if you knew that an ultrafinitist had arguments that you would find persuasive and convince you of ultrafinitism, would you let them speak to you?
-
-
What fraction of your beliefs would you say are mostly the result of something that someone influential said to you when you didn't have the ability to evaluate it critically whatever that even means and you havent questioned them since
Show this thread -
-
if you push a button you will receive an infohazard that also happens to be true
Show this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You've not gone full meta until you pass the first infinite ordinal
-
paging Dr. Cantor
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
maybe this is completely obvious already and the thread is all tongue-in-cheekily choosing to ignore this, but: my response to all of these questions is "it's incoherent to suggest that i could become certain of the persuasiveness of an argument before hearing the argument"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm thinking this falls into the same problems that make probability reasoning non-intuitive: you need a comprehensive approach to make sensible sense. Ex: You need to know something about the false-and-true positive-and-negative a test to actually understand the test result
-
Similarly, the question as presented in a simple frame - that there's someone with arguments who could convince you of a thing - is lacking in completeness, as there's an implied "given a lack of counter-arguments"
- 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.