Author Topic: How programming works.....  (Read 11652 times)

caballero

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Matrix - Noah
    • abre ojos ensamblador
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #75 on: August 17, 2018, 01:01:12 AM »
x
« Last Edit: August 18, 2018, 07:08:47 PM by caballero »
The logic of the error is hidden among the most unexpected lines of the program

mineiro

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #76 on: August 17, 2018, 02:25:34 AM »
Can you give me 1 example of scientific contribution to society by religion over say, the last 300 years?
Cmon man, you're talking about science; science and religion can walk together.
Recent examples of war have shown us how science has evolved, and I do not mean science badly.
I'm tired.
I'd rather be this ambulant metamorphosis than to have that old opinion about everything

Siekmanski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #77 on: August 17, 2018, 04:37:36 AM »
Yes, in modern time religions accept science such as Darwin's Theory Of Evolution because it is a proven fact.

Good, bad and evil ( morals and ethics ) is a human learning process and is evenly divided and present amongst atheists and theists.

Don't forget I respect everybody's views.
It's not my intention to sound rude.
It's the Dutch culture to be direct and not to be "politically correct".
This is the Dutch way to explain the difference between Atheist and Theist,

Atheist: relies on science where no deities are needed to explain the workings of the Universe.
Theist: relies on a holy book and the need of deities ( born out of ignorance or misunderstanding ) to explain the workings of the Universe.

This is my last comment on this topic, else it will be a never ending discussion.
Let's create CODE not WAR.  :t
Creative coders use backward thinking techniques as a strategy.

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7774
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #78 on: August 19, 2018, 12:37:37 AM »
 :biggrin:

> Can you give me 1 example of scientific contribution to society by religion over say, the last 300 years?

Can you give me 1 example of religious contribution to society by science over say, the last 300 years?

Sorry Marinus, I could not resist.  :P
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :skrewy:

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7774
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #79 on: August 19, 2018, 12:56:47 AM »
Some hundreds of years ago a German philosopher named Emanuel Kant produced an analysis of ranges of conflicting views about a variety of topics. It went like this, for any given category/topic/target etc .... there can at best be one view that is true and the rest are false but all views can be false. The term was "antinomies" and among other things it well applies to religious/anti religious debates.

Neither the theist or atheist can produce a viable proof for their position and with some humour, both are driven by faith, not reason. Both can produce open questions but neither has evidence that their view is right and I doubt that either will ever improve. As long as neither try and inflict their view on me by force, I simply don't care what others believe.
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :skrewy:

Siekmanski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #80 on: August 19, 2018, 01:18:22 AM »
 :biggrin:

I can't resist to answer this one.

NONE, or it came from an atheist disguised as a theist.

It's the responsibility for those who claim something exists, to come with the evidence.
You can't prove a negative.
I can not prove there are no unicorns.  :P
Creative coders use backward thinking techniques as a strategy.

AW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Let's Make ASM Great Again!
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #81 on: August 19, 2018, 02:08:14 AM »
Quote
I can not prove there are no unicorns.  :P

That's the Russel Teapot. People that makes unfalsifiable claims must prove them!

Siekmanski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #82 on: August 19, 2018, 03:05:10 AM »
Analogy confirmed.  :t
Creative coders use backward thinking techniques as a strategy.

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7774
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #83 on: August 19, 2018, 02:20:27 PM »
Proof is a lot more complicated than most think. In maths and logic you can deliver deductive proof but this is because you already have the axioms of each system. When someone asks about the axioms you start to get into trouble there as well. Russell in his later life held the view that for axiomatic systems to be valid, they must be based off real world systems, that is, inductive proof.

Now inductive proof is another animal altogether, you will get little complaint from most of the world's population about the sun rising in the east but as the sample gets smaller, you get statements like "A billion people in India cannot be wrong about Lord Shiva destroying and renewing life" except that if you live in Pakistan you would be more inclined to say "A billion Muslims cannot be wrong about Allah having created the world" but when they want to say that Iblis (The Islamic Devil) has possessed you and you need to have it exorcised, I would start to object and be willing to defend myself.

