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
2
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
btw, ontology-wise, I have a concept of inside/outside views of minds that maps neatly to realities and needs writing down
2
core idea being that the "inside view" is the experience of a mind and the "outside view" what others can measure
in subjective idealism, one knows these "inside views" as "realities" and the universe is just another mind
2
but not sure if it ties into your stuff - if you think it does, I may hurry up and/or give you some of my notes