Does anyone have the old picture krob made with the Martin Luther hanging up the 99 theses but they were like "don't reply to nma posts, don't read nma posts," etc? I want to edit to to say hbotz
1 Like
Because the process of evaluating truth values is a static process. There is no essence of becoming, no change in how we evaluate the world.
that is, precisely, my point.
There’s a change between before we pass the threshold of truth and once we do pass it, and there is a new conception in how we look at the world during the process of determining whether it’s true or not as one alters the variables in the experiment once certain things work or don’t work
ok goodnight nerds
Night
*nyte
fixed
Yeah but truths outside of formal systems don't exist. The only truth value anything could ever have is false.
I’m banned from nyting my knights remember
unrelated book recommendation: eliezer yudkowsky’s Inadequate Equilibria, about why society do be how it be
I gotta do more reading in formal systems to engage with that
Read it all, disagree with it all
this actually makes some things in general make more sense
@hbotz do you believe we should add axioms to ZFC to prove things which are not provable within ZFC like the continuum hypothesis, i.e. that the cardinality of the reals is the next cardinal after the cardinality of the natural numbers. Another phrasing: no set exists that is strictly larger than the naturals and strictly smaller than the reals. Yet another: every infinite subset of the reals is isomorphic to either the natural numbers or the real numbers.
I ask because you talked about axioms before.
How the hell did this post reach 636 posts when I didn't even post in it once and asoul had only 13
Sunday truce is over it's time to start fighting
Because multiple people joined in on exposing hbotz as a pseudointellectual fraud in multiple subject areas
yes. you should add axioms to zfc in order to do more mathematics. especially if you have proven said axioms to be independent of zfc and therefore wont make zfc deconsistent assuming it isnt already. which i am comfortable assuming.
Fucking gotcha. To propose to add next axioms to prove something that isn't provable in ZFC necessarily presupposes that mathematical objects exist independent of us. That is, to say something should be either true or false, you must believe that the language in which ZFC is formulated should have statements which are provable.
The assumption that statements should be provable is only justified if mathematical objects are real in the Platonic sense. That is, they exist outside of our minds as ideal objects to be discovered through mathematical interrogation. Thus, language itself doesn't exist in our minds. Hell, it isn't even a metaphysical construct we invent. It doesn't come from us at all. This is all proven by Gödel's later works where he rejects his former pluralistic approaches to the extrinsic additions of axioms and instead embraces monistic extrinsic axioms (though the argument applies as much to the pluralist approach. Just wanted to give context). I can cite it if you want
This necessarily contradicts your entire worldview. Mathematics isn't inherent to humans, so there are things which don't exist in our brains. Now do you see why you need to rigorously justify your claims that are "just common-sense" or stem from your intuition?