ahhhhhh I get this reference! it is such a good reference!
-
-
-
These are the replies worth logging in for
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
We choose (or just inherent from someone else's choices) our axioms. Thus I can't see any way in which the discipline of Mathematics cannot be said to be created by humans, and I am a weak platonist in the math sense (i.e. any sentence in a formal language has a truth value).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This might be the worst take I've seen in at least twelve hours
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I may not be applying this to an appropriate situation, but isn't 2+2=5 a direct refutation of this kind of thinking? Like, keep me honest here.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That joke is the reason I keep trying to get my (retired) philosophy professor dad to watch The Good Place. Well, and everything else about that show
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As of the last philpapers survey, about 40% of the respondents accepted Platonism with regard to abstract objects (including math), which was the biggest chunk. That left 37 for the biggest competing theory and 23 percent for other.
-
Admittedly the survey is pretty old at this point. But it's interesting to me that Platonism seems more common among mathematicians but less common among philosophers who deal more directly in metaphysics.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
this is kind of an absurd take... bc if we say that math IS underlying reality bc it's what we can observe -- we have no way to PROVE that what we can observe actually IS objective reality
-
(and I totally get the reference, I'm replying to Heather's bad take here)
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.