= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Mathematics as a lossy compression algorithm gone wild - 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 (80)
What does "objective observations of the universe" mean?
Having knowledge that would not be limited by being an observer, a small part of the universe.
What is time if you're not a creature existing in time?
That is not the usual objective/subjective distinction.
Who/what is the subject of "having knowledge"?
In my opinion that is irrelevant as long as the information is not limited by the nature of the observer. However I don't intend to say that "having knowledge" could have a meaning outside some sort of a subjective thing having it. So I'd like to separate the idea of some kind of truth from a subjective experience of having it. If there is any truth like that. If there was, how could we know, if we don't currently? Does it make sense to contemplate on the possibility of there being knowledge we can't have? We are limited and we can't really think outside the box. Knowing that we can't think outside the box, does not provide the capacity to suggest everything that could be outside the box.
Depends on the value of can't. We can't have the knowledge in the library of Alexandria..but counterfactually we could have had.
That's a pretty well-trodden philosophy topic :-)