You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

TimS comments on Query the LessWrong Hivemind - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: D_Malik 08 November 2011 09:37AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (89)
Tags: query_the_lw_hivemind

Comments (89)

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

Comment author: TimS 09 November 2011 06:45:14PM *  0 points [-]

Furthermore: What can mathematics inform you of if I tell you that I either am or am not thinking of a number that may or may not be imaginary, negative, irrational, rational, positive, complex, whole, or real. Please illustrate.

I don't think mathematics claims that it can answer that question. It is more focused on answering questions like "what does 1 + 2 = 3 mean, and why do we think it is true?"

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 06:51:05PM -1 points [-]

Then you agree with my position over that of wedrifid's.

Comment author: TimS 09 November 2011 06:53:55PM 2 points [-]

But I think "1 + 2 = 3" is true outside our lightcone.

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 07:04:01PM *  1 point [-]

And what information does this allow us to derive about what is outside of our lightcone?

Remember: "1 + 2 = 3" is definitionally true. It would remain true even if the universe did not exist; it is a non-contingent / non-local truth.

Comment author: TimS 09 November 2011 07:16:23PM 1 point [-]

Remember: "1 + 2 = 3" is definitionally true.

Fair enough. I should have reference the Pythagorean theorem.

It would remain true even if the universe did not exist

I don't disagree with this statement, but folks here at LW seem to disagree when I assert that mathematics lacks empirical content.

Comment author: Logos01 09 November 2011 07:28:33PM 0 points [-]

but folks here at LW seem to disagree when I assert that mathematics lacks empirical content.

That's a curious notion. I'm about ready to believe just about anything of the LW commenter community nowadays, though. I've been thoroughly disabused of several notions regarding this site's populace over the last two monhs. <_<

That being said; it might help if I explain how I parse "real" from "exists". To my definitions, "real" covers anything which is a proscriptive restriction on the behaviors of that which exists. "Exists" is anything that directly interacts with something else (or conceivably could / did). I categorize "numbers" in the same 'area' as I do 'the laws of logic' -- they are real, but do not exist. Mostly these things can be treated as "definitionally true"; we define 2 as "1+1" and we define "1" as "a single thing".

(Side note: this neatly resolves the Transcendental Argument for God, by the way. "Resolves" in the sense I am an atheist.)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit