lurkeraccount1453

272 posts

lurkeraccount1453 banner
lurkeraccount1453

lurkeraccount1453

@8t586xbot

Katılım Temmuz 2024
9 Takip Edilen4 Takipçiler
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@OwenBenjamin The person who authored that work is neither a biologist nor a mathematician. To add to his lack of comprehension of the subject, most of his work is heavily reliant on AI. I think that tells you all you need to know about the quality of his ‘proof’.
English
0
0
0
20
Owen Benjamin 🐻
Owen Benjamin 🐻@OwenBenjamin·
Now that evolution has been proven to be mathematically impossible (read Vox day’s probability zero) the atheists seem to be pivoting to the origin of life being aliens or that we live in a computer program. I highly recommend just acknowledging that we were created by God and just be really grateful for that. But I guess aliens and dmt code is better for people actively enthusiastic about sodomy and murder.
English
311
261
2.5K
94.5K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@sarahsalviander You get a lot of science wrong in your argument, but event if we granted your permanent epistemic gap in scientific knowledge, your conclusion does not follow. Just because we don’t know, doesn’t mean that it must be caused, you have upgraded to a metaphysical god of the gaps.
English
0
0
0
33
Sarah Salviander
Sarah Salviander@sarahsalviander·
I'm a scientist. I saw the evidence for God and I accepted it. Will that convince skeptics? Unlikely. What Piers says is entirely rational and not a God of the gaps argument. That argument only covers things within the universe that science might conceivably explain. NdGT is wrong here, because ultimately, we don't know how it all started, and we will never know scientifically. I'm as disappointed as anyone that we can't extend science right to the beginning and beyond, but we just can't. Now, I can't absolutely rule out that we might someday determine how the universe went from non-life to life (though I'm extremely skeptical). But if we want to go all the way back to the beginning of everything, that's where we run into the most unforgiving brick wall. Our own scientific theories strongly hint at this with what's called the Planck scale – this is the smallest scale in terms of fundamental units that our physical theories can describe without imploding. We can push our physical theories back, back, back, all the way back to a tiny fraction of a second after the beginning of the universe: 10 to the power of -43 seconds. It's a mind-bogglingly minuscule amount of time. But it's not to t=0 and it's not beyond t=0. Scientists exploring quantum gravity explanations are trying to get around this so we can get ever closer to t=0, but so far have not been able to come up with a coherent theory. If that's a strong hint, then here comes the sledgehammer. Every successful physical theory only describes what happens after the universe comes into being. Science cannot, by definition, describe what caused it; it cannot go beyond t=0. Why? Because the cause is outside the universe. Observation and experimentation are key parts of the scientific method, but how would science ever be able to study something beyond the universe? What method would you use? What instruments? It's not lack of imagination, it's literally impossible. The best we can do is make logical inferences about the cause based on what we do know scientifically and philosophically, which is what Piers did. It's what I do. It's what anyone who invokes the multiverse does. It's what a lot of theologians, philosophers, and scientists do. I don't dislike NdGT. I actually kind of like him, and I appreciate that he distances himself from the atheist label. But, ironically, he's the irrational one in this conversation if he thinks science will close the gap about the origin of the universe. That's not just faith, that's blind faith.
么 ꜱ ᴀ ᴍ ꪜ,@__lilith666

