arendjr

joined 2 years ago
[–] arendjr@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, yeah, I’m not the one claiming to have all the answers. I merely am a witness of my consciousness, so I know that’s a real thing. I describe that whole of consciousness and awareness and “me-ness” as my soul, but I have no hard definition for it, I merely know there’s something there.

Science however is a man-made construct and can only operate on the observable and the independently verifiable. I’m not saying that to diminish its worth, because science is mighty cool, but I simply refuse to take it to the extreme position that anything that cannot be scientifically proven should be assumed not to exist.

I’ve experienced enough weird shit in my life that makes no scientific sense. They still happened though. So rather than denying these things, the sane thing to do is to shrug them off as “it’s dimensions or quantum or whatever” :)

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Regarding the quantum physics part, I was referring to the double slit experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Matter can interfere with itself in wave patterns that behave as if the matter no longer exists in a single position, but in all possible positions at once. This shows the matter doesn’t even exist in its physical form anymore while it is part of the wave function. “Quantum particles” are not even a thing, because this effect can be reproduced with large molecules too, and there is no apparent upper limit to this: https://science-atlas.com/strange-news/largest-molecules-yet-become-waves-in-quantum-double-slit-experiment/

This effect is real, and waving it away because it’s supposedly “too small” isn’t making it less so. It’s not too small to measure. The article mentions these molecules were fitting slits that were 50nm in size.

As for the brain waves, it seems we’re talking about different things. Of course we can mess with the brain and alter sensory experiences. But experience and awareness are a bigger thing than merely input/output. That’s something I know to be true about myself, but I suppose you can reason that away. I merely pity those who do.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

That's absolutely, demonstrably incorrect. It, like all the other processes, is something that exists in observable space-time dimensions that we can observe. It's a state of matter observable over time.

Do you have some source for that? Would love to see how you measure that?

[…] That's what, simplifying a lot, a quantum effect is

You’re also entirely ignoring the part where matter stops behaving as matter and starts interacting with itself as if you had the white and black marble in your hands at the same time, despite you only having one. This is the “magical” part, because it depends on the presence of the observer whether this effect happens or not.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I would consider dogs conscious too, and I suspect all life is, including plants and fungi. I don’t see us making computers with conscious abilities though. Just the fact that there is activity doesn’t define consciousness, it also requires awareness, the experience of being alive.

Does fungi have that? I dunno, and if it does it would have vastly different experiences from us, but I’m pretty sure a computer does not. Maybe it’s because we understand computers too well, or maybe it really is something special to organic matter. What about a computer that has organic parts for entropy as input to its algorithms… I also don’t know 😅

[–] arendjr@programming.dev -1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Of course choices are made up by people. Science is made up by people. But if you use science to convince yourself that we have no soul, you better make sure there are no gaps in your reasoning. So long as science’s own experiments contradict each other with regards to the nature of our reality, I’m not going along with such denialism.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev -1 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Sorry, but simply saying no doesn’t make it so. Entanglement directly contradicts the laws of general relativity when it comes to time and space, so either general relativity (and with that, everything we know about time and space) goes out the window, or there is more than just time and space. You can’t have it both ways.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

But do you have an alternative explanation? Because without one, I have no alternative but to admit there must be something more, regardless of whether you wish to call it a dimension or something else.

What we do know however, is that entanglement is not constrained to the dimensions of time and space. So the existence of additional dimensions seems a rather logical leap, even if indeed technically speculation, because we don’t know how they work.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

I didn’t mean to imply they’re the same thing. I responded with some more depths to the other replies.

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It might be interesting to explore views of the soul outside of Western religion. I would agree that the soul is immaterial, though the immortal part I obviously can’t be sure about.

The thing is, science is still puzzled as to what consciousness even is or why we have it. Philosophically speaking, you can even argue that science is fundamentally unable to answer those questions, because science relies on observation and we cannot observe the consciousness of other humans, only ourselves. From what we know, it seems to be immaterial with an ability to influence the physical world that defies explanation (see how the observer in quantum physics is responsible for collapsing the wave function, but nobody can identify what constitutes observation beyond whatever information can reach us—whoever “us” is in that equation).

So yeah, I’ll grant you it’s easier to achieve than a religious definition, but I would be very curious to see AI replicate that :)

[–] arendjr@programming.dev -1 points 1 week ago (26 children)

It’s the thing that grants you consciousness. You do have consciousness, don’t you?

[–] arendjr@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Ah yes, that makes sense. Curious what it points to then when empty…

 

Zen is simply a fork of Zed for those who are happy to use an IDE free from AI, telemetry, and other cloud-based services. I use it as my daily driver and intend to maintain it so that I can also use it as the base for some non-developer tooling I want to create.

Only tested on Linux for now, though Zed's support for other platforms should be (mostly?) intact.

 

Biome is a formatter and linter for web languages: JavaScript, TypeScript, CSS, HTML, JSON, and GraphQL.

Version 2 adds type-aware lint rules and it is the first TypeScript linter that does not require tsc. Other new features include:

  • Monorepo support
  • GritQL Plugins
  • Revamped, configurable import sorting
  • Linter domains
  • Bulk suppressions
  • Analyzer assists
  • Many new lint rules
 

Biome is an integrated linter/formatter for JavaScript/TypeScript, CSS, HTML and GraphQL.

We are now in the process of implementing TypeScript-like inference (not full type checking!) that allows us to enable type-informed lint rules. This is similar to typescript-eslint except instead of using tsc we attempt to implement the inference ourselves.

This post describes our progress thus far, with a detailed overview of our type architecture.

 

Recent events in #politics triggered me to write a manifesto on the values of #Democracy and what we can to do preserve them.

 

Recent events in #politics triggered me to write a manifesto on the values of #Democracy and what we can to do preserve them.

 
45
DirectX Adopting SPIR-V (devblogs.microsoft.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by arendjr@programming.dev to c/linux@programming.dev
 

SPIR-V is the intermediate shader target used by Vulkan as well, so it sounds like this may indirectly make DirectX on Linux smoother.

 

With this post I've taken a bit more of a practical turn compared to previous Post-Architecture posts: It's more aimed at providing guidance to keep (early) architecture as simple as possible. Let me know what you think!

view more: next ›