Yes, I see… no, neither of those. I can’t contextualize it either, which is slightly frustrating. It doesn’t fit any standard category.
-
-
-
That means readers have to try to figure out whether it has any value, without reliance on any standard of comparison.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I cannot even guess what this means.
-
Nor can I :)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Right; it doesn’t attempt to.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sorry, I don’t understand the question.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I guess I don’t think it fits any of those categories. You assessment may differ :)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Have you read Reuben Hersch's "What is mathematics, really?": https://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Mathematics-Really/dp/B000WMW900 … Very nice, makes similar points.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Seems to me "meaning" is epistemologically objective (unbiased, etc) while being ontologically subjective (product of mind*s*).
-
Ontologically subjective things exist as much as physical things do. They just aren't composed of particles.
End of conversation
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.