Neil is a scientist, if he saw,evidence of God he would accept it

English
159
45
300
19.2K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@STALINFEM Didn’t she want to spend 40k on flowers for her wedding? The issue isn’t that nate cannot provide for her, it’s that she’s trying to stretch his resources way beyond its means. There’s a difference between financial security and living la lavish lifestyle.
English
0
0
0
15
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@sarahsalviander us ‘materialists’ also have ‘coherent bases’ to assume we’re not a boltzmann brain (see Sean Carrol’s work on this) or living in a simulation (see Nick Bostrom). it’s quite clear you have just listened to podcasts and have not once actually engaged with the side you’re critiquing
English
0
0
0
19
Sarah Salviander
Sarah Salviander@sarahsalviander·
When atheists assert things about reality, like "we know the universe exists," I ask them how they know. After all, they could be a brain in a vat or in the Matrix or something. Far from being a dodge or a conversation stopper, it's a legitimate question worth thinking about. I don't know whether or not I'm a brain in a vat or a human battery in the Matrix or a Boltzmann Brain (these are all effectively the same thing for the sake of argument). The point of the question is, most people assume what they experience is reality. But how does anyone know? Let's take the concept of a Boltzmann Brain. It's defined as a hypothetical self-aware entity (essentially a disembodied brain with false memories) that spontaneously fluctuates into existence out of a high-entropy quantum vacuum or thermal bath due to random particle motions. It sounds nuts, but it's far more probable in the long run than evolved observers like us in a low-entropy universe. If a single disembodied brain is far more probable on materialism, then on what basis do we assert that what we experience is reality? When I first thought about this question as an atheist, it bothered me that I couldn't come up with an objective test for it. I kind of left it alone until years later when I became Christian. I still can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat, but I do know as a Christian that I at least have a coherent basis for assuming I'm not. Materialists don't.
J. Smith@bsedgal

@sarahsalviander I could ask the same question to you, so the argument leads no where, and is a common dishonest response from apologists.

English
93
15
151
19.4K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@shiri_shh The reason why they’re going public is because they’re burning through cash. Their earnings scale with inverse square law, hencewhy they haven’t yet achieved desirable growth. What this means for you however is that all of our portfolios will be disproportionately exposed to AI!
English
0
0
0
74
shirish
shirish@shiri_shh·
The biggest IPO run in the history of the market three $1T+ companies. possibly all going public in the next 12 months. SpaceX IPO: $1.75T. OpenAI IPO: $1T Anthropic IPO: $1T we're living through the greatest technological wealth creation in history.
shirish tweet media
English
400
820
6.5K
1.4M
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@limitandmind You have misunderstood the point of the phrase. It is used for empirical claims, not philosophical questions. Reason and purpose are outside the domain of what we can reasonably ascertain empirically, therefore claims relating to these concepts should be examined differently.
English
0
0
0
11
Limit and Mind | Know the Times
Limit and Mind | Know the Times@limitandmind·
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Except, apparently, for the existence of the universe itself, the single greatest miracle of all, which just exists for no reason whatsoever. Your worldview shouldn’t rest on ad-hoc exceptions to your own rules. The visible universe doesn't get an exemption from needing an explanation.
English
138
10
82
7.3K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@TheGlobeIsDead you have not only taken the clip out of context, but the bit you have included proves you wrong. he finishes his sentence by saying: ‘therefore the concept is meaningless’. he is saying it is meaningless to try and measure yourself moving without reference to another body.
English
0
0
2
69
restinpeace globe
restinpeace globe@TheGlobeIsDead·
“The Foucault Pendulum terrifies Flat Earthers.” But even scientists deny that a pendulum proves Earth’s rotation.
Alex Boge@alexboge

The Foucault Pendulum terrifies flat earthers. Because deep down, they know it conclusively and undeniably proves Earth is a slowly rotating globe. So they have to make it go away. They have to invalidate a 175-year-old experiment that conclusively demonstrates both rotation and sphericity - simultaneously, in real time, in public, all around the globe, for free. Here’s how it works: suspend a heavy weight on a long wire and set it swinging. In an inertial reference frame - meaning the universe itself - the pendulum maintains its plane of swing. But the floor beneath it rotates. At Paris, the pendulum’s apparent swing direction rotates roughly 11° per hour - completing a full circuit in about 32 hours. The rate depends on latitude, and in the other direction in the opposite hemisphere, exactly as predicted by a rotating sphere. Not a disc. Not a stationary plane. A rotating globe. Flat earthers love to shriek: “They have to push it or use a motor!” Yes - after it naturally stops due to friction. Any assist is only ever applied once the pendulum has wound down on its own. Never during operation. This is observable by anyone in the room. Some pendulums have no mechanism at all - just a publicly visible push to restart. Air resistance is real. Friction is real. None of this is a conspiracy. It’s physics. And none of it matters anyway, because the pendulum only needs to run a few hours to demonstrate Earth’s rotation. It does this effortlessly. Every single day. In museums around the world. The pendulum doesn’t lie. Only flat earthers do. Which once again proves: Gotta Lie to Flerf.

