ryan.s.harv

@beatty_bernard @morallawwithin “Cogito ergo sum” is about epistemology, bro.

@morallawwithin Descartes is wrong. In 'I think therefore I am' the initial I doing the thinking must exist since thought cannot happen by and of itself, so existence precedes thought rather than, as the cogito wants to suggest, that it depends upon thought to show that the thinker exists.

I have no stake in this but you shouldn’t accuse people of not thinking while also fumbling the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions

Basic metacognition: Hmmm ok I should increase my brain temperature and energy production through things like thyroid and vitamin B1 so I will be more able to solve complicated problems and navigate through life better Advanced metacognition: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

@KalebAtlanta Time for her to know the Augustinian framework

I have a girlfriend now

@_akavi @mariyaivasileva What about: a*0 = a*0 + 0 = a*0 + (a*0 - a*0) = (a*0 + a*0) - a*0 = a(0 + 0) - a*0 = a*0 - a*0 = 0

@mariyaivasileva A stab (a*0 = 0 first): 1) 0 + 0 = 0 (additive identity) 2) a*(0 + 0) = a*0 3) a*0 + a*0 = a*0 (distributivity) 4) a*0 + a*0 + -(a*0) = a*0 + -(a*0) 5) a*0 + 0 = 0 (additive inverse) 6) a*0 = 0 (additive identity

I still vividly remember my first week at Caltech — we got our very first problem set after the inaugural Math 1 lecture. Problem 1: “Using only the field axioms, prove that (-1) × (-1) = 1.” This was just days after international orientation. I’d flown to Pasadena straight from Bulgaria for the first time, alone with two suitcases of not-warm-enough clothing (blame international TV for the California misconceptions), a vacuum-bagged blanket, no cell phone, and barely any sense of what to expect. Back then, the school’s website was about as good as the internet got for information. So we sit in a circle and stare at the problem — all of us internationals looking confused and still jetlagged. “Isn’t it obvious?” a few protest. “Can’t we just prove it by contradiction?” someone else tries. “Wait, don’t we need to prove that any number times zero is zero first?” asks someone who’d actually paid attention during lecture. That “simple” problem ended up sending a handful of us to the TA’s office hours just to get a hint on the right approach. The cognitive dissonance between “this is obvious” and “this needs rigorous proof” was real. Ah, those early days of developing mathematical maturity.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Thank you, Baby Rudin and Apostol.

@ElijahElishaRap So you’re equating the formal definition of Vat. 1 with the various quotes from Church Fathers in the first millennium?

A Future Historian Examining the German Bishops Crisis (2026) Historian: It is evident that the Catholic Church did not actually believe in papal authority in 2026. Interlocutor: What leads you to that conclusion? Historian: The Pope was claiming primacy over the German bishops, yet they openly rejected it. Since they did not believe in papal primacy, the Catholic Church itself did not believe in it. Interlocutor: But didn’t Vatican I explicitly define papal primacy and universal jurisdiction? Historian: That was merely flowery language.

@CatholicPrimer Let’s grant there are neutral observers, why would/ought they convert if it meant losing their neutral standing? Why convert when the person converted will now see life through a fixed biased lens (compared to a fixed neutral lens)? I myself reject the initial assumption

Fr. Sebastian (EO) openly concedes that Catholic theology favors rational, intellectual argumentation: clear claims, historical evidence, and logical coherence. That already tells you something important: our position is meant to be evaluated by a neutral observer.