@logicaldeductionhighiq: #bp #iqmaxx #philosophy

michaeltheapologetic :

“Hey chatGPT, please gibberate formal logic, make sure you don’t define terms”

ULTRAYADERNYHONDACIVIC777 :

You have a contradiction in line 245

PHONKHUB FEMBOY AND EMPEROR :

good argument but (paste into a .md viewer) $$\begin{bmatrix} \int_{a}^{b} \ln(x) P(x) \, dx & \lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \log_2\left(\frac{i}{n}\right) \\ \oint_{\gamma} \mathbf{F} \cdot d\mathbf{r} & \det \begin{pmatrix} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{pmatrix} \end{bmatrix} \otimes \begin{bmatrix} \frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial x^2} & \nabla \times \mathbf{\mathbf{A}} \\ \int_0^\infty e^{-st} \, dt & \ln\left\vert{} \det(\mathbf{M}) \right\vert{} \end{bmatrix} \vdash \aleph_0$$ $$\operatorname{Tr}\left( \mathbf{A}^{-1} \cdot \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2} \mathbf{B}(x) \, dx \right) \cdot \prod_{k=1}^{\infty} \log_k\left( \det\left( \mathbf{C}_k \right) \right) \implies \bigoplus_{j=1}^{m} \mathcal{H}_j \perp \ker(\mathbf{L})$$ $$\forall \mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n} \left( \det(\exp(\mathbf{X})) = e^{\operatorname{Tr}(\mathbf{X})} \right) \land \neg \exists \mathbf{Y} \left( \int \ln(\mathbf{Y}) \, d\mathbf{Y} = \mathbf{0} \right)$$ $$\begin{bmatrix} \frac{\partial \phi_1}{\partial x_1} & \dots & \frac{\partial \phi_1}{\partial x_n} \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac{\partial \phi_m}{\partial x_1} & \dots & \frac{\partial \phi_m}{\partial x_n} \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{Bmatrix} \Gamma_{ij}^k \frac{dx^i}{ds} \frac{dx^j}{ds} + \frac{d^2 x^k}{ds^2} = 0 \end{Bmatrix} \equiv \bot$$

Komisch :

"If no one can read it it cant be debunked!"

nonb1n :

phobos☭🌍⚔️♫⃠☣︎ᛉ⛧⃝ :

straight from chatgpt

Philokalos :

"Nice ai" how do we not understand satire? 😭

LEEKSCLTS :

atheist vs theist❎ Ai atheist vs Ai theist✅

intellectual :

ppl dont get ts satire 😭

revequestion :

people js dont realize its satire 😭✌

🐍 | Leisgy | ✝️ :

NAHHHHHHHHH BRO IS SMART IQMAXX 💀

parttimeidiot :

wpuld be a good argument if i didnt come up with it at 8 years old

conciseaqeedah :

yh but ur respons falls victim to modal collapse

Mehtthevhetdownnowonthetree :

Peace² :

i cant even read that shit 😭

👁️ :

no way some people think ts is serious

𝄢 ♗ 𝒜𝓇𝓉 ♱♪ 𝄞 :

No definition😭

hjvns :

straight gibberish

.... :

sound argument 🫡

ஓ๑ Hð¢h§†êr Gµ† ๑ஓ :

You could really just say Kant argued that the "thing-in-itself" causes our sensory experiences. However, Kant also argued that "cause-and-effect" is just a filter inside the human mind, meaning it cannot apply to things outside our mind. If we cannot apply causality to the noumena, Kant cannot claim they cause our experiences. "Without the assumption of the concept of the thing-in-itself I could not enter into the system, and with this concept I could not remain in it."

Ceptmiseryy :

Do you have a Substack or some sort of place where you have written this so I can actually read and reply? Thanks