• 4 Posts
  • 370 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle


  • (E: never mind that, as has already been suggested to you, the theoretical thought experiment in question specifies not only infinite monkeys, but infinite time too, so they’ve not stuck to either parameter)

    Whoah, whoah, whoah… Big critical thinker here thinks the paper is about disproving a thought experiment?

    You understand that this is impossible? Even if it were attempted, such a venture is more a philosophical one, not a mathematicians forte.

    Obviously the paper is not looking at that, it’s doing math

    “Yes, it is true that given infinite resources, any text of any length would inevitably be produced eventually. While true, this also has no relevance to our own universe, as ‘reaching infinity’ in resources is not something which can ever happen.”

    That needing to be pointed out to you is… Well you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t waste my energy “critically thinking” yet 👍


  • Im looking for news that affirms reality.

    You…affirm your reality…by looking forr news…that does so?

    With the intent and purpose of rational thought, it’s supposed to be the other way around.. In by doing this, it is the premise of “fact checking” and the antithesis of misinformation.

    That’s how reality, by definition, works. A statement is made. We look to confirm it. It is real if confirmed. You don’t look for statements to confirm a hypothesis and say, “Well, that’s my reality.”

    What you just said is no different to stating that you look for Google results that back up what you want to hear…

    Are you trying to prove my point for me?

    Trump’s public record words and actions already left no doubt that he’s molested children. This writer’s credible but unsourced account is just to remind people that trump has molested children, something that most people realize from trump’s words, actions, associates attitude.

    That’s unrelated to anything I’ve said and I don’t know why you thought I’d want to hear it.

    When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hangs out with ducks, eats bread at the park, and admits in public and private to being a duck - it’s unreasonable to argue that we can’t assume it’s a duck.

    That’s an unrelated example of abductive reasoning. Again, I don’t know why you picked me to share that with. If it bears any relation to what I’ve said, it’s irony in that by saying it, you’re proving my point further.






  • What you’re after is news pieces that confirm your position. Dangerous.

    then it becomes a completely different scenario.

    No. No it does not.

    At the end of the day…

    A guy is saying a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy.

    Literally, this is “Trust me, bro.”

    Be it Trump, Elmo, or a box of Skittles, this preface does not change. Acknowledge that first, then you can go start conversations about Trump molestations as much as you like.

    Don’t be like a red hatter and get caught in echo chambers.


  • Not that I support the guy at all, but you lot really need to stop saying “this is definite” and “it is fact” every time there’s an allegation made about something you don’t like. Not just Trump; anything. Unless you are one, y’all need to save that kind of dumb shit for dumb people, even if you like what you’re hearing.

    Take Trump out of it for a second. This is literally a scenario of…

    "A guy says a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy "

    Could be true. Could be not true. It’s hardly the kind of information that should be landing a half-competent mind onto a decision.