mrocktor
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mrocktor
-
-
What are the arguments against St. Thomas Aquinas first point as quote above?
Aquinas' argument rests on the assumption that the universe has a beginning, that there was a "time" when no motion existed and thus that *something* must have made it all start.
Here are a couple of counter arguments:
1- The universe is all there is, so if "the first mover" exists he is part of the universe and must (if you accept Aquinas' argument) himself have been put in motion by some other force. Since nothing else exists, there is an unsurmountable contradiction - one or more of the assumptions must be false.
2- Aquinas' argument assumes that not moving is the "natural state" of things. This is completely baseless.
mrocktor
-
Question: when I "surrender" a colony is there a lead time before i can colonize the planet again? My second colony got 288 slots, third got less than 150
-
Eww, I lost my entire fleet (7 Small cargoships) :/ How can you see what defenses a planet have?
What is shown or not when you spy a planet depends on how many probes you send and your espionage tech level. Research more or send more probes (5 is maximum useful AFAIK) for better intel. More probes also means more risk of detection though.
mrocktor
-
Nobody is requiring a guarantee that the part will not fail; that would be asking to prove a negative. Rather, if the plaintiff can prove that a specific set of circumstances will make the part fail and that those circumstances can arise given the way the defendant operates the equipment, then the defendant has to show what he has done to prevent the potential damage.
Discussing concretes is limited, but let me try a specific example:
1. Thermal cycling and vibration can cause micro fissures of turbine blades.
2. A flight exposes turbines to thermal cycling and vibration.
3. A flight may cause micro fissures.
Now, we know that after each flight micro fissures may exist. We know that *statistically* these fissures tend to take X time to develop into actual cracks that are a safety risk, but that they may develop quickly although this is infrequent.
We postulate that an inspection every X/2 is enough for an acceptable level of safety BUT:
After each flight, in order to fly again, you are making the positive claim: this aircraft is safe to fly. The positive claim is that there are no micro fissures, since you have exposed the part to the causes of such fissures. And it is NOT practical - though it is possible - to be *sure* of such a claim, before every flight.
mrocktor
-
If a part of the plane was designed to last for a certain minimum-time-to-failure under normal operation conditions, then, if the conditions of the flight were within the normal range, there is no need to re-examine it; the scientific facts that made the designer conclude that the part will last for time t are still valid and, if there is enough of t left, can still be used to conclude that the part will last for the next flight. (Of course, any regular inspections that the designer prescribes ought to be performed.) Danger arises only if you have a reason to doubt that a given part will last for the next flight, i.e. if the minimum time to failure has been exceeded or the facts on which the designer's prediction of the minimum time to failure is based no longer apply.
I think we have a lot of common ground. The thing is that "t" is not a time where the part is guaranteed not to fail, rather it's a time where it is *statistically unlikely* to fail. In order to be *certain*, microscopic analysis would be required - given our current context of knowlege.
No, no, even the original question was only about whether or not they should be regulated by the government. The subsequent discussion that I triggered has been about whether one private individual has a right to verify the safety of a nuclear plant owned by another private individual (and about whether safety is possible at all).Myself I see no difference between government ownership and government regulation, in terms of principle. In both cases it's the use of force without provocation as if owning something very dangerous were *intrinsically* a threat.
mrocktor
-
JASKN,
I notice you are angry about the way people are responding to you. I'll give you a metaphor:
Suppose someone comes to your Math forum, where people discuss advanced calculus and such, and posts a thread about "the invalidity of basic algebra". That is basically what is happening here. I recommend you take the time to cool off, organize your thoughts and succintly state the essence of your issue with objectivity.
Many (perhaps most) people here actually *know* what they are talking about, like you *know* that 2+2=4.
Personally I suspect your main difficulty is with the fact that to live is the essential choice. Even in your drug addict examples - why does the druggie not simply commit suicide? Because he wants another "high"? Well, guess what - you need to be alive to have a "high". The druggie actually wants to live - he just doesn't know how.
mrocktor
-
Got 298 slots on my first colony... sweetness
-
The chance of you getting hit with lightning is also not zero. Does that mean you should avoid walking outside?
