Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

Senal

@ Senal @programming.dev

Posts
0
Comments
321
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Good spot, i should have said "truly believes" instead of "claims".

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Sure, i could have specified i was talking about the gravitational pull rather than the concept of gravity as a whole.

    I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.

    Nevertheless i stand by my assertion, I'll be specific though so it's clear.

    The idea of some sort of magical control of gravity (and all of the concepts covered by that word) wouldn't necessarily be a binary on/off.

    in a theoretical system where gravity was an objectively provable truth that consisted of an on/off state, control would mean being able to turn that system on or off, either as a whole, but more specifically in this case, for a specified subject.

    in a theoretical system where gravity was an subjective phenomena, control would mean being able adjust the effect of that phenomena to some degree.

    The systems I'm talking about here are my interpretation of the the systems posited by the person to which i was replying.

    Which , again, brings me back to:

    There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth

    For completeness, I should have probably said:

    There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth ( using the exmples of subjective/objective truth as proposed by the person to which i am replying )

    That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!

    Agreed

    As an aside:

    You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.

    What word was i using incorrectly and in what context? , genuine question.

  • A president shouldn't be like this [PizzaCake]

    Jump

  • Opinions and humour aren't mutually exclusive.

    That you personally don't find it humourous doesn't necessarily mean it lacks humour.

    If you want to complain about the authors political opinions, do that directly.

    Pretending that you don't understand how subjective humour works instead of saying what you mean is weak of character.

    Unless you genuinely didn't know humour can be different for different people?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Let me put it this way: is the statement "there's a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies" epistemically true?

    Scientifically, maybe? Because that's what the scientific method is, best approximations given the knowledge we currently have.

    But let's assume yes for the purposes of this reply.

    If truth was subjective, the answer would be "true" or "false" depending on the subject.

    And context.

    Same subject different circumstances, different gravitational forces.

    For those whom the answer is "false", this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth.

    That's a binary interpretation of a non-binary system.

    But again, for the purposes of this reply, sure.

    That implies they'd have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say "it's now true for me" and fall, or "it's now false for me" and stop falling.

    There's a big assumption there that this is a binary.

    Gravity control, doesn't have to be binary.

    It doesn't even have to be direct, they could achieve the same effect by increasing or decreasing mass.

    But let's say it's magic, direct control.

    In an objective system where gravity exists it would conceptually be possible to control the level of gravity acting upon yourself without turning it on or off fully.

    In a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is conceptually true.

    Which brings me back to:

    There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.

    Emphasis mine.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Subjectively?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • I wish I could say I've never came across this sort of muppet. But… sigh

    Yeah...

    Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You're right they aren't the same thing, but they're clearly tied.

    Not really....to any of that.

    There's no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.

    An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.

    Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I'm not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that's within a fixed system or not.

    Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it's not a given.

    The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth's gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn't mean gravity stopped existing for them.

    Yep, that's why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • I doubt you've come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.

    The example you give isn't an example of subjective truth, it's an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn't the same thing.

    I also doubt you've met anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.

    It's entirely possible, but unlikely.

    Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.

  • TIL the stop motion film industry is propped up by one rich kid

    Jump

  • Fucking what?

    A Piranesi stop motion film? Based on the book?

  • TIL one of the Unabomber's victims had a six-year correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein.

    Jump

  • Not necessarily mutually exclusive

  • TIL one of the Unabomber's victims had a six-year correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein.

    Jump

  • Labels don't matter, be happy

  • TIL one of the Unabomber's victims had a six-year correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein.

    Jump

  • Anyone else seeing an older, rounder Michael Cera?

  • This community isn't your personal adviser

    Jump

  • I wasnt suggesting it would be easy, in fact i think it would be rather difficult on both fronts.

    My comment was more about the method by which this kind of thing was intended to be addressed.

  • This community isn't your personal adviser

    Jump

  • I imagine this is a controversial opinion....but isn't the idiomatic solution to this to either:

    petition the mods to get this rule added and enforced

    or

    To start a community that enforces this rule and let it compete with this one.

    Isn't that the whole idea of federation?

  • Valve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewhere

    Jump

  • I see, that's my bad, I thought this was a conversation, but it's actually a rant.

    No worries, I rescind my participation

    You go off king/queen/

    <royal of unspecified gender>

    .

  • Valve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewhere

    Jump

  • You're conflating commercial competency with personal likeability.

    The difference between

    Steam is provably the superior platform and that's why they are successful.

    Vs

    Steam is better because I like gaben.

    Defending commercial competency is logically consistent.

    Defending a billionaire personally is not.

    Now go back and look at what was being defended.

  • Kevin Hart doesn't know why you're asking him about things said at The Roast Of Kevin Hart

    Jump

  • Ngl I had to look them up, but sure, that tracks

  • Kevin Hart doesn't know why you're asking him about things said at The Roast Of Kevin Hart

    Jump

  • like charlie kirk or ben shapiro.

    ....well....just ben shapiro now...but you know what i mean.

  • ANN: ostui v1.1.1, an OpenSubsonic TUI

    Jump

  • TIL: gendered button/zipper placement on clothes (and a guess at why)

    Jump

  • Very possible i got this the wrong way around, or that I’m incorrect entirely.