Re: Torvalds Slams Theoretical Security

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 26/10/2024 19:01, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2024-10-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
 

On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:37:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
 

On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:08:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

Welcome to the problems of metaphysics

 Next stop: that wonderful fallacy known as “you can’t prove a negative”
...

 About the time Heidegger asked 'Why are there beings at all rather than
nothing?' in 'Introduction to Metaphysics' my head started to hurt. That
was sentence 1, chapter 1. It didn't get better from there on.

 This contrasts with your typical math text book, which starts out with
a few pages of trivial statements before making the jump to the edge
of the universe, cued by that magical phrase "It is obvious that..."
 

My nephew is a Native German speaker with a native German father and stepfather. He studied philosophy at an English university.
>
I asked him whether he read Kant in  the original German. He said no, he found the English translations *easier to understand*.
>
There is an apocryphal saying that "All the problems of French philosophy would have been solved if they had written them down in German"
>
Heidegger is unmitigated shit really. I gave up after a chapter or two. Wittgenstein says that the mark of a true philosopher is that he will have thrown a book written by a famous philsopher into the corner, unfinished, more than once
>
'Why are there beings at all rather than nothing?' is simply answered:
>
'Because if there weren't no one could ask such an unanswerable question'. Even asking 'why' in the context of the universe is a massively anthropocentric statement. 'Why' applies to human beings, not the world . Taoists say it better.
>
"The Tao is that which exists through itself" (Tao being the sort of essence of being-ness).
>
Or Wittgenstein "The world is everything that is the case"
>
Right on chum, I would never have guessed.
>
Nietzsche is more tongue in cheek and amusing:
>
“Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has one solution: it is called pregnancy. "
>
But philosophers like Hume, Kant and so on have extreme implication for philosophy of science, as they show conclusively that no theory as such can ever be proven to be true.
>
This shocking fact moves science from a repository of true facts, to a collection of explanations whose sole justifications are they they are mutually consistent and seem to work.
>
This is important to understand when you are at the bleeding edge of physics.

Are you an instrumentalist, scientific realist or perhaps a constructive empiricist?