Comments

  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    13 servers ought to be redundant enough. — Hermeticus

    Copy that!
  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    After driving internet innovation for 20 to 30 years, being ubiquitous from the get go, and making money all these years, how are they still the fastest growing thing on line? I would think they might have plateaued somewhere along the line. Are they growing faster than YouTube? FaceBook? Amazon? Google?

    I'm too cheap to buy memberships to [gay] hard core sites, but paywall sites are the wellspring. I stick to the stuff that has been circulating for years on sites like BlogSpot or Tumblr; some of the photos were first published in the early 70s, on paper!

    My understanding is that it isn't expensive to produce porn. Actors and crew get paid, but not a lot, and they probably don't get much in residuals. So, are the profits in sales of content? Subscriptions to sites? Pay-per-view? Exports? Advertising on the sites for motor oil and lawn-care equipment? Viagra (fake or real)? Nitrate inhalants?     — Bitter Crank

    According to Similarweb analysis, adult websites Xvideos and Pornhub are among the most trafficked in the United States, receiving an average of 693.5 million and 639.6 million monthly visitors respectively.

    The two pornography giants (Xvideos & Pornhub) outrank a number of major services, including Netflix (541 million), Zoom (629.5 million) and Twitch (255.3 million).     — techradar.com

    Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world [...] According to the same study "globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman – well above replacement level (2.1)", and "in all major regions where there is a sizable Muslim population, Muslim fertility exceeds non-Muslim fertility. — Wikipedia

    Go figure!
  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    Do you know how the Internet came about? A defense project, originally under something called DARPA. The whole principle was that it was decentralised, so that there was no 'central exchange' that can be knocked out. You know what TCP/IP does? All the data is split into packets, each one individually addressed, if a router goes down on one route, it will find another. That is the genius of the internet. Thank Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, here they are getting a medal from W from having thought it up.



    (That's Vint Cerf, not being garrotted by Bush.)     — Wayfarer

    Interesting. I had some inkling about the defense angle to the internet but failed, miserably it seems, to connect the dots. The military, I believe, always has a plan B, waiting on the wings, you know, just in case, only the internet itself is the plan B. Paradoxical in my book. What was plan A I wonder.
  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    There are 13 DNS root servers that map the internet. If those are gone it's Bye-Bye internet. Other than that everything else is quite replaceable.

    The entire internet shutting down would be quite a big deal. Economists would probably label it the darkest day in human history. Major loses for all the companies generating revenue through the web. I'd imagine stock markets (including all the cryptos) would crash quite gloriously. Important infrastructure would no longer be reachable - banking, cash terminals, some health and insurance services. Big troubles for logistics. And last but not least a lot of panic and "Help! I don't know what to do with my time."     — Hermeticus

    So the internet does have a weak spot, an Achilles heel, a HQ. I was under the impression that with all these techies constantly admonishing us for not having a backup for our e-data files some computer-wiz would've done something about it. No, huh?
  • Do you dislike it when people purposely step on bugs?
    If there were giants aliens who discovered Earth and started stepping on us for no reason -- much the same way I do ants -- then I wouldn't be in much of a position to complain, given what I stated. I do see your point. :razz:

    In that same vein though, If the positions were reversed, and I encountered a race of tiny, intelligent aliens, I have to admit that I would be very inclined to take advantage of the size difference just as they would. The idea of having entire race of intelligent beings to either toy with, reward, or terrorize as a focus for my frustrations or whims is pretty tantalizing. It would be like playing god, but almost for real. And despite its moral quandaries, I could very much see myself being an old testament God and enjoying every second of it. And be honest: what guy hasn't fantasized about being a god every now and then? That seems a normal expression of the male ego, possibly one element to the mindset of most successful conquerors throughout history. Being an absolute tyrant is rewarding     — IanBlain

    Exactly. I think the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you - or it's negative formulation - do not do unto others what you wouldn't want others to do unto you - is key/germane to the morality of bug squishing.

