It strikes me that fallibilism seems to be hard to formulate consistently, because it seems deceptively trivial, yet naive formulations run into axiomatic problems. The simplest problem is whether fallibilism is itself fallible.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The universe can be finite, but the number of problems that exist might still be infinite.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
I have a problem with “There cannot be a final explanation because that would leave open the problem of why that explanation and not any other?” That seems just like the self-referential problem. “But what if there is such an explanation? And what if it has nothing to do with”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I mean specially the claim “no final explanation can ever be found.” The whole justification for that claim, as I understand it, is that if there were such an explanation, that would raise the question of “what that explanation?” To me this is “set containing all sets” stuff.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
How do you know that the universe is finite?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
i think that infinities cannot be observed, and the notion of infinity cannot be constructed, so inifinity is a symbol without referent.
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.