webdva

And you need not defend anything from an an elitist aristocrat like me. We don't live in the same reality—and that is okay. Because there are multiple realities. Unless you wish to object to this notion and assert, like an imperialist, that there is only one reality and that I have to "necessarily conform" to it. Otherwise, you may subscribe to your reality of God given rights, goods, and societies while hyper-reality cosmos-nauts traverse their higher and incomprehensible planes of existences like Lovecraftian antagonists.

Is the education of the average person worth it, or anything significant? Considering the average person does not have any significant production capability, a power-law probability distribution average. Not everyone can make things and contribute to society like Elon Musk or else everyone would be named Elon Musk. It's best to just classify only exceptional individuals as more important in large scale public policy. Idealistic socialists would disagree with me but productive reality and politics are not disjoint.

How fast can a single board computer such as the Raspberry Pi compute the solution to a linear programming problem (i.e., a mathematical optimization problem of the form Ax < b) that has, literally, trillions of constraints? Or can it even be done at all what with the large pool of constraints to navigate through? And how is such a prospect and execution compared to the computations done in the middle of the twentieth century which used weaker computers?

Indeed, since truth does not exist, language and communication is impossible. But the truth predicate for propositions isn't necessary, as truth doesn't exist to legitimately create a legitimate need for any sort of necessity. So, instead of searching for the truth predicate, and as grammar and syntax, those subjective and arbitrary creators of languages and communications, are the ultimate sources of meaning rather than any inherent meaning itself, why not look for something else? Or establish something else? Like untruth and uncertainty?

Thermodynamics and the quantum most certainly would not exist if you did not bring them up. You are now the master of existence. I dub thee Molecule Man.

How do you know that there is a communication going on and in what absolute sense does it occur, without resorting to any certain sense as certainty always comes up short, never converging to actual truth and is, therefore, not suitable for matters of truth. Any meaning given to any instance of language depends on subjective based grammars that give life to words, indeed conforming to a regime of, ultimately synthesized, grammars which don't exist without a subject of self-governing origination. Every measure of consistency requires a necessary foundation, with the foundation always being some imagined standard based on certainty, that commonly found tool of the mind that never really tells you anything. The emprical, material, and even biology and its evolutionary theories? Knowledge of their objects always depends on interpretation and interpretation is always not objective but instead subjective. And for there to be a commitment, there must be a personality. But personality is, logically, dependent on a regime of truth and it is codified by the user of this regime—a mess of endless self-reference, as truth is wont to do. Really, at this rate, I'll eventually converge to the truth that there is no truth, that real truth is not, instead of being is. Indeed, I'm going one truth further.

Interesting. But I'm skeptical about the existence of an absolute truth. Because, ultimately, what would be the essence of what it is, truth? And why would it exist? What source would be the source of this truth, ultimately? And how would we know, especially as truth implies untruth and therefore the possibly of cognitive error?

> A subset of the authors point is the "truth collapse". It's increasingly difficult to differentiate truth from falsehood. Also increasingly difficult to differentiate between truth and 'almost' truth.

It's kinda hard for there to be, in actuality and in an objective sense, a destruction of truth when, really, truth never existed in the first place except as a perspective-based pragmatic tool and even a self-actualized Other-being. Really, when one person claims that truth is becoming destroyed or something, such occurence is actually an instance of a contest of truths, all equally valid, in essence, with the one that has the most ambition able to enjoy the fruit of victory. That's why "fake news" is often touted: a transgressive action on its antithesis and opponent that is the "false."

Inspiring persistence.