〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

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

It is an assumption, you're right. But I want my mathematics to be epistomologically stronger then the formalist position suggests, and I'm willing to do the work to substantiate that.

Your position is more subtle than most finitists.. do you not think then that mathematics and observation could ever be disentangled?

Honestly my position as a finitist is a derivative of my position as a materialist. I'm skeptical that anything can be disentangled from observation, experience, and action. I will say that robust trig over finite fields is super interesting and doesn't require any analysis.

Interesting point.. and one that is indeed difficult to parlay with via Twitter