English
38
27
123
12.8K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@ns123abc right criticism, wrong person to express it. also it’s pretty concerning that something as important as revenue distribution on twitter is decided by one person entirely arbitrarily. i would hate it if my livelihood depended on generating content here.
English
0
0
0
545
NIK
NIK@ns123abc·
nikita bier is unbelievably based
NIK tweet media
English
152
249
8.4K
299.9K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@TedLogan1010 It wiped out about 75% of all life. Meaning the remaining 25% filled the role the dinosaurs left. This is easily searchable online, yet you refuse to do it.
English
1
0
0
152
Ted Logan
Ted Logan@TedLogan1010·
Did you know that 66 million years ago a magical asteroid hit earth and wiped out all the dinosaurs but also turned them in to birds!
Ted Logan tweet media
English
175
88
755
28.8K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@Diversity_2112 @antepedium wrong use of the word literal. if ex nihilo bothers you for some reason you are free to believe that god created the universe at the beginning of the big bang and then accept the mainstream scientific consensus on the development of the universe thereafter. not incompatible.
English
0
0
0
12
a real super fella
a real super fella@Diversity_2112·
@antepedium I'm a contrarian earth creationist, because people who can assent to a creator are stupid to say a literal reading is impossible after granting literal ex nihilo, but YECs believe at the utter expense of having a brain 9/10 times and theistic evolution is entirely plausible. >>>
English
2
0
0
72
Redeemed Lutheran
Redeemed Lutheran@antepedium·
I never thought I would say this but I despise creationists. I think they give a very bad impression of what religion can do to intelligence and critical thinking.
5 Solas@5Solas2

English
192
34
538
70.2K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@sarahsalviander what annoys me the most is that creationists don’t even bother to get their terms right. we’re past darwinian evolution, our current paradigm is called the ‘modern synthesis’. darwin had nothing to with many of the things that currently influence modern evolutionary theory.
English
0
0
0
7
Sarah Salviander
Sarah Salviander@sarahsalviander·
I once talked with a colleague at a black hole conference whose brother challenged her on Darwinian evolution. In her argument with him, she was startled to realize she couldn't explain why she believed it – she just did. Another colleague, astrophysicist Martin Gaskell, was the top candidate for an observatory director job. Internal emails later showed he was passed over because of his scientific skepticism toward Darwinism – his doubt wasn't faith-driven, just evidence-based. He lost a job in *astronomy* because of scientific skepticism of Darwinian evolution. As a grad student (before I was Christian), I asked a biology peer why his research – which challenged a core tenet of Darwinism – wasn't better known. Why wasn't it in the mainstream science news? I will never forget his reply: "Because it would hand a victory to the Christians." These stories highlight what Stephen Meyer observes: for many, Darwinian evolution has become a de facto religious creed. It's more about affirming worldview fidelity than dispassionate science. When questioning a theory is treated as heresy, it's dogma, not the "question everything" spirit of genuine scientific inquiry. Note: This is not an invitation to squabble with me about Darwinism. I'm still studying the evidence and haven't settled on a firm view. But Meyer is right: treating it as unquestionable turns science into a secular religion.
Jan Jekielek@JanJekielek

Stephen C. Meyer says Darwin’s theory of evolution has, for many, become more like a religion than a scientific theory. “Darwinian evolution functions as a kind of secular religion.” “And you can see why, because it's answering one of the most fundamental questions that any worldview or religion has to answer.” “Which is what is the thing or the entity or the process from which everything else came?” “And the neo-Darwinian explanation of the origin of new forms of life is part of the answer to that really fundamental question, which is not only a scientific question but a philosophical worldview question.” “Because it functions like a secular religion, sometimes there's resistance to a more dispassionate scientific evaluation of its merits.” @stephencmeyer

