'(·) on Twitter

This Tweet is unavailable.

1

Oct 2, 2016

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

Replying to

and

which, interestingly, from the POV of the statement, makes subjunctive realities indistinguishable from "real" ones

1

2

Replying to

and

for some classes of ontologies, this gets rid of grounding: nothing needs to "confer" reality, anything you can imagine exists

2

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

Replying to

and

this however needs a notion of computation that is independent from it being executed

1

Replying to

yeah, thanks for reminding me, I forgot to mention this in an upcoming post.

1

'(·)

@allgebrah

Replying to

@MoralOfStory

I'd be interested in the solution - this has always been the weak point in my version

11:18 PM · Oct 2, 2016Twitter Web Client

Replying to

It's going to be a few posts before we get there, but the spoiler is that I bite that bullet pretty hard

1

Conversation