= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
roland comments on Rationality Quotes December 2011 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (577)
No. You have a rule that hypothetically would produce an infinite set if applied ad infinitum. This may seem like nitpicking but there is a difference between the concept of an infinite set and an actual infinite set, the latter can't be represented in a finite brain(I suppose).
I can write down the rules of a turing machine, but this doesn't produce a working computer to spring to life if you get my point.
Yep, exactly; no problem with that, that's how mathematics works. There is only a problem if someone wants to write down every element of an infinite set.
This is mathematics. The concept of a mathematical object is the object, because the "concept" version satisfies all the same rules (axioms) as any "actual" version, and these rules completely describe its structure, and (broadly) mathematics is the study of structure/patterns.
One does not need a physical basis for these rules, and so one does not need a physical basis for structures generated by such rules.