Yep, programming. It used to be mathematics and logic, nowadays we just include the whole of NPM and pray to the Omnissiah.
I’ve been a programmer since the 90s and I assure you, it’s been mostly prayer and the occult since day 1. Also Adderall and whiskey.
Someone finally compiped the No Problem Manual? Where can I find the Man page?
Don’t forget that the first attempt never works no matter what
This probably doesn’t count, but Sosigenes of Alexandria was an Ancient Greek astronomer who designed the Julian calendar in 45 BC. This was replaced in 1582 AD with the Gregorian calendar (named after Pope Gregory XIII) and is still in use today. Of course both were found by science, but it took the weight of the Catholic Church to push for the more accurate calendar.
I think the vast majority of scientists, at least computer scientists, would argue against the efficacy and accuracy of the Gregorian calendar.
It’s more of a “we’re stuck with it” situation than a testament to its scientific veracity.
The Gregorian calendar is pretty solid actually. Other than a leap second every few years, it’ll stay in sync for a few thousand years. You can easily calculate all leap days in a one-liner.
365 is semi prime, so we could do a 5 day week, but that’s pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. There isn’t a lot to improve on the Gregorian calendar
- leap days only coming at the end of the year, not in the middle
- 5 day week
- 73 day months
- 30 day months with 5 non month days
Don’t get me started on timezones
Time zones are an abomination of legacy design features that should be taken out back and put out of their misery… And then a functionally similar but way simpler system put in place.
And that’s the way science should be, with more data and better tools, you adjust and make things more accurate. I’m not sure what the efficacy issues are, but it’s my understanding that current UTC leap seconds are put in place to reflect slight variation in the rotation of the earth. It is done in reaction to the earth’s movement, so not something that could be predicted 450 years ago.
at least computer scientists, would argue against the efficacy and accuracy of the Gregorian calendar.
Agreed. If I had it my way, basically everything would be using unix time.
I refuse to believe anything before Jan 1 1970 even happened
And if anything did happen, it wasn’t any good.
Signed integers are the best integers.
Well, the music they created for the lie is good at least.
I just want 13 metric weeks.
Seasons get a wee bit tricky with 13 as the number of weeks.
How so? They are based on equinoxes and solstices.
but 13 weeks doesn’t divide nicely into the equinoxes, so seasons will start at weird times in the weeks. 12 Months is divisible by 4 so seasons can begin at the same day every 3 months.
I don’t understand, the same ±1 day variation we have each year will stay the same? Do you mean the day of month? These are already spread out (20th, 21st, 22nd, and 21st, ±2).
So instead of the summer solstice being 21 June ±1, it will be month 6, day 4 ± 1 every year. (Assuming the year starts on what is now 1 Jan. (Spring is month 3 day 23, fall month 9, day 13, winter month 13 day 1). Seasons are still 91.25 days, or ~13 weeks. That just now means 3 months one week instead of 3ish months.
The moon phase of 29.54 days won’t align, but it doesn’t now anyways. So instead of months with 2 moons, we’d get months with no moon. Might have to change “one in a blue moon” to “on a moonless occassion”. And imagine the killer party when day 0 or day 00 aligns with a full moon!
Agh you sound like a C programmer. Just have a function do it for you.
I’m actually full stack C#
What would Unix time improve? Yeah let’s schedule to meet at 1693456789, repeating every 7*86,400 seconds.
Time zones are a mess, but that’s not the fault of the calendar.
I’m joking for the most part
It drives me nuts. Whenever possible, I use the 4-4-5 or 13-month calendars so I can better forecast or compare historical data. Gregorian is useless on month scale or lower. I honestly can’t think of any practical use for it except to make things harder.
“Can you name me one thing that was found by science that was later replaced by religion?”
Yes, it’s called politics.
US politics. Across the rest of the world, while politics may still be dumb out there, at least they’re more likely to keep god out of it.
Italy entered the chat
Simulation hypothesis is just theism with extra steps.
Come at me bro.
“I think God created the world” pitchforks raised “…WITH A COMPUTER!” pitchforks lowered
God’s a prepubescent kid playing SimUniverse and fucking around with the Disaster menu.
