this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
208 points (95.6% liked)

Linux

48310 readers
645 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I study math at uni and I was shocked realizing all my teachers use ubuntu on both their laptop and work desktop

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VintageGenious@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] sbrb@programming.dev 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why were you shocked? Why this post? What is this about?

[–] VintageGenious@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

Because usually very few people use Linux, especially in public sector. And here it was all of my teachers, not just one

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Why is there something instead of nothing

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

When I look at my gut, I ask myself the same question 😭

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Well Liebniz said it's because of a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself, if that helps.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

No, because it's circular logic. There's no reason for a necessary being to exist before it does, and no evidence that one does in the real world.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No, because it’s circular logic.

It is, and that's inherent in the problem under consideration, the problem of the 'uncaused caused' or the 'first mover'. Logic can either be A) circular or B) not-circular. Any not-circular logic must explain each element by referring to a prior, but then you've got an infinite regress. So you're trapped in a dilemma: do you want the circular logic or the infinite regress? Liebniz's choice was to say that God was inherently existent, like when Lao Tzu said 道法 自然

There’s no reason for a necessary being to exist before it does

Correct. It is necessary: it is self-causing. It does not stand upon a 'reason', unlike everything else in conditioned existence.

to exist before it does

You're assuming it is subject to the laws of linear time and causation, and point out how that assumption leads to a contradiction. But Liebniz's God is not subject to the laws of linear time and causation. Which is the whole point of positing it: because if it were subject to those laws: infinite regress.

and no evidence that one does in the real world.

Well the world exists, so all this existence must have some cause. That was the starting point of the conversation: Why is there something instead of nothing?

[–] jjlinux@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

My gut is circular, that's bullying 🤣

[–] VintageGenious@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)