Exactly, I was arguing the invalidity of "perfectly safe" as opposed to "acceptable level of risk".
Parts do not fail because God throws dice; they fail because of the nature of the materials they are made of makes them fail. You can establish the minimum time to failure of a given part, and as long as you don't exceed this time, there is no danger of the part failing.I'm going to leave your discussion of passenger/airline and airline/landowner aside becasue I agree with you on that. I was trying to use an analogy where there is life at risk protected by engineering (which is the case with airplanes - which I work with - and nuclear plants - on which the same systems engineering methods are used).
I agree with you that epistemologically it *is* possible to be certain about safety. In practice though it's not always *viable* to do so. Statistical treatment of failure is used exactly because inspecting all the relevant components to the level we *know* is needed to be *sure* they will not fail for a "minimum time" is not practical. Imagine running microscopic analysis of all components of every airplane after every flight. So, in practice, we are *not* sure that a given plane will not crash or that a given nuclear plant will not leak - but we are sufficiently confident that that is so.
mrocktor
-
If in a certain situation you have no specific arguments to say that there is a good chance of an accident happening, then arguing that it could happen is completely arbitrary, and should be regarded as such. If someone builds a nuclear plant of a certain type, and you can prove there is a flaw, or you can prove that someone is intentionally disregarding normal procedures then you have a good case, otherwise it's just hot air being thrown around.
A perfectly designed and operated plant can fail, and it's not arbitrary. Let us say that overheating of the core is our major concern. The temperature of the core must be monitored in order to control it effectively. Temperature sensors can fail though. Usually MTBF is used to measure a component's reliability, it stands for Mean Time Between Failures - a statistical average of how long it takes for this part to fail. Some parts fail with one hour of usage, others fail after years.
Let's say the temperature sensor's MTBF is 1000 hours. If we use three of them that gives us a probability of one in a billion that all of them will fail at the same time, for each hour of use. We can use four, six, twenty or a million redundant sensors - the probability of all of them failing will NEVER reach zero.
We can choose to implement safeguards of other natures to protect against the fragility of the sensors. Relief valves, fuse plugs (things that melt at a given temperature and interrupt operation). Every solution implemented, however, has a possibility of failure - a *real* possibility not an arbitrary one.
In the end it comes down to having enough fail safe capability, enough protections and enough fault containment to make the catastrophe vanishingly improbable. The probability *is not zero*.
mrocktor
-
12 million hah. And I'm happy I found a nice inactive to raid with my 10 light transports
mrock
-
Normally, businesses are not under obligation to divulge information, but if they engage in hazardous activities, then they put themselves under an obligation to divulge enough information about their safety measures.
I disagree. They put themselves under an obligation to take all the measures necessary not to violate rights. Period.
Safety is the absence of danger. As long as danger is absent, I don't care whether it's "more absent" or "less absent."That is equivalent to saying "I want the risk to be zero, I don't care whether it is more zero or less zero". I have explained that zero is not possible. I'll concretize the issue further:
Flying planes is a risk. What would you consider an acceptable risk of death on an airplane flight, per hour of flight time:
1- one in a million
2- one in a billion
3- one in a trillion
4- zero
Remember, we are not talking about unavoidable risks (meteor strikes and such) or arbitrarities (being attacked by space aliens) - we are talking about things that are known to happen (bearings sieze, computers burn out...).
mrocktor
-
How about this definition of humility: "Acting as if you are less worthy than you truly are".
Most defendants of humility actually try to make humility and respect a package deal. Reject it.
mrock
-
That was very good Felix.
mrocktor
-
Erik,
Have not joined yet since I'm just getting my bearings, will do so. Starting fresh would be interesting. Are players randomly seeded through the universe?
mrock
-
Let's make it a bit more precise. What the plaintiff has to prove is that the defendant is engaging in an activity that will cause harm to the plaintiff (or the person on whose behalf the plaintiff is acting) unless the defendant takes active safety measures in addition to the safety measures already known to the plaintiff.
