I'm afraid there's too big of an inferential gap between us, and I'm not getting much out of your comment. As an example of one confusion I have, when you say:
This is because, at a universal-enough level of knowledge, "truth" becomes ill-defined
you seem to assuming a specific theory of truth, which I'm not familiar with. Perhaps you can refer me to it, or consider expanding your comment into a post?
I thought I just explained it in the same paragraph and in the parenthetical. Did you read those? If so, which claim do you find implausible or irrelevant to the issue?
The purpose of my remarks following the part you quoted was to clarify what I meant, so I'm not sure what to do when you cut that explanation off and plead incomprehension.
I'll say it one more time in a different way: You make certain assumptions, both in the background, and in your language, when you claim that "100 angels can dance on the head of a pin". As those assumptions t...
Less Wrong is a large community of very smart people with a wide spectrum of expertise, and I think relatively little of that value has been tapped.
Like my post The Best Textbooks on Every Subject, this is meant to be a community-driven post. The first goal is to identify topics the Less Wrong community would like to read more about. The second goal is to encourage Less Wrongers to write on those topics. (Respecting, of course, the implicit and fuzzy guidelines for what should be posted to Less Wrong.)
One problem is that those with expertise on a subject don't necessarily feel competent to write a front-page post on it. If that's the case, please comment here explaining that you might be able to write one of the requested posts, but you'd like a writing collaborator. We'll try to find you one.
Rules
You may either:
or...
I will regularly update the list of suggested Less Wrong posts, ranking them in descending order of votes (like this).
The List So Far (updated 02/11/11)