Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Find "py.exe" & copy it to "Python" (flat, no extension).
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:40:55 -0400
Organization: None
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <v5kion$2te1q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v24179$1c3qk$2@dont-email.me> <v246gl$1d8oq$3@dont-email.me>
 <lamt35Fcgq7U4@mid.individual.net> <v26rjl$21vl0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2ccjg$39nup$2@dont-email.me> <69sj4j50b5jb8mnbc37b1aopn58vpj0a5q@4ax.com>
 <v33cu1$ddl1$10@dont-email.me> <2Nj5O.33580$9xU7.24227@fx17.iad>
 <v36bpp$10k3v$1@dont-email.me> <PKE5O.17601$8CY1.13682@fx37.iad>
 <v3j4vt$3j4v3$1@dont-email.me>
 <665d1d57$0$2363138$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <v5dlar$1dttg$2@dont-email.me> <memk7j5epu65t50ajn5vcbamj5s5uku5ig@4ax.com>
 <v5dpgc$1eh23$6@dont-email.me> <v5flpc$1pj51$1@dont-email.me>
 <23JeO.16235$BRt3.6532@fx05.iad> <v5foko$1pj51$8@dont-email.me>
 <le1ju9F6qs8U1@mid.individual.net> <v5j5fl$2ks7o$5@dont-email.me>
 <le5mh0Fr71nU1@mid.individual.net>
Reply-To: OFeem1987@teleworm.us
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 22:40:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a02c9858b3283f41e8130a57b38f55fd";
	logging-data="3061818"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UBn5UHeV8gBM9rcO8IA+V"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BpYvrd7Qofy5dGxioRsogavubWo=
X-Mutt: The most widely-used MUA
X-Slrn: Why use anything else?
X-User-Agent: Microsoft Outl00k, Usenet K00k Editions
Bytes: 3531

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:48:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On 26 Jun 2024 04:32:09 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>> 
>>> I'll admit the neo-Darwinians have their leaps of faith too.
>> 
>> Is life too complex to have arisen by itself?
>
> Since I prefer hypotheses that do not involve the supernatural I would 
> answer 'no'. That still implies a leap of faith.

I dunno, once you see the progression from physics to chemistry to
microbioloy, it gets easier to see how complex systems can develop.

An example is John Horton Conway's "Game of Life". Simple rules, but sometimes
complex behavior (e.g. flyers) ensues. It's even been shown, IIRC, that
one can do computing using game-of-life objects.

When I was a physics undergrad, I had a prof show me a pattern (cells or
honeycombs or something quite beautiful and regular). He remarked that
he couldn't see how something like that arose "on its own". My thought,
kept to myself, was that it looked like a simple application of rules,
much like crystals.

> https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/hc/buddhist-writings/questions-which-
> tend-not-to-edification/
>
> Loke most sutttas, it is repetitious and phrased oddly but is can be 
> paraphrased as 'Who knows and what difference does it make at this point?'

Lack of strict definition affects these arguments. Affects arguments from
religion, philosophy, and even, sometimes, science. Gotta get the definitions
tight, otherwise you are arguing about words or nonsense.

In the end, you want something that can be shown by evidence, tested by lab
experiments or by retrospective data analysis, and is well-defined enough to be
amenable to falsification.

-- 
Q:	What do you say to a New Yorker with a job?
A:	Big Mac, fries and a Coke, please!