I am not a priori committed to reason, I just have a model of the space of results of picking the alternatives.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Are you then a posteriori committed to reason or would you be agnostic with respect to this as you are with respect to the existence of a real world?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gregg_E_Miller
Yes! For instance, if it turns out that we get better predictions by assuming that we don't live in a world with definite ground truth (like a David Lynch movie), and revelation through telepathic tree stumps works better, we may have to drop reason.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Alright, don't lose patience with me here because this may sound a little weird but in such a world would reason *necessarily* be antithetical to said revelation or could it act in service of it. I'm talking about your hypothetical world here.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gregg_E_Miller
You cannot reason when you cannot establish noncontradictory axioms, but if you are lucky you may be able to prove that your brain cannot compute on them, or that your universe does not have a computable nature.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
How are reason and revelation contradictory axioms? Even in this world the trees "speak" to us (reveal information), perhaps in another possible world they have more to say. The same reason interprets the revelation in both cases?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gregg_E_Miller
I think we can reframe the question into whether we live in a symbolic reality (material events have symbolic causes, such as incantations or mouse clicks) or a mechanist reality, and whether we can use mechanical reasoning to model it, or our modeling itself uses revelations.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I'm kind of stumped here. I think we're drifting deeper into your field and I'm not at home there. Are these the only two options? Symbolic or Mechanistic? What do you mean by "our modeling itself uses revelations?"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gregg_E_Miller
No, a third option is full indeterminism, in which case the difference won't matter. Our modeling might use revelation if some outside force puts useful convictions into our mind (unfortunately, we won't really know if we simply received the conviction that they are useful).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
OK we've probably set some kind of record for longest twitter thread. I really appreciate your engaging so deeply with me on this subject. I have more thinking to do. Any recommendation on something to read along these lines?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Hm. Gary Drescher, Good and Real?
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Thanks, looked it up on Amazon and looks fascinating. I've put it on my wish list, Christmas is coming.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.