Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: D Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 22:32:24 +0100 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <7ab4b4d4-1990-98d1-3f6f-0f091024aed9@example.net> References: <_OmcnZpYmdE-PYX6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com> <20241025153958.0000222f@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-200415438-1730064747=:3972" Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3956001"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M"; In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:675436 comp.os.linux.misc:60144 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-200415438-1730064747=:3972 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 26/10/2024 19:01, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2024-10-26, rbowman wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>>> Welcome to the problems of metaphysics >>>> >>>> Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative” >>>> ... >>> >>> About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than >>> nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That >>> was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on. >> >> This contrasts with your typical math text book, which starts out with >> a few pages of trivial statements before making the jump to the edge >> of the universe, cued by that magical phrase "It is obvious that..." >> > My nephew is a Native German speaker with a native German father and > stepfather. He studied philosophy at an English university. > > I asked him whether he read Kant in the original German. He said no, he > found the English translations *easier to understand*. > > There is an apocryphal saying that "All the problems of French philosophy > would have been solved if they had written them down in German" > > Heidegger is unmitigated shit really. I gave up after a chapter or two. > Wittgenstein says that the mark of a true philosopher is that he will have > thrown a book written by a famous philsopher into the corner, unfinished, > more than once > > 'Why are there beings at all rather than nothing?' is simply answered: > > 'Because if there weren't no one could ask such an unanswerable question'. > Even asking 'why' in the context of the universe is a massively > anthropocentric statement. 'Why' applies to human beings, not the world . > Taoists say it better. > > "The Tao is that which exists through itself" (Tao being the sort of essence > of being-ness). > > Or Wittgenstein "The world is everything that is the case" > > Right on chum, I would never have guessed. > > Nietzsche is more tongue in cheek and amusing: > > “Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has one > solution: it is called pregnancy. " > > But philosophers like Hume, Kant and so on have extreme implication for > philosophy of science, as they show conclusively that no theory as such can > ever be proven to be true. > > This shocking fact moves science from a repository of true facts, to a > collection of explanations whose sole justifications are they they are > mutually consistent and seem to work. > > This is important to understand when you are at the bleeding edge of physics. Are you an instrumentalist, scientific realist or perhaps a constructive empiricist? --8323328-200415438-1730064747=:3972--