Satan’s an acne-riddled teenager somewhere online griefing that kid.
Gnosticism 2.0
“But it was clearly a Macintosh 128k”
Simulation hypothesis is not science.
It is part of science, it’s an untested (and currently untestable) hypothesis. Such thought experiments can be very useful. Running through the consequences (and possible experiments) can sometimes give useful insights into other areas of physics.
The problem is when layman take the scientific equivalent of a debate joke and treat it as gospel. It’s similar to what happened with the flat earth society (started out as a debating joke, and got overrun by idiots).
An untestable hypothesis is not science. Science is ideas and hypothesis that have undergone the scientific method. Until then it’s just a thought experiment.
Yep. If it’s not testable, it’s not science.
I was watching some dumb video where a Christian “scientist” was trying to “prove” that god was the best scientific explanation because it could not be wrong. Which is exactly why explaining things with god isn’t science.
So The Big Bang isn’t science?
Depends on what you mean by “The Big bang”. If you’re talking about a seemingly spontaneous explosion of matter ~14 bya, then no, that’s not science. That’s like saying that the sun, or dirt, or a hurricane is science. Forming a hypothesis that all matter can be traced back to a single expansive event, then observing movement of celestial bodies, measuring those movements with redshift and seeing if that data is in-line with your hypothesis… That’s science.
That’s debatable. It’s a logic based hypothesis that scientists are looking for a way to falsify it.
Until empirical measurements can be made, it’s not science.
Edit: they edited their post. I withdraw my question.
Originally it said “empirical math” and I was confused.
I don’t follow. What does empirical math have to do with it?
Thank you. I didn’t edit my post and have no idea where you saw “empirical math,” so I was as confused as you were. I did however realize that a way of exploring mathematical concepts can be scientific. Using existing rules of math like algebra or calculus has led to us discovering new ways to use math and even new mathematical concepts. The process of long dead mathematicians discovering things like geometry and calculus was scientific in that they had a hypothesis based on past details and measurements, tested it, and found it applied to the real world. Math itself is a construction that doesn’t constitute science, but science can be done in the field of mathematics. This is because science is fundamentally a process.
If you didn’t edit it then I must have transformed some things in my brain… I apologize.
I think math is a process. The discovery of math is at least. Consider the origin of the incompleteness theorem. Mathematicians (Hilbert primarily) sought to prove that math is purely a construction of interpreted symbols that was wholly self-contained (primarily that everything provable within math only requires math to prove). Godel later proved, using only math, that math is incomplete. That is to specifically say, that there are things in math that are true, that you cannot prove with math. This means that there are more true things in math than you can prove. Simultaneously Godel demonstrated that this is also true for everything outside of math.
Deep in this proof is this seemingly magical thing that proves that the process of science can’t prove all true things… Because the process of science is math.
Science can’t prove all true things, or even prove anything with absolute certainty, but you can get closer to the truth through science. Some things might not be knowable through science, but if they aren’t knowable, they probably wouldn’t have a real world use. If parallel universes exist and there’s no way to access them or prove they exist, then it basically might as well not exist. It would make no difference if there are no consequences of it being real or not. Unless there are consequences of something existing, something we can do with the knowledge, it only satisfies our curiosity. It sucks, but that might be the practical answer.
Science is the scientific method, until a hypothesis has gone through the scientific method it’s just a thought experiment and not actual science.
Edit: I just realized that they edited their post. Originally it said “empirical math”. Now that it says “empirical measurements” my question is void.
That’s not my question… Unless I am completely misunderstanding what is being said.
What does empirical math, specifically, have to do with simulation theory.
I’m not advocating for simulation theory here for what it’s worth. I just don’t understand what “empirical” math has to do with it. The statement that “empirical math needs to be demonstrated first” is just super weird to me.
I don’t know what to do with it. It feels like it’s claiming that all math is theoretical… Or that math is a tautology… Or that they think math is incapable of doing something that simulation theory posits or…
So, instead of guessing at some general conclusion of what they are talking about I asked.
