Sentrovasi

Assuming what he's saying is true, I still keep coming back to this line:

“My boss said, ‘I would have killed someone who said what you said in the meeting.’”

How does someone say something like that? And how is this something that he's never been called out for?

Yeah, kinda puts paid to the idea that piracy is about sustainable, non-DRMed software for all when the one company whose niche is ensuring that such resources are available is being undermined like this.

Yeah, agreed, but to be fair all of this is no longer criticism about why they didn't use the metric system and actually acknowledges that people need visualisation sometimes.

TIL :)

But I know what one looks like, and I go to the zoo fairly regularly. I don't know what a 1500kg weight looks like, because even for the things which are 1500kg, it's not normally its defining characteristic.

To be fair, I actually find it more difficult to visualise 1500kg than a rhino (I just don't normally interact with things on that scale), so it does help me in terms of knowing how big the satellite roughly is.

Yeah I was going to say: D&D is a lot more geared towards numbers and combat encounters than many other TTRPG systems. My main issue is actually finding players who want to engage in the co-creation of story rather than combat optimisation (not that they preclude each other, but oftentimes if you've built your character as a hammer, everything can start to look like a nail).

Slay the Princess is a relatively light game (largely narrative) that has this as part of its conceit.

It's unfortunate that you've chosen to focus on a semantic nitpick as the only thing to reply to rather than all the other more interesting talking points.

It's also unfortunate that you've chosen to condescend throughout all the posts you've written, which really makes me want to not rely to you.

That said, you've already shown a brutal contradiction:

Wikipedia:
'to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments'

Tutors:
'contribute to an axiomatic system'

Wolfram:
'a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof. The word “axiom” is a slightly archaic synonym for postulate.'

What these definitions all say that I think you're wilfully choosing to ignore (or just not reading carefully enough) is that these are all assumptions meant to make a system internally logical.

It's also amazing how you can say

'Saying 1 + 1 = 2 serves as foundation for further deductive reasoning [...] is generic, imprecise, and worthless'

when that is literally what half of your definitions also say.

'Saying 1 + 1 = 2 is Axiomatic is like saying Oxygen is an axiom or axiomatic. To further build the periodic table. No, Oxygen just is, a fundamental piece of reality which is also true!'

You're still not getting it, which means you're not reading anything I've said at all about human-centric perception (which is a shame given how much time I've had to spend trying to parse your poor semantics.)

There's a difference between the element and atoms of Oxygen that do exist in our world and the name and observed properties of Oxygen that we have derived and given to Oxygen. The strange thing is that I think while everyone else agrees that the testing, observing, and ascribing of properties to something is science, you think that the existence of oxygen itself is science (and therefore science is truth?)

To bring it back to your original equivalences, 1 is true in most languages and systems because along the way, humans decided to use 1 to notate a truth value. If we had wanted (and some systems do), 0 could have been used as the truth value, or even a letter. We've then decided to build entire lines of logic from that number, and obviously from within the observational parameters of this framework, 1 must be true for any of our observations to be internally consistent. But two things:

1. These are our observations, not reality per se.
2. 1 is still an abstraction. Is the concept behind 1 an absolute truth? For all we know 0.99 (recurring) is a much more accurate abstraction for the 1s of the universe. 1 is our human attempt to bring some order to a confusing world.

Fundamentally your dogmatic clinging to axioms as somehow underpinning some universal truth when they are meant to be convenient frameworks to build upon shows a very shallow understanding of the building blocks with which humans have built our understanding of the world. I highly recommend you take the scientific method to heart and try posting these "deep" thoughts in other places to see if anyone else agrees that they're deep. If they don't, I invite you to revise your hypothesis and reassess whether what's "true" to you really is true to the mathematicians and scientists of the world.

Edit: Just want to add that I won't be replying to you anymore as it's taking a lot of more time and the worse thing is I don't think you're even trying to understand what others have to say despite your talk about "no shallow thinking" (lol). There's no point in talking to a brick wall, especially a condescending one, and I'm sure we both have better things to do with our lives.

We can take your axiom, 1+1 = 2, and break it down into where fundamentally one of your biggest misunderstandings is.

We came up with the equivalence of 1+1=2, and deemed it true. Someone else in this comment section already brought up the idea of axioms, and while 1+1=2 is a theorem rather than an axiom, it is built on axioms that have been defined as fact for the rest of the framework to stand.

Science (and Math) is a purely anthropic system or framework. 1+1=2 isn't a universal constant if we look at the fusion of two Hydrogen atoms into one Helium atom (with extra energy being released!) The very idea of what 1 is can change depending on your reference point and may not stay the same between observers. While 1+1 may stay the same in the world of pure Mathematics (and a very robust world it is we have created!) it is much harder to apply them to real life (does this make Mathematics "true-er" than reality?)

I think you're free to believe what makes you happy :)

But making assumptions can be dangerous in science, and misconceptions, especially in the information age, can be very hard to disabuse. I'm happy for shows to not jump to conclusions just so twenty years later we're not stuck with myths that may actually be harmful to how we understand the animals we all love.

This is really strange in two ways.

One, you're not describing science but existence. Science is nothing if not a framework of knowledge based on the scientific method. To somehow come up with a definition of science that separates it from the scientific method actually removes all qualities of knowledge from science (do you think religious people also don't define their knowledge as "what is"?) On the whole, basing your definition of "Science" as how laymen define science seems to be a strange way to try to make a supposedly mathematical argument - from imprecision and abstraction?

Two, to conflate Science with existence essentially is concocting a truism - like when someone asks you to solve for x you've chosen to define x as whatever you want then solve it. Science as the sum of empirical human knowledge is an approximation of x, and as a mathematician I'm sure you understand the significance of how an approximation of something is a world apart from the thing itself. You cannot say that science is truth, therefore science is true - that is a pointless statement that completely drops all the reasons why science is more truthful than religious knowledge or any other form of knowledge.