Shared by lefty friends about the peace they want
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (100)
sorted by:
Are you trying to claim that reality is some ineffable thing that cannot be measured? That it is impossible to make predictions? That it is impossible to improve those predictions?
Or are you trying to claim that the universe does not operate on simple laws that are endlessly repeated?
Not at all. I only interjected because I found your rebuttal to Gizortnik to be flawed. But if you want my two cents on the matter, theories can be refined and improved, but are never ideal. Scientific attempts to describe the laws of nature are asymptotic — they improve, but never reach perfection.
I would also add that paradoxes, as they are used in philosphy, are generally figurative and do not necessarily prove or disprove anything, but I took your comment to be tongue-in-cheek so I was fine with that.
They are not used that way in physics. For example, the Twin "Paradox" and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe are "paradoxes" but really they just mean the theory was flawed and needed refining.
I'll be sure to check out those articles, but I was referring to your first comment in regards to the paradox of tolerance, which is political philosophy.
Why should that be any different? Everyone knows that philosophers are fartsniffing faggots, why should their treatment of paradoxes be considered valid?