636
Philosophy rules (feddit.de)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 122 points 1 year ago

Here's the chain for lemmy

[-] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 46 points 1 year ago

cool. what software did you use to make this plot?

[-] vankappa@lemmy.world 67 points 1 year ago
[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 44 points 1 year ago

https://www.xefer.com/Wikipedia it's from the Wikipedia page you linked

[-] Liz@midwest.social 74 points 1 year ago

Almost certainly because the most common opening sentence for an article follows the "[subject] is a member of [broader group]" structure and the more generalized you get, the more you get into entire areas of study, which are eventually classified as a kind of philosophy, which is just fancy-speak for "high-skill thinking."

[-] itsralC@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

There have been some theories on this phenomenon, with the most prevalent being the tendency for Wikipedia pages to move up a "classification chain". According to this theory, the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines on how to write the lead section of an article recommend that articles begin by defining the topic of the article. A consequence of this style is that the first sentence of an article is almost always a definitional statement, a direct answer to the question "what is [the subject]?"

[-] exoplanetary@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Wrote a paper on this for a network theory class back in college and came to pretty much the same conclusion. Pages tend to lead to “funnels” of similar general topics, such as Earth, science, etc. and they all make their way upward into philosophy, which is the study of thinking, since thinking is at its core how we perceive the world.

Interestingly there’s two distances from philosophy that pages tend to hover around, the closer one of which is more full of technology and science stuff while the farther one is mostly places. It’s a pretty interesting deep dive

[-] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 66 points 1 year ago
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I like the idea that in order to truly understand Taylor Swift, one must first also know about math, geometry, 3D space, the concept of awareness, existence, and reality itself.

"Do you know about Taylor Swift?"

"Who?"

"Oh boy... Do you know about this thing called reality?"

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 14 points 1 year ago

Bro WTF does the Wikipedia article on "Existence" say? Just "Yes"?

[-] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 14 points 1 year ago

A long article with 9 dropdowns... Existence is, in fact, very hard to define.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

It's better than nothing

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lugal@lemmy.ml 41 points 1 year ago

Fun fact: Since "Philosophy" is part of a loop itself, you could say the same thing about any of the 11 element of that loop, including "Three-dimensional space"

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

And geometry as well as the universe. That was a wild trip, I tried 5 different things.

[-] readthemessage@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I thought the first link in philosophy was philosophy itself.

Edit: I brainfarted while writing. What I meant is "I thought it would be even more interesting if the first link in philosophy was philosophy itself".

[-] lugal@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Do you mean this part? I don't think that's part of the article. From my understanding, the parentheses isn't counted either.

[-] readthemessage@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 1 year ago

Actually, no, but I meant something very different from what I wrote hehe I will edit my comment, thanks!

[-] lugal@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I see. I think wikipedia either forbids links to itself or at least it is against every convention

[-] readthemessage@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 1 year ago
[-] lugal@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

And I think a word is never twice linked but only the first time it appears. So if "clicking" will occur a second time, it won't be clickable

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 40 points 1 year ago

FYI: that page also gets to philosophy.

[-] lugal@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 year ago

Honestly, it would be even more fun if it didn't

[-] julianh@lemm.ee 37 points 1 year ago

What the hell this is cool but kinda creepy.

[-] Shelena@feddit.nl 62 points 1 year ago

I mean, it is not that creepy. Philosophy underlies science and almost everything is studied in science. I guess the same is the case for other concepts that are just as broad and fundamental. Or maybe it is possible to go from almost any page to almost any other page. I guess that would make sense too.

[-] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 21 points 1 year ago

Yeah but remember you have to click the first link (except links between parentheses, because they are often translations).

[-] Donkter@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I think it's because, as someone earlier in the thread pointed out. Most article begin by stating what the topic is a subset of. Since everything is a result of humans categorizing and thinking about the world, that inevitably leads back to philosophy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

Don't let yourself be LIED to. BIG PHILOSOPHY is behind this, changing Wikipedia's RULES so that they can CONTROL YOU through YOUR THOUGHTS. Don't let big philosophy win, STOP THINKING.

[-] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

reject thinking, revert to amphibian

[-] TheCheddarCheese@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

okay wait this is actually real what

[-] Artemis_Mystique@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago
[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

It does if you break out of the loop after the third article or so.

[-] Daxtron2@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah it does

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

Nice follow up game after the old “random article to Hitler“

[-] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

I thought Jesus was the typical goal?

[-] skylestia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 year ago
[-] Tombar@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Something something small world networks

[-] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

something something dense spanning trees

[-] Gork@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

For the pages that eventually end up in loops (not to philosophy), is this kinda mathematically analogous to some of the shapes in Conway's Game of Life?

[-] misterdoctor@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Not sure what any of this means but pretty cool that you used analogous in a sentence like that

[-] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe. I mean, mathematically, both are Iterations. Both can converge towards a final state or get stuck in a loop (a so called attractor). But that's about it.

[-] TxzK@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago

I don't think so. Game of Life is Turing Complete, and to highly oversimplify what Turing completeness is, it basically means it can theoretically perform any computation your computer can from given instructions. So when a pattern in a Game of Life ends up in a loop, you are actually instructing it to do so, not much different than writing while (true) {} in a computer program for example. While here, it's just two pages ultimately linking to eachother.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

...yes? Well, at least there's valid definitions of "analogous" that make this true: Hypertext links form a directed graph, loops form, well, cycles in that graph, and executions of game of life can be mapped onto a directed graph, and that graph can contain cycles, just as with hyperlinks without any out-edges escaping those cycles. Executions, plural, if you only use one the graph will have only one out-edge per node and either be infinite, or have one back-edge. Rather degenerate, you'd call it a (repeating) sequence instead of a graph to not make things unnecessarily complicated.

Not very meaningful though as wikipedia articles and game of life aren't isomorphic, at least to my knowledge. If they were isomorphic you'd actually have interesting mathematics at hand.

They're both... terminally loopy graphs, that's it (I just made up that term there's probably a proper one). Also the ones "ending" in philosophy also end in a loop, it just happens to include philosophy.

[-] kilorat@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

it looks like you have to skip the part in italics at the top of articles (disambiguation, "other uses", etc..) too for that to be effective

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] programmer_belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago

Well then, another project to do, DDOS wikipedia using a crawler that checks the average and maximum amount of nodes to get to philosophy

[-] deur@feddit.nl 29 points 1 year ago

You can also just download the article dataset :)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago

I did Rumpke Sanitary Landfill.

  1. Landfill
  2. Waste
  3. By-product
  4. Manufacturing
  5. Production
  6. Material
  7. Matter
  8. Classical physics
  9. Physics
  10. Natural science
  11. Branches of science
  12. Science
  13. Scientific method
  14. Empirical evidence
  15. Proposition
  16. Philosophy of language
  17. Analytic philosophy
  18. Philosophy

I'll be damned.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Stelus42@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

Ironically enough, starting with Philosophy gets you to a loop that includes "logic", "reason", and a few others, but never leads back to philosophy.

[-] yokonzo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Whelp, it works on cow patties so... Confirmed?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
636 points (100.0% liked)

196

17462 readers
802 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS