Stack Exchange
log in

Syntax Junkie

 Discussion on question by user80226: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Syntax Junkie
Dec 7, 2024 15:18
Can you give an example of a process that meets your criteria for "fundamentally random" but actually follows a probability distribution?
 

 Discussion on answer by Allure: Why i…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Syntax Junkie
Mar 3, 2024 17:13
I'm not sure I understand how this answer addresses the core question. From the original post: "My mental image is of a singularity that starts the big bang....." This answer replies with "Calculations show that in the naive Big Bang model, different patches of the sky are causally disconnected..." But how can a singularity have causally disconnected regions?
 

 Discussion on question by Agent Smith…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Syntax Junkie
Oct 31, 2023 05:10
Could you elaborate on the definitions of Dog and Unicorn in the post? I assume they are supposed to be examples of something, but I don't know what you are trying to illustrate with them, especially with respect to the question. It looks like the definition of Unicorn may have something to do with whether a unicorn really exists or not. But that seems to be a different question from whether the defintion of a Unicorn is true or false. If those are mean as examples, I find them more confusing than enlightening.
 

 Discussion on answer by causative: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Syntax Junkie
Jun 27, 2023 08:35
@thinkingman. Even if we stipulate that belief is either complete or none, that doesn't mean "evidence" and "belief" are the same thing. Say, one "piece of evidence" (Exhibit A) completely convinces 12 of 12 jurors that a murder suspect is guilty. Exhibit B completely convinces 6 of 12 people that the suspect is guilty. And exhibit C completely convinces only 1 of 12 jurors that a suspect is guilty. Couldn't Exhibit C reasonably be called "weaker" evidence than Exhibit A?
 

 Discussion on question by prettykitty…

Imported from a comment discussion on music.stackexchange.com/...
Randall Stewart
Jan 29, 2021 22:32
An analogous (but broader) question might be: Why bother to learn to read (the printed word) when I can just talk to my phone and smart speaker and watch YouTube videos? Why be literate at all?
2
 

 Discussion on question by vianna77: D…

Imported from a comment discussion on electronics.stackexchang...
Randall Stewart
Sep 8, 2019 11:51
Other comments have hinted at this, but I'm adding this comment to make it explicit: Laypeople often do not distinguish between the thing being measured and the units used to measure it. "Current" will be referred to as "amperage" or power called "wattage." I've even seen expressions such as "What's your miles per hour?" to refer to speed, or "What's the square footage?" to refer to area. At least in US English, this practice is so prevalent that only the most pedantic will insist on always making the distinction. (I'm one of the pedantic.)
 

 Discussion on question by Rolf Haugal…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Randall Stewart
Aug 17, 2019 11:37
This question reminds me of the Voltaire quote: "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another." ("Miracles," 1764 per en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire). Until Person 1 and Person 2 come to an agreement about what they mean by "sky" and "blue" (or even "is") their debate doesn't seem productive.
 

 Discussion on answer by Ash: Given im…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Randall Stewart
Sep 26, 2018 14:45
With regard to "Evidence suggests...", see the story of Gua, a chimpanzee raised from birth along side a human child (Donald) in the 1930s: "For a while, Gua actually excelled at these tests compared to Donald. But eventually, as NPR notes, Gua hit a cognitive wall: no amount of training or nurturing could overcome the fact that, genetically, she was a chimpanzee." See smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/…. [Emphasis on "cognitive wall" is mine.]
 

 Discussion on question by Chris: What…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
Randall Stewart
Jul 16, 2018 06:43
@ThorstonS. I see your point now, thanks for the extra information. But I'm wondering, if the particles in the beam were sufficiently dense, sufficiently massive, and sufficiently energetic that they continued to burrow through the earth, even after the source of the beam had swept onto a subsequent, latitudinal band (40 m tall), would that allow the three conditions in the OP question to be internally consistent? That seems like the coring for all latitudinal bands might be co-occurring with each other.
Randall Stewart
Jul 16, 2018 06:43
@ThorstonS. I'm not following your argument. It seems to me that you missed the "in half" part of the question. I read the question as the beam is making a single cut, "from top to bottom" (presumably from north to south pole) parallel to a meridian, separating the earth into two hemispheres. The 40 meter width of the beam is just the "thickness of the knife" so to speak.
 

 Discussion on question by Nik Faris: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Randall Stewart
Apr 13, 2018 07:41
Adding to the comment from @H Walters. Just for sake of argument, let's assume there is a prime cause. The problem with calling it "god," is that there's extra baggage carried along with that term. Namely, sentience, omniscience, beneficence, omipresence, omniscience, interest in humanity, answered prayer, etc. None of those things are logical necessities of the "prime cause" argument. To define "god" as the prime cause feels intellectually dishonest to me. If you mean prime cause, then say prime cause, not "god," so the essence of your argument isn't clouded by extra connotation.
 

 Discussion on question by morningstar…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Randall Stewart
Dec 3, 2017 22:55
It may not be the smoking breaks alone that cause the odor. If you smoke heavily at home or in your car, your clothes (even those in dressers or hanging in the closet), your bath towels, and hair will be saturated with it. Why now? Body odor is especially taboo in Western culture. It's possible your boss didn't feel comfortable bringing it up until he got to know you as a person. It may also be why no one raised an issue even when you brought it up before.
 

 Discussion on question by Vincent: DD…

Imported from a comment discussion on ux.stackexchange.com/que...
Randall Stewart
Apr 6, 2017 04:48
I know of no studies that would validate my own feelings, but ever since Y2K, to me, two-digit years feel cheap, antiquated, and a sign of unsophisticated design. I'm just sayin'.