leefeng

中大，崇基，暴大，基督教
亂港，反中，賣國，排異，滅異，霸凌，崇洋，崇耶，的基督教洗腦教育。
信基督教的學生還有【人】的心嗎？
冷血殘暴正是基督教的招牌！


蔡天鳳碎屍案｜迎新營組名涉戲謔死者 網民斥傷口灑鹽 中大：需嚴守學生行為守則

jimmychauck

回覆 78# beebeechan

嗱，我話左你冇乜資料，就求其答你，咁你俾多啲，就可以答多啲。

你係話希特拉有百萬粉絲，唔係話乜野出席人數。你做乜又咁鍾意混淆？唔通我同你講有六千八百萬德國人唔支持希特拉呀？
咁粉絲就不嬲唔一定出席，即係1份之69百萬，都係俾多你，因為我係同遊行人數比緊吖嘛。

用你幅相就倒查到1936 Reichsparteitag der Ehre。

Gemini AI:

how much people attended the 1936 Nuremberg rally Reichsparteitag der Ehre?

There are no precise figures available on the exact attendance of the 1936 Nuremberg Rally (Reichsparteitag der Ehre). However, estimates suggest that over half a million people attended the rally.

It's important to note that the Nazi regime often inflated attendance figures for propaganda purposes, so the actual number may have been lower.


who attended the rally? were there spontanious volunteers or most were Nazi member staffs?


Who Attended the 1936 Nuremberg Rally?
The 1936 Nuremberg Rally (Reichsparteitag der Ehre) was a carefully orchestrated propaganda event. While it appeared to be a massive gathering of enthusiastic supporters, the reality was more complex.

Composition of the Crowd
Nazi Party Members and Affiliates: A significant portion of the attendees were dedicated Nazi Party members, including officials, SA (Storm Troopers), SS (Schutzstaffel), and other affiliated organizations. These individuals were mobilized to create a sense of overwhelming support.
Civilians: There were also civilians in attendance, some of whom were genuinely enthusiastic supporters of the Nazi regime. However, many others were coerced or pressured to attend, with employers, schools, and community organizations encouraging participation.
Organised Groups: Students, youth groups, and various organizations were often bused in to create a sense of mass support.
Lack of Spontaneous Volunteers
While there might have been some individuals who voluntarily attended out of genuine belief, the overall atmosphere of the rally was carefully controlled. The Nazi regime employed extensive propaganda and organizational efforts to ensure a large and enthusiastic crowd. Spontaneous volunteers were likely a minority.

即係，
1. 五十萬都俾多你
2. 唔少人去係工作原因或者壓力被迫。

同埋呢啲紐倫堡大會係一年搞一次。
外國一年一度去吓啲咩聖誕市集新年市集就梗㗎啦，穿州過省都去㗎啦。
2019遊行就係一兩個禮拜一次。

咁就談談為何 reductionism 是 naive 的想法 ?

Reductionism認為所有東西都可以約化，最終會約化到物理學

首先，係實際生活上，你不能用物理學解決，情緒、人際關係、心理、政治、法律或經濟等社會複雜的問題，也沒有人能用物理方式創造一個真實的人和生態圈，證明reductionism無practical verify過。

至於theoretical 呢，呢個reductionism學說，本身又建基於「唯物論是正確」的假設。

由於我們無法肯定「唯物論」或「唯心論」那一個正確，因此Reductionism係建基於一個不可證偽的假設上，違反了「奧卡姆剃刀」原則。

所以reductionism 無論theoretical和practical 都有問題，唔valid。

beebeechan

你冇咩詳細資料我都唔洗點駁，我淨係話俾你聽當時德國人口係今日香港接近十倍。
jimmychauck 發表於 2024/7/25 06:23

    你懂用人口百份比來淡化天安門, 納綷紐倫堡黨代會的人數。

我都想淨係話俾你聽, 中國, 德國唔似香港咁係彈丸之地, 搭幾十分鐘地鐵可到銅鑼灣維園集會巡行。 當時柏林人口亦只是四百多萬, 紐倫堡離柏林一段距離, (400公里外) 該市人口只50萬。
由德國各地來紐倫堡集會要山長水遠, 轉車轉車又轉車, (未計交通費), 要一日, 兩日行程都不少…放到香港, 要長途跋涉, 花一百幾十車費先去到維園, 五大訴求團火仲有無咁熱呢?

jimmychauck

回覆 75# Guest from 203.145.89.x

連第一句都錯，都仲有咁多野講？
連正面答一個問題都做唔到，都仲有咁多野講？
連講句正確嘅咁elementary都做唔到，轉個頭話人地elementary。
講多兩句，就乜假設物剃刀。講少啲就叫elementary。
連基本功都不行，花裡胡哨一大堆做乜？
每一句都有破綻，合起來就變成道理？負負得正呀？naive reductionism唔apply得呀？

呢啲咪politician嘅話術。

不懂正確閱讀也不重要
最重要的係Ask for clarification，而唔係懶醒咁「打稻草人」。

jimmychauck 其實你寫 program 能力去到邊

你D logic 好似都比較 elementary

不過 AI 年代，其實logic 都只係次重要
第一重要是正確閲讀（勿曲解别人意思或文章內容）和正確提出問題

你好似唔係好得

回覆  Guest from 203.145.89.x



可能我quote多左。


No, nyet, nien, non, and iie.
唔係經驗法則，都 ...

