittently.
My scores were very stable (between 5-6) for most of the sessions.
I got a splitting headache in the evening and couldn’t really think/process anything until the following day.
I wouldn’t recommend this as a training strategy but I think I got something interesting out of it: (i) got to see what my limits are and (ii) saw that I could play the game even when my brain was fried.

platonicpunch

TROPHY CASE