Personally I tend to agree with the English philosopher David Hume that statements about the world at large need to be empirically verified so while statements about the colour of little men on Mars may be funny, I doubt that anything apart from speculation will ever follow from it. I am a fan of objective empirical data as it is accumulative and if something is found to be wrong, even if only slightly so (Newtonian v Einsteinian laws of motion), it can be adjusted and still work OK.

The problem with deductive closed systems (any) is that if one part breaks, the system breaks.
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :skrewy:

Siekmanski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #84 on: August 19, 2018, 06:52:00 PM »
Philosophy is a nice tool to try and find explanations.
But what if you "intentionally" leave out empirically verified data that is not understood.

Dr. William Lane Craig, born in 1949 in Peoria, Illinois, is an American Christian apologist, philosopher, and theologian.
He wittingly misquotes opponents in a debate, in some sense it is just hilarious.
The advocate of Christianity.

Craig claims that religious faith must be spread through appeals to reason and logic or atheism will triumph. However, this is more about crafting a more effective "sales pitch", than any real commitment to reason as Craig is essentially willing to abandon reason if it provides the "wrong" answers (i.e. those incompatible with Craig's religious dogma)

Some of his quotes:

"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence.
And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit." :dazzled:

"I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel.... Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter." :dazzled:

The KCA of Craig is an example of begging the question or circular reasoning. Craig presumes that the phrase "whatever begins to exist" is God. This presupposition puts God into the premise of the argument that was supposed to prove his existence in the first place. This is also most likely an example of special pleading, as the first premise, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause", can be rewritten as "Everything that is not God has a cause" (unless there exists some other thing or things which did not begin to exist). In addition, another way of looking at this is with the following syllogism:

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore the universe has a cause.

Even if this syllogism is valid, it does not imply what that cause is. To state that the cause is a god, the Christian God, or any other entity requires additional statements, not to mention that it contains no definition of "God" or "god", making Craig's discussion fail in several ways.

In addition, if some things exist did not begin to exist, then even accepting the other premises does not lead to the Christian God as the answer. Craig offers no evidence for a god (or God), but merely asserts that a god must have been the cause. Craig's description is an example of an argument from ignorance.

1.Bishops can only move diagonally.
2.The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.
3.Therefore, the Pope can only move diagonally.

William Lane Craig Debunked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE80p6i8Sug&list=PL10E203F4FBC0E37E

BTW Humans are easily fooled and let them believe. An example:

In the Netherlands 67% of the people have a contract for "Green" Energy.
They think they are helping to get a better environment but, they don't know that there is only 2% Green energy available.
The missing Green energy are certificates bought from Norway.
Creative coders use backward thinking techniques as a strategy.

hutch--

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7774
  • Mnemonic Driven API Grinder
    • The MASM32 SDK
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #85 on: August 20, 2018, 04:20:11 AM »
I suggest that bad arguments stand on both sides of the debate. The argument that Craig tries to reformulate is the 12th century "proof" by Thomas Aquinas, the argument of the "First Mover" and it is finally an open argument. It is not a proof but it pulls the plug on the alternative, the need for an infinite regression of "movers", both sides come to grief on this argument as "infinite" can never be verified and you have no proof to assert that there was a "First Mover".

I remember the expression "Mere Theology" when it came to the type of reasoning that many clergy have tried to use, the mixture of faith and data but it ends up being "Mere Theology". Likewise the assumption of uniformity over time is simply not subject to proof unless you can infinitely regress and empirically verify it which is the same problem of trying to prove infinity.

Both are trying to account for the existence of the universe, one by God (whatever flavour) and the other by a mix of hair brain theories and infinite duration. I leave such acts of faith alone and stick to an empirical style of evidence which gets tweaked from time to time on the basis of the available evidence. There is yet another range of theories that I see on Youtube when I am brain dead, the UFO/Aliens who are supposed to have seeded the world with their offspring/creations and who are supposed to have been seen as gods.

At least in European religious art there are some odd things flying around in the background but I suggest that it falls far short of proof. The vedic era writings have some truly wild stuff that does not fit any modern narrative.

