mtraven comments on Excluding the Supernatural - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 September 2008 12:12AM

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

Comments (124)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: mtraven 12 September 2008 02:29:24AM 6 points [-]

Of course water flows downhill because it wants to be lower. It just is not in its nature to be able to want anything else, which distinguishes it from more flexible want-systems like ourselves.

As to the supernatural, I suggest a useful analogy is mathematical objects, like 5, pi, the complex plane, or the Pythagorean theorem. These objects are not physical; they are not made of quarks nor reducible to them, even though any concrete instantiation of them (or instantiation of a thought about them) must involve some physical process; they are non-natural even though they pervade nature. Nobody here would deny the right of mathematicians to be pragmatic Platonists who treat mathematical objects as real things that they can think about and perform mental manipulations on. By analogy, I would at least consider the possibility that theologians have a similar right to make statements about their non-physical, non-natural object of study.

Comment author: Perplexed 02 August 2010 02:56:41PM 5 points [-]

Pure theology is relatively harmless. It's when they start doing applied theology that I wish they would get someone competent to check their calculations.

Comment author: Kenny 22 May 2013 12:01:16PM 1 point [-]

Funny that you use mathematics as an analogy to something being argued as irreducible, as mathematics is all reducible to fundamentally simple components. And one could even argue that mathematics is 'reducible' to simple physical systems; it's not like you're claiming that every other non-ontologically-fundamental concept or category is Platonically supernatural. What makes the patterns of mathematics special?

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 12 June 2016 10:19:10AM 3 points [-]

Mathematics doesn't escape the Munchausen Trilemma...how do you justify your axioms?