Gauss

@SignaIbat9 @shitpost_2077 Relativising outputs within that system does not free it from convention, but rather annihilates the system. There are no multiple valid answers to a properly defined operation. It would result in incoherency.

@SignaIbat9 @shitpost_2077 You are conflating mathematics as a human interpretive framework (1) by it being property of the universe itself (2). It's only the former. It is a formal system with defined operations.

@SignaIbat9 @shitpost_2077 Point 1: True in isolation. Point 2: No. going from the post, it would either be 30 or 40. Point 3: You are conflating notational variance with computational variance.

@GAUIMPE @shitpost_2077 The equations we know might look differently because the process was different. You will end up with the same results. An equation that represents something. Like Newtons law of motion might not look the same but it will still be an equation, but will look slightly different.

@SignaIbat9 @shitpost_2077 Point 1: you will get different answers. Point 2: Different values to the same expression cannot be both valid, that would make a contradiction. Point 3: It will. Predicted force values in multi-term expression will change.

@GAUIMPE @shitpost_2077 There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing the addition first and then multiplying it. The output is still a valid mathematical answer to the equation. Physics won't break just because you did addition first. The maths will be different but physics and maths are still the same.

@SignaIbat9 @shitpost_2077 "Wether it is right or wrong is subjective to what you were expecting the question to be," What? "Math is just the process of getting to an answer, not THE answer," That collapses the formal system itself. Your argument, if applied generally, would self-destruct.

@shitpost_2077 Fr tho... PEMDAS is the worst thing invented by man. Math is math, there are many ways of getting the answers. Wether it is right or wrong is subjective to what you were expecting the question to be. Math is just the process of getting to an answer, not THE answer.

@MilitaryCooI Slaughter of other homo sapiens turned into sensationalist entertainment. Truly, this is for the last man.

The Taliban spot US Special Forces and move into position to ambush them. Little do they know two AH-64D Apache Gunships spot them first and let it rip on their platoon sized group. Mess with the best. End like the rest.

@MattDane552022 @earth_toness @kaizen000000000 Is your god benevolent? How would you know this?

@earth_toness @kaizen000000000 You're mocking the idea that God could actually be beyond our human comprehension. You're insisting that because you can't understand something infinitely greater than yourself, it must not actually be infinitely greater. That's pure human arrogance.

I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that people don’t understand this simple concept😭

@PraxLemon @FeelsGuy2003 Also, do you really, really think that morality is something in which there can be a "final" answer or synthesis?

@PraxLemon @FeelsGuy2003 It is pointless? How do you know that? Is the point of it to be memetically transmitted and used in some pragmatic way? Is that not a claim laden with presuppositions? You never framed this being your own view, but as empirical observations that led to this absolutist conclusion.

Realest thing I’ve seen all day

@Hadryan505 @XinGaoY2K @Avesvery Could you solve for the Epicurean paradox without resorting to Appeal-to-mysticism? I'd be interested in reading your thoughts here.

@XinGaoY2K @Avesvery Lol you are falling into fallacy at this point. If it weren't like that then it wouldn't be omnipotent, and therefore it wouldn't be god. You could research into the metaphysical and philosophical aspects of it, it's good to actually understand god beyond religion.

The creationist mind cannot comprehend that an unconscious but logically consistent chain of causality can lead to an outcome. Things can only be intentional or random to them, there is no room in their worldview for physical processes coherently interacting.