    The reason why we don't apply the Golden rule to bug stomping is because they seem incapable of using the tit-for-tat strategy that has a major role vis-à-vis the golden rule but the winds of change do blow and with odd results :point: Agent Kay Squishing Bugs In MIB
  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    "Don't follow leaders,
    watch the parkin' meters"
    ~Subterranean Homesick Blues, 1965     — 180 Proof

    :up:
  • An analysis of the shadows
    You could equally say universals meed need some kind of world, a mind if you like, in which they are real and that's where God comes into the picture.

    I like the quote from Weinberg, but I'd just add than any good ideology will do just as well.     — Janus

    Indeed. I suppose universals become relevant to God in how it makes God credible, ontologically speaking that is. A theist might feel reassured that God has company in universals and their idea of an immaterial being suddenly doesn't seem that outlandish.
  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    porn, porn, porn — Bitter Crank

    The fastest growing websites are all porn-related.
  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    There is no single ‘internet’. The whole system is built in such a way that the vital bits are replicated in many different locations. To take it down all of them would have to be disabled. — Wayfarer

    I was just wondering about that. Are there some core servers that run the show? Is there an internet HQ? If there is then it's an accident waiting to happen. If not, we have one less thing to worry about.
  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    all kinds of data actually, now belong online almost exclusively. — Manuel
    More than 90 per cent of all money – more than $50 trillion appearing in our accounts – exists only on computer servers. — Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens)
  • An analysis of the shadows
    But they're not good if they are acting in ways which harm others are they? I don't think "human error" is the same thing as unsupportable thinking, or to put it another way unsupportable thinking is not merely an example of human error, and any thinking which leads people to believe they have a God-given right to harm others is unsupportable. — Janus

    I'm not disagreeing with you, at least not as much as I want make a point, that point being theists rely heavily on God to justify morality. God needs some kind of environment, a world if you like, in which God is real and that's where universals come into the picture.

    With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. — Steven Weinberg
  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    I suspect there is (relics of the Cold War) EMP-hardened government and military infrastructure that will leave global urbanized masses in the dark, disconnected and panic-stricken enough to nearly cannibalize one another. Preppers, survivalists & militias will inherit the suddenly not air-conditioned Earth for a few months or more. Welcome to WhatTheFuckItStan, kids. — 180 Proof

    The USA has been caught with its pants down on a number of occasions (9/11 for example) but if there's a country that has a reputation of being prepared for anything, it's USA. Go USA! Save the world! :lol:
  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    Don't hold your breath.

    Maybe, but communication would be a big problem.     — Manuel

    Communication or speed, convenience, record, etc. of communication?
  • What would happen if the internet went offline for 24hrs
    I'm sure, given how catastrophic such an event would be, there's a backup (plan) ready for just such an eventuality. Right?
  • The Inflation Reduction Act
    Only a few I can think of. Bacon, Saint Augustine if you count Bishops, which I think you can. Marcus Aurelius obviously, the equivalent of a US presidential writing philosophy. I believe Abelard had some serious secular responsibilities at some points — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Good to know. Thanks for correcting me. Theologians aren't actually philosophers but if we must treat them as such, their focus was on religion and religion has been, for the most part, antithetical to philosophy:

    Having pricked its finger on Christian theology, philosophy fell asleep for about a thousand years until awakened by the kiss of Descartes. — Anthony Gottlieb
  • An analysis of the shadows
    So, you're saying that the belief in the independent reality of universals is bad because it leads to belief in an omniscient God, whose commands are believed to be absolutely good regardless of how unjust they might seem in the the eyes of humans, and also to the theists believing they are privy to what God commands and that they are bound to carry them out? — Janus

    Something like that but don't forget that religious folk believe they're good even though they may not be. Their motive is clear - they want to be the good fellas - and universals, by making god possible, even real, provide the metaphysical grounding for moral laws. That they're (in fact) not as good as they think they are reflects something esle - human error!
  • Is anyone else concerned with the ubiquitous use of undefined terms in philosophical discourse?
    well I guess this is the job of any interlocutor ...to provide the most suitable and clear definition in his attempt to remove any vagueness from the term he uses.
    Recycling a vague definition and pretend it is adequate enough to start a conversation on it...that is an issue.
    I can only speak for my self but I always try to include empirical foundations in all my definitions on abstract concepts...as concrete as a definition of a chair     — Nickolasgaspar

