The Bayesian has to insist that perfectly precise definitions are feasible (in order to get absolute truth) but in practice they usually aren’t
That is quite possible! Neither of us seems to be able to make any sense of what the other says, which I find quite puzzling. (Maybe he does too.)
-
-
I wish I could get you two in a room and attempt to translate into each others' conceptual language. My current diagnosis is something like: you are concerned about eternalism, and so keep emphasizing emptiness. EY is concerned about nihilism, and so keeps emphasizing form.
-
This is pretty much how I read the Law post. He's trying to show why investigating form ("Law thinking") needn't be eternalism, and why nihilism ("pure toolbox thinking") is incoherent. At the end he pretty explicitly starts playing with the non-duality of Law and Toolbox.
- 2 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.