Just had one if these long discussions with a smart mathematician, and now I notice that sometimes I get the impression that computationalism (the only working philosophical edifice left) is non-obvious to 90% of people. I find that genuinely puzzling.
-
-
In my usual view, all of mathematics is a priori and does not evolve, so the number 2 cannot be caused. But if you treat Peano's axioms as a computational generator operating on a Platonic substrate, then 2 is caused by a metamathematical machine executing Peano's axioms.
-
The question of the cause of 2 is the same as the question of the cause of the shape of the Mandelbrot fractal. The natural numbers are literally a fractal, with Peano's axioms being one possible rule set, and we discover (not create) them and their properties by computation.
- 23 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah I'm not a causal realist (in the standard sense), and I think that's a very useful model of "causality" for the purpose of science. So I think I'm on board with your argument so far.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The choice to employ causality is the cause of the need to be interactive, which requires the simultaneous employment of friction to allow a dual system to "act" on something. If no one wants a computer to be here, is there still a computer?

Thanks. 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.