你連問問題和看文的能力都搞錯

看文能力差 ：導致你犯稻草人謬誤
問問題差：跟 AI 問錯問題

所以你似乎缺乏 AI 年代需要的技能：正確閱讀文章內容，勿曲解別人意思，亦不要跟AI問錯問題

jimmychauck 其實你寫 program 能力去到邊

你D logic 好似都比較 elementary

jimmychauck

回覆 70# Guest from 203.145.89.x

呢個世界無任何野可以always correct
Guest from 203.145.89.x 發表於 2024/7/24 21:28

可能我quote多左。

首先，nothing is always correct 係經驗法則，唔係邏輯。

No, nyet, nien, non, and iie.
唔係經驗法則，都唔係邏輯，係錯。
所以，你嘅帖第一句已經係錯。
我唔明你點解要用咁多話術去撐，係咪或者因為你係一個flaw嘅human？

不過重點，你話你講收到神同你講，就真係神同你講咩，可能自己個腦扮神咋。

重點？重點定老點？
我又真係唔知我幾時講過收到神同我講。最近有個無中生有之王比賽，你有冇興趣join？你係咪可以講清楚咩叫"收到神同我講"？

所以話，AI 年代，最重要係懂得問對問題，唔係答問題

因為 AI 可以幫你答，但前提是，你是否問對了問題

There is nothing always correct in science 同 Is "There is nothing that is always correct" Logically Sound 表面看似相似，實際差異相差極遠

你問咗問題，AI 就比錯答案你

回覆  Guest from 203.145.89.x


The statement is not even logical in itself. It shows how laughable ...l

所以話，AI 年代，最1重要係問問題，唔係答問題
因為 AI 幫你答，但你拿唔拿到答案，要你識得問

你應該問：There is nothing always correct in science ?
而唔係問：Is "There is nothing that is always correct" Logically Sound

首先，nothing is always correct 係經驗法則，唔係邏輯。另外，nothing is always correct 係因為我們係人，受人的觀察能力所限，不可能搵到always correct 的東西。個邏輯重點係我們包括科學家都是人，明未。你係神的，神咪會有always correct law。不過重點，你話你講收到神同你講，就真係神同你講咩，可能自己個腦扮神咋。

jimmychauck

回覆 58# beebeechan

我幾時有用過百萬人去證明正確？這是再簡單不過的公認證謬誤。

有一百萬人覺得個議題緊要

或者你係覺得覺得唔緊要先上街？其餘六百萬人覺得緊要所以留喺屋企？


另一方面可見到你用嘅類比何等劣拙。
1. 紅衛兵係掌權者號召，並且當時毛主席掌兵權，有擁兵恐嚇之能，加上實際支持度怕比2019-6月時時泛民主派高頗多。反送中係民間自發。
2. 紅八月每次都過百萬，唔知又係邊個點出黎？有幾多水份？
3. 香港得果七百萬人，你要同一個人口以億計嘅國家比？比分數都比死你。

希特拉都能號召過百萬粉絲

你冇咩詳細資料我都唔洗點駁，我淨係話俾你聽當時德國人口係今日香港接近十倍。

jimmychauck

回覆 57# Guest from 203.145.89.x

呢個世界無任何野可以always correct
Always correct 不合科學精神
Guest from 203.145.89.x 發表於 2024/7/24 21:28

The statement is not even logical in itself. It shows how laughable your understanding of science or logic is. Just quit talking science ok? Things from you only sound sciency, and is totally pseudo-scientific.

Gemini AI

Is "There is nothing that is always correct" Logically Sound?

No, there is a logical inconsistency in the statement "there is nothing that is always correct".

jimmychauck

回覆 63# Guest from 203.145.89.x

點解要反送中，因為恐中。

so many presumptions, you have been defeated by your own razor.

jimmychauck

回覆 60# Guest from 203.145.89.x

Simplicity doesn't equate to truth
Insufficient evidence

If you are trying to prove something using Occam's razor, its up to you to provide sufficient supporting evidence to provide a definitive proof, not me. If you can't, yours is only as good as mine. If it is "generally" "better", it is up to you to prove to me this is a "general" issue, not a specific issue, before your razor is any useful.

You always using this razor shows that you only use inductive logic and provide half baked arguments.
like when I told you, principle of undecidability completely defeats "真相是可被觀測的", I have provided sufficient evidence, I needed no razor.

剃刀原則應該要去到 Research Level 先會講
仲有係Empirical Science ...

因為剃刀原則係同點樣做 Research 有關

唔怪之得我係理科人都冇聽過咩剃刀原則

剃刀原則應該要去到Research Level先會講
仲有係Empirical Science 如 Biology之類會講

你讀的 Formal Science (IT) 都未必會講

如果你只係讀到Bachelor Level無聽過就好正想

整個反送中運動，基本就係源自「反奧卡姆剃刀」原則以及「滑波謬誤」搞出黎的穫。

點解要反送中，因為恐中。
政府提出係逃犯條例，引渡逃犯。
但示威者諗到潛在的政治迫害（違反奧卡姆剃刀原則的推論）
基本就係一個搵唔到實際證據支持的假設和滑波推論，
純粹建基於恐懼呢個情緒。
成個示威係由恐懼引發出黎。

另外，樓主認為反送中是基督教搞出黎，
同樣違反「奧卡姆剃刀原則」。

雖然反剃刀有時會對，但在大部分情況下，違反「奧卡姆剃刀原則」都係錯多對少。

沙文

呢個剃刀原則係天主教偉大發明