jklsemicolon comments on You only need faith in two things - Less Wrong

22 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 March 2013 11:45PM

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

Comments (86)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: jklsemicolon 11 March 2013 03:07:25AM 7 points [-]

that some single large ordinal is well-ordered

An ordinal is well-ordered by definition, is it not?

Did you mean to say "some single large ordinal exists"?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 March 2013 05:57:09PM 2 points [-]

Yeah, it's hard to phrase this well and I don't know if there's a standard phrasing. What I was trying to get at was the idea that some computable ordering is total and well-ordered, and therefore an ordinal.

Comment author: drnickbone 12 March 2013 07:34:29PM 0 points [-]

Well, supposing that a large ordinal exists is equivalent to supposing a form of Platonism about mathematics (that a colossal infinity of other objects exist). So that is quite a large statement of faith!

All maths really needs is for a large enough ordinal to be logically possible, in that it is not self-contradictory to suppose that a large ordinal exists. That's a much weaker statement of faith. Or it can be backed by an inductive argument in the way Eliezer suggests.