= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Anubhav comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! - 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 (1953)
Apparently you're working in something that's akin to a mathematical system... you start with a few facts (the ones with high 'explanatory priority') and then you derive other facts (the ones with lower 'explanatory priority'). Which is nice and all, but this system doesn't really seem to reflect anything in reality. In reality, a deer getting killed by a tree is a tree killing a deer is a deer getting killed by a tree.
Well, I'm not intentionally trying to work with anything like a mathematical system. My claim was just that if by 'in reality' we mean 'referring to basic material objects and their motions' then we loose the ability to claim any explanatory priority between facts like 'X carries Y' and 'Y is carried by X'. Y didn't just get itself carried, X had to come along and carry it. X is the cause of Y's being carried.
But all that hinges on convincing you that there is some such explanatory priority, which I haven't done. I think perhaps my argument isn't very good. Thanks for the discussion, at any rate.