    Come to think of, I think you're right, vagueness might lead to a verbal disputes. For example:

    Ken is tall & Ken is short [a contradiction but not actually since tallness & shortness are vague]
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    As explained: some people know about the existence of proposition p. — Olivier5

    You're equivocating. I'm out. Thanks for the interesting conversation. I learnt a lot from the exchange. Good day.
  • Is anyone else concerned with the ubiquitous use of undefined terms in philosophical discourse?
    ↪Nickolasgaspar
    Vagueness fallacy? If the term/word itself is vague, how could I be guilty of committing a fallacy? It's clearly not my fault.
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    Okay so you interpret Kp as "It is believed that p is true" or "It is known that p is true". For me it only means: "p is known", i.e. some people know about proposition p. — Olivier5

    What does "p is known" mean?

    1. p = The earth is round

    p is known = The earth is round is known (all ok)

    2. p = the earth is flat

    p is known = the earth is flat is known (? not ok)
  • Is anyone else concerned with the ubiquitous use of undefined terms in philosophical discourse?
    definitions are the weak link in the "philosophical" chain. — Nickolasgaspar

    :up:
  • Is anyone else concerned with the ubiquitous use of undefined terms in philosophical discourse?
    Vagueness and ambiguity affect our ability to evaluate the meaning of the information contained in a sentence or a word, thus rendering it logically impossible to determine the truth-value of any statement thereby expressed. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

    Problem

    Vagueness: Fuzziness of meaning [disagreement, no fallacy though]

    Ambiguity: Distinct multiple meanings [equivocation fallacy]

    Remedy

    Define your terms clearly [explicate which meaning you want to talk about for ambiguity and use precising definitions for vagueness]
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    How do you read "Kp"? — Olivier5

    Kp= Know that p.

    So,

    1. if p = the earth is round, Kp = know that (the earth is round) [No problem]

    2. If p = the earth is flat Kp = know that (the earth is flat) [Problem]
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    Indeed, and I am talking about knowing that there is a false proposition. What are you talking about? — Olivier5

    This :point:
    ¬p→K¬p = all false propositions are known propositions. — Olivier5
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    You know the proposition "the earth is flat". Otherwise you couldn't talk about it... — Olivier5

    Knowing that there is a false proposition is not the same as knowing a false proposition.
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    What are you sorry about, honey-bunny? — Olivier5

    I'm sorry about your unsound argument. Again, let's stay focused on the problem at hand, shall we?

    I'll try and help you if that's even possible since you seem so confident about your position.

    Your claim: All false propositions are known propositions.

    All false propositions. I need one example of a false proposition:

    1. The earth is flat

    This proposition, you claim, is known. Ok, let's put it down in words: I know the earth is flat. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. If it does to you, how? please and thanks in advance.
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    Argument made already.

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/603520     — Olivier5

    ¬p can be stated as "p is false".

    q = ¬p

    q→Kq

    therefore

    ¬p→K¬p = all false propositions are known propositions.

    This is elementary, really. Reason for which I did not write it down, not wanting to insult people's intelligence. InPitzotl got it immediately. So make an effort, calm your contrarian demons and for once, TRY and understand these ultra basic logical steps above.     — Olivier5

    . Sorry.
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    "We don't know that the earth is round"

    and

    "We believe that the earth is flat"?

