Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: D <nospam@example.net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 11:13:37 +0100
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7e685a69-7730-33d1-b6ef-9543e85da5a5@example.net>
References: <pan$26699$6602b79b$4abe425a$df32a923@gnu.rocks> <_OmcnZpYmdE-PYX6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com> <wwvldyfmenf.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <vfcjir$2gc7o$4@dont-email.me> <wwvv7xh1jee.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <vfeh5a$2qk0v$1@dont-email.me> <slrnvhnn9i.2ou1.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid> <vfh570$3brp2$2@dont-email.me> <20241025153958.0000222f@gmail.com> <vfhbt5$3d372$2@dont-email.me> <vfhkm0$3i0mb$1@dont-email.me> <lo3dvqFo19fU2@mid.individual.net> <x7aTO.203217$WtV9.131985@fx10.iad> <vfl3nr$bic6$6@dont-email.me> <7ab4b4d4-1990-98d1-3f6f-0f091024aed9@example.net> <vfnk76$tra6$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4028683"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M";
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vfnk76$tra6$3@dont-email.me>
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:675481 comp.os.linux.misc:60165



On Mon, 28 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 27/10/2024 21:32, D wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
> Closest to the last. But I would say I use transcendental idealism the most 
> :-)
>
> Use of a metaphysical worldview speeds computations enormously at the expense 
> of never being 100% reliable...
>
> But that's OK, as there are plenty of sub optimal worldviews to use on an ad 
> hoc basis.
>
> The problems people encounter is when they mistake a worldview for objective 
> reality.
>
> Engineers are very used to the idea that laws are not so much real, as useful 
> rules of thumb.

It is a mystery to me that you have not blocked me already. From time to 
time, I find that we agree on some things, and at other times, I find that 
we violently disagree (possibly). Maybe, there is more common ground to be 
discovered by carefully examining definitions over a whiskey and a cigar? 
Maybe.