= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_A_Somers comments on Open thread, July 28 - August 3, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (241)
It depends why Salvati is bringing it up.
"If X(t), then A(t+delta). If A(t') then B(t'+delta')."
"But, not A(now)!"
Even with such a generic conditional (where t and t' are, effectively, universally quantified), the response can make sense with the following implied point: So not "B(now+delta')", hence we can't draw any presently relevant conclusions from your statement, so why are you saying this?
It may or may not be appropriate to dispute the relevance of the conditional in this way, depending on the conversational situation.
Let me rephrase that with more words:
"If we do X, then A will happen. If A happens, then B happens."
"But A isn't happening."