I actually agree with this implementation with the following change: "in addition to the safety measures already in place". Whether the plaintiff knows about them or not is immaterial, a business (or a person) is not under obligation to divulge information about their own activities so the fact that the plaintiff may be uninformed cannot be used against the defendant.
I still think you are wrong about the principle of the thing though. Unlike the discussion about certainty, in this case it is objectively impossible to be 100% safe. All parts can fail (tubes, sensors, controllers etc.). These parts have known failure rates (typical of systems components) or are designed not to fail during a certain period given a certain usage cycle (structural components).
The thing is, failure rates are *averages* and structural tolerances *are statistical*. It is an objective fact that these parts can, and do, fail. What is done is to make sure that no single failure or reasonably probable combination of failures can lead to a catastrophe - however the probability of catastrophe is ALWAYS larger than zero.
This coming from an aviation safety engineer (I don't mean this as an appeal to intimidation, just for background on the technical part of the discussion).
mrocktor
-
Nikki Whelan
I have no idea if she has two neurons in her brain to put together, but damn does she look good
-
Started up in universe 3 as well. Some things are anoying: not being able to use the "back" button for one.
Is there any way to see players stats (such as points) from the search window? Since only 1-1500 are ranked, how do I get info on the otehr 6000 guys in the universe?
Deut usage to look at the galaxy is killing me
mrock
-
The principle this is covered under is: There is no right to endanger the lives of other individuals.
As your discussion following this statement shows, the affirmation is not a valid principle. "Endanger" is subjective, and it's unacceptable that a life guiding principle should be so. Also, your affirmation is a negative and as such cannot be used as a guide for positive action. Try wording your sentiment as a positive and see how it turns out.
"Man has a right to be safe"? How safe? Based on who's judgment?
As has been discussed before (in a thread about prevention of crime, I believe), in a rights respecting government one must have positive evidence that a violation of rights is intended (or likely due to negligence) before the use of force is justified. As David said, if the powerplant is actually threatening people you can call the police - same as if someone walks around pointing a gun at people you can do so. If you do so and no hazard is found, it is only fair that you pay for the inspection.
This is a far cry from having "regulations" or the government granting "authorization" for the operation of nuclear plants. You are free until you actually violate or give clear evidence of the intent of violating rights.
mrocktor
-
Private ownership of nuclear weapons is a difficult question for sure, but argumentum ad consequentiam is not the way to answer it. "If it were allowed someone could..." will never provide an acceptable principle to deal with any issue. When the body count gets high enough does pragmatism become valid? No.
Principle would dictate that unless there is credible evidence that the person procuring (or owning) a nuke intends to use it in a rights violating way (which includes challenging the government, the government's sole function being the protection of rights a challenge of it necessarily means intent to violate rights) the government should not use force against that person.
mrocktor
-
What I meant by not wanting to discuss what is commonly called intellectual property was probably contradicted by my mathematical formula example. Sorry.
What I really want to know is, if all ideas are property, who owns addition? Or the verb 'to run?' Or the color blue? These are all ideas, but they are also concepts: are concepts subject to ownership? Let's say I create a new word (like the regular English verb 'to frung' which means to waste everyone's time with inane hypotheticals) - Can I a) charge a royalty of anyone who frungs,
charge a royalty of anyone who uses the word, or c) forbid a dictionary to include the word? In a system of private ownership (where 'fair use' is not a strictly legal doctrine), should I win a suit against a lexicologist who writes a scholarly paper criticizing the construction of my verb, and who suggests that it should be 'froing' (with a present participle of 'froinging') instead? It doesn't really make any sense for me to do these things, but can I (rightly and successfully) do them?You can't own reality. If you discover a truth you cannot force people to live by falsehood. Intelectual property applies to the *application* of knowlege not to knowlege itself.
I can patent an algorithm that calculates square roots, I can't patent "the square root".
I can patent (well, copyright) a song, I can't patent B flat.
I can patent a book about evolution, I can't patent the theory of evolution.
mrocktor
-
Why would the owner of such a power plant not try to change the situation? Sell it to someone capable of properly operating it, obtaining investment capital in order to fix it, close down the plant. All of these options are more in the interest of the plant owner than letting the plant cause a catastrophe he will be sued for and, basically, forfeit his life for (whether by death penalty or incredible damages).
Now, if the owner is being irrational (it's my father's plant and I won't sell and won't shut down; god commanded me to keep the plant like this etc.) there are still several questions to be answered:
1. People know nuke plants can be risky if mismanaged, some private entity will inspect nuke plants and proclame them safe (this is a business, and the entity is as viable as it's reputation makes it, so it will strive to properly assess safety). The consumer will tend to buy "safe" energy. If he does not, *his* consumer may chose a competitor who does.
2. Someone has to sell fissile material to the problematic plant. Is it in the interest of such a dealer to provide fissile material to a "timebomb"? Hell no, he does not want his name associated to such an event does he?
In sum, there is no reason to believe that a plant could be mismanaged to the point of catastrophe under a free market - it goes against the interests of too many people, starting with the owner and including his suppliers, consumers and neighbors (he has to buy transport of goods and people to and from the plant right? who will do it? etc.).
mrocktor
-
But then this begs the question, do we have evidence that the universe has been eternally "in motion", thus negating the need for an origin of motion?
The whole of your argument rests on this, and this is incorrect. We observe that the unverse is "in motion", we see no evidence why it should stop or that it could have started. The end. Anything else is arbitrary.
The "big bang" itself is arbitrary, when it is defined as "there was nothing, nothing spontaneously exploded and voilá: the universe".
mrocktor
-
If he had no choice in closing the thread then why be p*ssed?
He had no choice about being pissed.
And I had no choice but to write this.
And you to read it.
Damn I can't stop typing!
Actually I'm determined to submit this post after this phrase, signature and a sarcastic PS.
mrocktor
PS: see?
-
(...) speculate on the nature of an inorganic life-form (such as silicon plant-life, which some in the field of inorganic chemistry think may be possible), is there a line that is crossed in which reason can not be further extended until the senses can actually observe this taking place, or does speculation upon phenomena existing on other planets (potentially anywhere in the universe) still fall into the realm of being 100% rational.
The question is about the rationality of speculation. Observe in your example:
1. We know "organic" life exists. I quote organic because it is only the word we created to designate that pertaining to the type of life we know. Strictly speaking, "chemical life" would be a better term.
2. We know the properties of "inorganic" compounds and observe that some (or all? I really don't have enough specific knowlege) of the required properties of life are present, or may be present under certain conditions (temperature, pressure etc.).
3. We speculate that "inorganic life" is possible.
On a side note, if (3) happens do we define a new term or are those compounds now considered "organic"? Note that the concept of organic depends on what forms of life we know.
By the same token, would metaphysical speculation upon the origin of causality, ergo Aristotle's "universal consciousness" also fall outside of the realm of reason?Notice the difference:
1. We have no evidence that an "origin" of causality exists, we have the certainty that an "origin" of existence is impossible (it contradicts identity).
2. We know that consciousness presuposes existence (something must exist to perceive, something must exist to be perceived). A consciousness as a primary thus violates identity by the fallacy of the stolen concept.
3. People speculate about a metaphysical consciousness, or god, as you will.
I think the difference is clear: in one case the evidence gives rise to speculation, in the other imagination gives rise to speculation. In the first case, it is rational. In the second it is not.
"a belief in things which are not seen but which are true"How is this different from "belief in things without reason" except by the fact that the definition begs the question ("that are true")? The definition is the same.
thank you for your concern about confrontation however, and no offense was taken.I have the utmost respect for those truly in search of reason and truth, no matter where they currently stand.
mrocktor
A more specific determinism "vs" free will debate.
in Debates
Posted
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
I love that quote.
mrocktor