I think the main thing that mathematical finitists get wrong is that numbers “actually” exist—let alone ought to be a certain way.
Show this thread
-
Processes that can be completed before the universe ends. Like computing triangle ratios. Why would I settle for an approximate answer that gets better the more work I do when I can get an exact answer in a predicatably finite number of steps?(angles vs spreads in rational trig)
But why are you subjecting mathematics to constraints of what’s physical?
-
-
I'm subjecting math to the constraints of what can be completely scrutinized. I am also extremely sceptical of arguments that push their key arguments beyond what is observable as a human. Especially because I think many nice things have been neglected in light of our bias.
-
but again it seems like there’s a fundamental assumption that mathematics or pure reason has to necessarily pertain to that which is physically instantiated
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.