    The differences are so easy to point out that I don't see the sense in asking about it.     — TonesInDeepFreeze

    You remark is such an obvious way to make a mistake that I don't see the sense in pointing it out.
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    You are a child, whether you are aware of it or not. You lack maturity. And you keep bitching petulantly about others. Stop bitching and start listening. — Olivier5

    By the way, I'm waiting for you to make an argument.
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    You are a child, whether you are aware of it or not. You lack maturity. And you keep bitching petulantly about others. Stop bitching and start listening. — Olivier5

    Indeed, it doesn't look like you can. — Olivier5

    Bitchin'? Me? :lol:
  • The important question of what understanding is.
    So for a computer to understand "almost" it has to somehow extract it from that load of drivel? Come on man. Do you think because you don't know anything about this, nobody else does either? — Daemon

    What drivel? You asked me a question, I answered it. If you have any issues with the way I view semantics (as mapping of word to its referent), please be specific about where exactly I go wrong. Kindly refrain from derailing the discussion from something worthwhile to something puerile.
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    Did you manage to understand that Fitch can be extended to false propositions, or not yet? — Olivier5

    It's not about me, it's about you. Also, why are we discussing this like little children? You made a claim: Fitch's argument can be extended to false proposition. A philosopher would justify that claim. I'm waiting...
  • The important question of what understanding is.
    What's the referent of "almost"? — Daemon

    A pattern (the referent) which we can extract from the following scenarios:

    1. I tried to jump over the fence, my feet touched the top of the fence but I couldn't clear the fence.

    2. Sara tried eating the whole pie, she ate as much as she could but a small piece of it was left.

    3. Stanley tried to run 14 km but he managed only 13.5 km, he had to give up because of a sprained ankle.
  • True or False logic.
    Didn't you read my question? — SolarWind

    I did. I gave it some thought and decided we should start from the basics.

    A proposition being both true and false is a contradiction. I gave the example of how if x is a cat, it's impossible that x is not a cat (x is cat is true and x is a cat is false). There are three important principles at play here:

    1. The law of noncontradiction. (can a proposition p be both true and false i.e. not true)

    2. The law of the excluded middle (a proposition or its negation is true)

    3. Principle of bivalence (a propositions can be either true or false and nothing else)

    So,

    If a proposition can be true and false, we have to look at 1 and 2

    If a proposition can be neither true nor false, we have to examine 3
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    I am not in the habit of talking to people who don't pay attention, sorry. — Olivier5

    I did pay attention and you're evading the question. Why? I wonder if it's because you can't prove your case.
  • Fitch's paradox of Knowability
    Indeed, it doesn't look like you can. — Olivier5

    Ad hominem?! I'll ignore that for the time being. Let's focus on the issue at hand. You claim that we can know falsehoods. Expand and elaborate (if you can :wink: ).
  • True or False logic.
    If x is a cat, it can't be not a cat. [law of noncontradiction, law of the exclused middle, XOR].

    For any proposition p,

    Either p is true OR p is false [principle of bivalence]
  • An analysis of the shadows
    metaphysics gets entangled with religion — Wayfarer

    True!
  • An analysis of the shadows
    Does it matter what they think? Wasn't it Jesus who said "By their fruits shall ye know them"?

    Also, no one seems to be able to explain what it could even mean to say that abstractions are real independently of the human mind, other than to posit a universal mind, but Wayfarer refuses to posit that, if I have understood him right.     — Janus

    It matters that some people who are decidely bad (by their fruits...) are under the (false) impression that they're good. Two things to consider here:

    1. The belief itself (theism): God is real. Note God's uber bonum and infallible.

    2. What this God commands us to do. From 1 follows,
    a. Theists are good
    b. Whatever God commands is good

    As you can see, such people (religious folks) actually want to be good even though they're really not. Their belief in god then can be taken as a marker of their innate goodness even though such goodness has been distorted to the point of being unrecognizable. And universals have ontological relevance to God and God is a necessary part of religious morality (purveyor cum enforcer).
  • An analysis of the shadows
    Yes, but how does belief in God or the soul necessarily make us better people. Apparently it has the opposite effect in the case of Muslim and Christian extremists. It is arguable that belief in and concern about an afterlife can undermine concern with the injustices of this life, thus making a person morally worse, not better. So, at best it is a neutral proposition. — Janus

    But these guys (extremists) think they're the good guys. Quite different from your usual run-of-the-mill villain who's bad and knows he's bad.
Home » TheMadFool