Important point… And also, if you try to specify clearly what “mechanical” means, you’ll probably find that the notion disintegrates. The intuition that reality is “mechanical, ultimately” can’t be made to work as one would like.https://twitter.com/everytstudies/status/976553333606486016 …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Don't quite agree but I sense this conversation is way too large for the current context (and I need to sleep now). P.s mechanical is meant as "formal, blind, with no meaning or room for interpretation".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @everytstudies
Well… that replaces one vague term with four vague terms (which, also, mean rather different things, to the extent that they’re specific).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I interpreted
@everytstudies as saying roughly “some people say that because everything is physics, all understanding should be physics-like; but even though reality is physics-like, useful understandings aren’t necessarily physics-like.” Which I basically agree with!3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
I think you and he disagree.
@everytstudies has claimed several times that it is possible to give an explanation of things which completely eliminates vagueness. My impression is that you don't agree with that.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I’m agnostic about the possibility at the level of fundamental physics. Elsewhere, yes, I think some degree of vagueness is unavoidable
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.