The truly deep and meaningful thing I have done today was to find and download an upgrade for my Sony AX700 camera and if its not too cold outside later today, I will see if its any better.
hutch at movsd dot com
http://www.masm32.com    :biggrin:  :skrewy:

mineiro

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #86 on: August 20, 2018, 04:50:38 AM »
Scientists fail to create a cure for headache to date, something that affects 96% of the world's population; they can not explain the gravity to this day, just measure, they can not reproduce human blood in a way that blood transfusion or donation is needed, but they talk about cloning; they do not know what happens when the light enters the black hole, if it is lost or Lavoisier. They say about multiverses, you can die in this world we talk about but it's alive in another universe. But they have absolute certainty that God does not exist. Really? This don't glue on me.
When will scientists stop bragging about something they can not explain? Simple, placing blame on something they can not explain. Some Dilbert problems still has no solution, waste your time trying to solve them, will be more fruitful.

I am politically incorrect, even because science, politics, and religion are different things. Richard Dawkins fled the debate with Craig without even analyzing the curriculum vitae of it, just messages on the internet, why did not you say this? Then came his squire, Lawrence, unfriendly, anxious, pacing back and forth as if he were the master of reason, wanting in an egocentric way to refute even without being able to do so. On the other side, someone calm, standing, looking down, thinks, reflects, to respond. The body spoke more than the mouth in the debate.
I'd rather be this ambulant metamorphosis than to have that old opinion about everything

Siekmanski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #87 on: August 20, 2018, 05:28:37 AM »
Quote
But they have absolute certainty that God does not exist. Really? This don't glue on me.

Science makes it possible not to believe in God.

Quote
Richard Dawkins fled the debate with Craig without even analyzing the curriculum vitae of it, just messages on the internet, why did not you say this?

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
Richard Dawkins

This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2011/10/why-i-refuse-to-debate-with-william-lane-craig/

Quote
Then came his squire, Lawrence, unfriendly, anxious, pacing back and forth as if he were the master of reason, wanting in an egocentric way to refute even without being able to do so. On the other side, someone calm, standing, looking down, thinks, reflects, to respond. The body spoke more than the mouth in the debate.

Craig is a master in debating techniques, but has no scientific knowledge, therefore no match for Lawrence Krauss.

Honest scientists and philosophers, rightly refuse to debate with quacks and charlatans, on an academic platform where charlatans can pose as equals, or present dishonest obfuscating waffle as “logic”.
Craig may have cheerleaders among the uneducated, indoctrinated and deluded, in the blogosphere, but among competent scientists, and logical thinkers, he is a laughing-stock.

One thing science and religion have in common is, both can't prove God exists.  :t
« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 07:47:29 AM by Siekmanski »
Creative coders use backward thinking techniques as a strategy.

nidud

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
    • https://github.com/nidud/asmc
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #88 on: August 20, 2018, 07:19:12 AM »
 :biggrin:

Science is a method not a truth committee.

You pour some water on the fire and it goes out. The conclusion from this scientific research is that fire and water don't mix so you may use water as a fire extinguisher.

However, knowledge is exploitable and useful ones established and the method itself do encourage this behavior. Given both fire and water do indeed come from the thundercloud the above "science" may be put into question.

When will scientists stop bragging about something they can not explain?

So now god lives in the dark thundercloud.

   Redeem thy life from Hell,
   and find me the water's flame.

mineiro

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
Re: How programming works.....
« Reply #89 on: August 20, 2018, 08:05:46 AM »
This is just a conversation, nothing personal gentlemen. I'm mature enough to separate things.
Socrates did this a lot, he opposed ideas to be debated ... It was one of the divisors of seas because until then the people, naturalists, believed in the 4 elements as being superior, water, earth, fire, air, not necessarily in this order.
Speaking of Philosophy, it was they who discovered the atom, something scientifically proven times after.

Well, about proving whether God exists is another story. I can feel, and how could I prove omnipresence? The all in all.

Hutch, Nidud, Siekmanski, something tells me that you believe in God. You can talk, do not be ashamed :). Open your hearts, have faith and hope.

Oh, my last post have a typo, is not Dilbert, but Hilbert problems.
I'd rather be this ambulant metamorphosis than to have that old opinion about everything