Alex Strasser
@AStrasser116
Followers
4K
Following
26K
Media
1K
Statuses
14K
Physics, Philosophy, Religion | PhD student in Materials Science (2D materials) I blog about Ethics and Christianity at https://t.co/YrQOqpyr0k
Joined March 2019
Simplifying my life by writing a decision theory code to settle all my life choices from here on
1
0
11
I still need to write out a fuller picture with the Atonement and the Gospel but this is a starter package.
0
0
5
Here is my attempt to resolve the conflict between mercy and justice of God, which I think is the optimal middle ground between maximal mercy and maximal justice .
gospeldemands.com
It is commonly thought that there is a tension between mercy and justice, and it is indeed not obvious how to make sense of God being both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. In this blog post, …
This strikes me as nonsensical:. If justice is giving someone what they deserve, mercy withholding it, and grace bestowing what’s undeserved, then no single act could be all three at once. Each negates the others. So, if applied to the same act, they form an inconsistent triad.
1
1
14
Apparently some people developed emotional attachments to a chatbot (ELIZA) back in the 70s, and some had suggested these bots could replace therapists
2
1
8
"Oh no, if God's beliefs change, doesn't that mean God changes, aka isnt immutable?" .He clearly doesnt change in any problematic way, as His beliefs change simply in accordance with the facts, which themselves change on Craig's view; God didnt get anything wrong.
1
0
8
(Corresponding to when it is not raining now and when it is raining now, respectively. If the facts change, then God's beliefs change accordingly). Theology people need to stop inventing reasons to get upset at others for such non-issues.
1
1
11
This is why theology needs philosophy. WLC is obviously correct (on his own model, which is fine). He's pointing out banal features of tensed facts (they change their truth value) with God being in time. God knows it is not raining now, but He will later know it is raining now.
4
1
14
Christians who want to make the world a better place should going consider going to this conference! .I loved the EA for Christians conference I went to, would recommend.
If you're a Christian interested in EA, radical altruism, bednets, shrimp welfare, evangelism, AI, or anything inbetween. JOIN US! .
1
1
17
This argument is both sound and compelling
If you ever think you are bad at philosophy just remember G.E. Moore published this:
20
36
400
I guess I should say for the record that I'm not in the top 10 authors, so it's not like this is primarily my paper lol. I am certainly a minor player as I contributed ~16 pages of it.
0
0
2
The full version is here A free and smaller (mostly due to formatting differences, so it's only 287 pages) is available here
arxiv.org
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are fueling a new paradigm of discoveries in natural sciences. Today, AI has started to advance natural sciences by improving, accelerating, and enabling...
1
0
3
We cover a number of different topics, including studying quantum or atomistic systems as well as larger molecule or material systems, or solving PDEs. I was responsible for the density functional learning part of it (and a small section on amorphous materials)
1
0
2
2 years after submission, our review paper on Artificial Intelligence for scientific research is now online! It turned out to be a whopping 532 pages long. A great team of 63 authors.
1
1
25
(Some of the books moved to 5th floor, but that section couldn't be all of them, idk what happened, im sure it's just temp renovations).
0
0
6
It's even worse when the argument flatly contradicts empirical evidence. Unfortunately it isnt just Twitter randos that say these things, but scientists and "science-engaged" philosophers too. I'm looking directly at you Ladyman and Ross and Mizrahi.
2
1
33
Why do i keep seeing this happen? . A: You philosophers really need to learn more science, so you won't believe stupid things like x.B: Why's that? .A: Because [woefully abysmal argument against x with super naive philosophical assumptions].
19
17
214