I’d argue the reverse. We restrict the range of civilizational activity to make more predictable phenomena more normal. Both math and science would be less useful in the wild. Civilization creates math/science unreasonable effectiveness bubbles.
-
-
“Laws are contingent, inventions are absolute” is a great argument for asking “how can we do x” by default rather than “can we do x”
-
That’s cute, but ontologically incoherent. Reality decides, in every moment, what subsequent state of reality is “invented” The laws of physics aren’t immutable, but that doesn’t make them contingent. As formula: “Time is real. The present is contingent. Causation is fundamental”
- 7 more 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.
