Thread context
2 posts in path
Parent
@augustus@shitposter.world
Open
@augustus@shitposter.world
>David Hume argued that the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on inductive reasoning (past experience), not logical necessity or deductive certainty. Disregard David Hume. Embrace Re-Hor
If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by. Splitting words so as to break the force of the laws; confounding names so as to change what had been definitely settled; practising corrupt ways so as to throw the government into confusion: all guilty of these things were put to death. Keep your safety in mind and don't make loud statements for which you might go to the places not-so-far-from-here, because there you will help no one.
fsebugoutzone.org
If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by. Splitting words so as to break the force of the laws; confounding names so as to change what had been definitely settled; practising corrupt ways so as to throw the government into confusion: all guilty of these things were put to death. Keep your safety in mind and don't make loud statements for which you might go to the places not-so-far-from-here, because there you will help no one.
fsebugoutzone.org
@apropos@fsebugoutzone.org
·
1d ago
@augustus it's true. The sun could fail to rise tomorrow: the sun could explode, or a FTL missile from a distant alien war could do a fly-by of the solar system and slow the Earth's spin. Or more realistically you could travel north or south far enough that the months pass in darkness. Or you could wake up from the simulation and find that you were in a decades-long VR game and that you are of a nearly immortal species with really immersive VR and you live on a ringworld with artificial night and no 'rising' sun.
"The sun rises tomorrow" is a statement loaded with physical context that can change, it's not logically irrefutable. You can deny it without such inherent self-contradiction that you're speaking nonsense.
Hume may still make the case badly, with too strong an implication that you shouldn't use empirical knowledge (or knowledge based on a model of the world, like of the Earth rotating on its axis around the sun). The distinction is much more useful when it's in the direction of arguing about how valuable it is to have logically irrefutable assertions, that it's worthwhile to spend a lot of time on any of these you find.
View full thread on fsebugoutzone.org
