A striking thing about language is that is composable in certain ways. I can make an argument in which each step of the argument is self-evident, yet the conclusion is a surprising (but true) consequence of the premises.
Show this thread
-
Maybe when we sum small amounts? E.g. if a put .1g of sugar in a cup of coffee, the taste doesn't change from before. If now I put .1g is doesn't change. Every step is correct, but in the end the taste is different. It happens when we discretize continuous things, maybe?
Interesting example. I don't know how discrete the response of taste receptors and the olfaction system are.
-
-
Me neither. I think the first person I know who talked about it was Engels, when we wrote about quantity affecting quality. In general I don't like Engel's writing, but this idea I found interesting. And maybe it is also related to fallacy of composition?
-
I also remember learning about this coffee example in a game theory class, but can't remember the context of it. It was many years ago, maybe I'm mixing things. In any case, hope your thoughts generate a text about the subject. I'd definitely read it.
End of conversation
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.