This Tweet is unavailable.
1
1
Conversation
Replying to
not sure I get it right bc I have cached thoughts on this, but I like that you can formulate it as <statement> under <reality>
1
2
which, interestingly, from the POV of the statement, makes subjunctive realities indistinguishable from "real" ones
1
1
2
for some classes of ontologies, this gets rid of grounding: nothing needs to "confer" reality, anything you can imagine exists
ofc you could construct a statement that only works in "real" realities, whatever that is, but I haven't tried that yet
1
Replying to
yes, that is the point. Ground reality in exactly nothing. A good ontology must do that. (weird.solar/at-least-this-)
2
1
Replying to
a related idea is to ground reality in the platonic plane, which I thought to be original until I saw space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/m
2
Show replies