English
138
252
1.9K
296.3K
constellar phoenix
constellar phoenix@constellarphoen·
@8t586xbot @exAtheistRCC And if he just killed all adult evil doers who would care for the children left behind. Note that God wouldnt have flooded the Earth if the people on it werent so consumed by evil. So it's their own fault. God even had Noah preach to people to tell them the flood was coming
English
1
0
0
23
exAtheistChristian - Gabriel
exAtheistChristian - Gabriel@exAtheistRCC·
I don't hate it all. But notice how you can't win with these kind of atheists: If God acts and prevents evil, he's bad. If God doesn't act and doesn't prevent evil, he's bad. Either way, God would be bad. And this, from the same people that have no grounding for what is good or bad except "feelings". Pathetic.
Dee 🌹@DeeWaynee94

Atheists hate the flood story because mass drowning children, babies, pregnant women and animals is morally obscene, whether you stamp “divine judgement” on it or not. Interesting how Christians call that justice, then get precious when people notice the same god they market as loving once solved evil with genocide.

English
6
2
20
775
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@theactualrob @JeremiahDJohns More money wasn’t authorised in 2026, the issue hasn’t been settled yet. Also public and private research aren’t comparable. Public sector does basic research which is then developed by the private sector, they’re not interchangeable and serve different functions.
English
0
0
0
13
Rob
Rob@theactualrob·
And how much do non government funded organizations spend? I don’t think “utter decimation” is an accurate description. To be even more clear this chart shows the total value of research grants awarded to date, not how much money was authorized by congress. More money was authorized in 2026 than 2024. It’s still no more than a quarter of what is actually spent on medical research in the United States.
English
1
0
0
1.6K
Jeremiah Johnson 🌐
Jeremiah Johnson 🌐@JeremiahDJohns·
This is the true legacy of DOGE - the utter decimation of medical research. MAGA idiots will try to tell you this is just cutting DEI programs. Keep in mind DOGE was filled with such idiots they killed physics grants that mentioned 'polarization' (of light) because of "DEI".
Jeremiah Johnson 🌐 tweet media
English
116
1.4K
6.9K
212.7K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@Coinvo In other news: fork found in kitchen, bread found in bakery, fish found in ocean, and so on and so forth
English
0
0
0
168
Coinvo
Coinvo@Coinvo·
JUST IN: 🇬🇧🇺🇸 BBC says the Trump administration is involved in insider trading.
Coinvo tweet mediaCoinvo tweet media
English
3.8K
15.6K
74.1K
4.4M
Peter Todd
Peter Todd@Petertodd·
My political party is Palantir.
Palantir@PalantirTech

Because we get asked a lot. The Technological Republic, in brief. 1. Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation. 2. We must rebel against the tyranny of the apps. Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization? The object has changed our lives, but it may also now be limiting and constraining our sense of the possible. 3. Free email is not enough. The decadence of a culture or civilization, and indeed its ruling class, will be forgiven only if that culture is capable of delivering economic growth and security for the public. 4. The limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software. 5. The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed. 6. National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost. 7. If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software. We should as a country be capable of continuing a debate about the appropriateness of military action abroad while remaining unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm’s way. 8. Public servants need not be our priests. Any business that compensated its employees in the way that the federal government compensates public servants would struggle to survive. 9. We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret. 10. The psychologization of modern politics is leading us astray. Those who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self, who rely too heavily on their internal life finding expression in people they may never meet, will be left disappointed. 11. Our society has grown too eager to hasten, and is often gleeful at, the demise of its enemies. The vanquishing of an opponent is a moment to pause, not rejoice. 12. The atomic age is ending. One age of deterrence, the atomic age, is ending, and a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin. 13. No other country in the history of the world has advanced progressive values more than this one. The United States is far from perfect. But it is easy to forget how much more opportunity exists in this country for those who are not hereditary elites than in any other nation on the planet. 14. American power has made possible an extraordinarily long peace. Too many have forgotten or perhaps take for granted that nearly a century of some version of peace has prevailed in the world without a great power military conflict. At least three generations — billions of people and their children and now grandchildren — have never known a world war. 15. The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price. A similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism will, if maintained, also threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia. 16. We should applaud those who attempt to build where the market has failed to act. The culture almost snickers at Musk’s interest in grand narrative, as if billionaires ought to simply stay in their lane of enriching themselves . . . . Any curiosity or genuine interest in the value of what he has created is essentially dismissed, or perhaps lurks from beneath a thinly veiled scorn. 17. Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it comes to violent crime, abandoning any serious efforts to address the problem or take on any risk with their constituencies or donors in coming up with solutions and experiments in what should be a desperate bid to save lives. 18. The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within. 19. The caution in public life that we unwittingly encourage is corrosive. Those who say nothing wrong often say nothing much at all. 20. The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite’s intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim. 21. Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful. 22. We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what? Excerpts from the #1 New York Times Bestseller The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, by Alexander C. Karp & Nicholas W. Zamiska techrepublicbook.com