Simulation theory makes no inherent moral prescriptions or assertions about the ultimate origin of the universe - it just rolls everything up a level - This universe is a simulation inside the real universe… What created thecreal universe? We’re not trying to answer that.
Theism tends to make moral prescriptions and point to an immutable god - This universe was created by God… What created god? It’s god, dude.
This is why simulation theory and theism are compatible - there’s no reason both can’t be true - though we can never know if either is true, so just get on with your life and try to be a decent human.
the ancient greeks knew the world was round, knowledge witch was then replaced by in vast circles during the middle ages.
:P
religion has often replaced scientifically proven facts, wich is mainly due to religions powerful ability to not have to make sense and still be acceptable.
now as for religion actually disproving science, those occurences can be counted on zero hands.
A knowledge witch would curse you with knowing every embarrassing thing you ever did.
And maybe even things you never could have known. Like what exactly it looked like when your parents conceived you
Oh, like knowing all the moments things you could have done something different and what the result would have been. All the “they were flirting with you and you didn’t realize” moments and the “and here’s the happy life you could have had” results.
No, it wasn’t. If you look at religious iconography, you see Jesus sitting on a globe regularly. Kings were endowed with globus cruciger, a representation of Jesus ruling over the globe. Sure there were some people who must have believed in flat earth but they were about as serious as the modern flat earthers.
Hmmmm… Replacing scientifically developed vaccines with religiously advocated horse paste. How’d that work out for them?
Science still has not touched on any adequate way whatsoever the hard question of consciousness.
Neither have a lot of religions. The eastern, “secular” religions are the major that have at least made an attempt to tackle the problem.
Science still fundamentally has a better approach then religion. Even if the true cause of religion is a god science will find it. But it’s honestly probably not sadly.
Yeah, I think you’re generally right. Perhaps “the scientific method” is a but more accurate than just “science”. But I agree.
I just like to remind some of these people that this is a real problem and not something people can just run roughshod over or brute force like some people like Daniel Dennett try to do.
Define “not touched”.
Consciousness is something you have to understand. We are still in the process of getting the pieces together.
Eh… sort of, maybe. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “understand.”
Putting the pieces together.
I feel like this is largely incorrect. You may not understand consciousness, but to calm that science hasn’t touched it whereas eastern religions have is wildly inaccurate. Both Western and Eastern philosophers have considered consciousness at great length. Science has excellent maps and models of the human brain and we have had passable functional theories of mind for several decades. Is it complete? No, but science is rarely complete. Is it the forefront of a lot of research? Absolutely.
Removed by mod
Please rename this sub to antitheism
I think anti-abrahamic would be more appropriate. You don’t tend to see a lot of memes against Buddhism, Wikka, Jainism, or so on. They tend to poke fun at Christians, Muslims, any other religion that can’t take any jokes or criticisms…
Sounds like your taking anything named “memes” too seriously. Also, you should check your sodium level.
That’s fine. Because I am both. Most people always bitch and moan?
At least someone saying this acknowledges that science is a thing, so that’s something I guess.
Better than the opposite. I always find it funny when super-religious people deny science instead, as if their god (usually a practically omnipotent being with a 30,000 IQ) would want to micromanage everything going on in the entire universe, instead of just making everything run by a set of physical laws on its own.
Removed by mod
How about ignorance
Creationist “science” is like those troll physics posts, except they aren’t funny. Like at all.
Sanity?
Yeah. Sanity.
IIRC science was founded on religion. People were looking for a way to prove that their religion was right and found that there were discrepancies
my source is I made it the fuck up
Science was founded by people wanting to understand the world they live in. In fact as soon as science was practiced, religion collectively shit its pants and made it illegal.
No. The interaction between science and religion has always been a complicated one but, ultimately, it all regarded power.
Yes. Science challenged religions power so religious people flipped the fuck out and persecuted anyone who believed in scientific observation.
That was my whole point.
That’s more a very specific branch of philosophy than anything to do with science.
Lol that was a good one thanks dude.
You recall incorrectly
Science as we know it evolved from “natural philosophy”
Someone once said… if the human race was completely destroyed and evolution brought back sentient beings, every law of science would be rediscovered, but not one religion would return as it is.
