gRR comments on A wild theist platonist appears, to ask about the path - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Hang 08 May 2012 11:23AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (99)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gRR 11 May 2012 01:00:18AM 2 points [-]

There is nothing circular about the definition -- merely recursive.

Recursive definitions must bottom out at some point. The ones that do not are called circular.

As soon as you observe two things to directly interact with one another, you may safely asssert that both exist under my definition.

You didn't say so before. Now, we two are interacting now (I hope), so we do exist, after all? And what about the characters in the virtual world of a computer game I mentioned before? I certainly saw them interacting.

This is, frankly, not very complicated to figure out.

So sorry for my stupidity.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 11 May 2012 01:06:05AM *  2 points [-]

Recursive definitions must bottom out at some point. The ones that do not are called circular.

See Corecursion, Non-well-founded set theory, Barwise&Moss Vicious Circles.

Comment author: gRR 11 May 2012 01:13:45AM 1 point [-]

Cool, thanks!