English
159
191
4.6K
918.3K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@darwintojesus Random mutation alone would produce variations, it wouldn’t explain why organisms adapt to their environments; selection is the filter that turns the randomness inherent in evolution into directional change. So not only would it sound worse, but it would be wrong.
English
0
0
0
15
Darwin to Jesus
Darwin to Jesus@darwintojesus·
Why do they call it "evolution by natural selection" when really it's random mutation causing all the changes and adaptations? Does "evolution by random mutation" not have the same ring to it?
English
87
4
86
7.4K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@darwintojesus You don’t really understand the argument here, you completely missed the temporal point. The idea is not that god knows what you are doing, it’s that god knows thereof beforehand, therefore collapsing all of the different choices you may have into one, undermining free will.
English
0
0
0
8
Darwin to Jesus
Darwin to Jesus@darwintojesus·
Knowledge doesn't cause anything, and it certainly doesn't remove responsibility. We all know what Germany did in WWII. Are we responsible for what they did because we know it? No, no we aren't. We know what they did, **because** they did it. It's not the other way around. God knows what we choose because that's what we choose. And because we freely choose to sin, God judges us. I mean think about it... imagine everyone is going around acting totally depraved and evil, but no one knows what they're doing. There's no "knower." Now add a "knower," nothing else changes. Someone now knows what they're doing. Are they now somehow not responsible for their actions because someone knows what they're doing? I hope you can see how absurd that is.
Freedomain - with Stefan Molyneux, MA@StefanMolyneux

How can God punish you for what He knows ahead of time you're going to do?

English
29
4
53
3.1K
lurkeraccount1453
lurkeraccount1453@8t586xbot·
@Sentdex when the AI says that it really means its context window is getting too long, you should switch to another session and continue from there. try to use around 200k context per session, the longer you go on accuracy drops + consumes usage quicker.
English
0
0
1
326
Harrison Kinsley
Harrison Kinsley@Sentdex·
opus 4.7 has a lot to learn about how things work around here.
Harrison Kinsley tweet media
English
24
20
804
32.7K
𝚌𝚕𝚞𝚖𝚙 𝚘𝚏 𝚌𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚜
>be me, 24, party girl >get knocked up after another wild night at the club >panic for 5 minutes, then book the appointment >show up to clinic bawling "I feel so bad bros, this isn't who I am" >doctor pats my back, "it's okay sweetie, we understand" >nurses hug me, counselors nod sympathetically >procedure done, zero judgment, just compassion and an "abortion is self-care" sticker >one week later >back to partying >back at the same club >back to rawdogging randos >why change?
Patrick T. Brown@PTBwrites

@BenZeisloft @maryricehasson @SFLAction Women who have an abortion often feel tremendous remorse and guilt, and they will have to deal with it with the rest of their lives. At a time where the politics of abortion are so unsettled, leading with the strict application of justice rather than mercy is the wrong approach.

English
28
122
3.5K
103.5K