Streetlight

Mistakes, yes. But falsity? A note can 'ring false', I suppose, but theres no intentionality there; its not false about anything. A machine can break,...

This isn't it. Its not: 'we look at things from a particular frame of reference'; its: 'the frame brings out the very things we can see to begin with'...

Fuk that was awesome.

@"Csalisbury": look - it's the Kuhn reception.

Heh, completely different take it is. I'm invoking him in support of my position, not against it! Well, perhaps not completely different. I think Witt...

Wittgenstein, king of sass: "How do I recognize that this colour is red? One answer would be: 'I have learnt English.'" You can almost hear the "you i...

If I may, the entirety of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations can be read as nothing but a critique of incomplete problemscapes; its alternati...

But if you follow the example, it's clear that invention and discovery are not so clearly separated; the paper referenced in the OP speaks of (mathema...

I'm calling the cops.

Which would work if and only if causality is restricted to operating on the microphysical realm, which is contentious to say the least. It also displa...

If you take the sufficiency rider seriously, then any answer in terms of causality needs to answer the further question: but why 'this' cause and not ...

Hmm, my impression is that transcendental philosophy - Kant and his successors - has a more complex relation with the PSR than is generally acknowledg...

If you say so.

If you don't like the game, don't play.

Sure, and I acknowledged this: but the relevant question is what accounts for this difference in scope. The obvious answer seems to be that math is co...

As befitting an intellectual Curious George.

So this means you think math dictates the uses to which math is put? Is there a theorem for that?

Mm, a shock indeed that anyone could be so philosophically backward in their interpretation of the results.

A word on proofs: proofs (and with them, truth) are trivial, they're bureaucratic grunt work, the labour of pencil-pushing; proofs are only ever the p...

'Next-step analysis', the kind I'm not ready to do, even though still general: "Nevertheless, from the moment when capitalism crystallised, when it oc...

Maybe, maybe not, but that's just displacing the conversation again; you're talking about something else. That's what I keep tying to tell you.

No, as to what counts as more useful. That one needs a lever to move a weight does not make the lever 'true'. That's just bad grammar.

No, 'accuracy' is not at issue, never was, never will be, not even in principle.

No, wrong. Explained already.

I don't know how else to explain that I'm concerned with concepts and not proofs. This is the third time now, and you keep talking about something els...

Yes. I mean I haven't mentioned him at all here but yes, 'how to step beyond Derrida' is massively written across all of this. Because yeah, it's actu...

This is a comforting opinion to hold I guess, but as it stands there's nothing here but assertion and some cute imaginative scenario posing. *waves ha...

But nowhere did I say that 'math and philosophy are the same'; I simply said they share the same approach to concept-determination. That philosophy is...

But of course it's the case with math. The history of math is nothing other than the history of commitments made one way - and not another. And even t...

See, this too I think is just wrong. That is, any close attention to philosophy shows it to be an incredibly constrained practice. I quoted Deleuze in...

To a tin ear, I'm sure all sorts of sounds can be heard. So much the worse for that ear.

Your illiteracy has reached new heights I wasn't sure possible.

Fair enough. I suppose it's that very distinction, between the engagement and not, that interests me. Some here seem to think that philosophy per se i...

Also, people need to stop saying 'subjective' when they mean 'arbitrary'.

Banno's is my favourite so far.

Lol, 'who are you to disagree with my contentious reading of mathematical physics'. Asks me to get over myself. Love it.

This is what I get for playing grumpy leftie on my phone.

Heh, kind of. But that game was too arbitrary: it wasn't made for a purpose. The distinctions articulated within it were not posed to solve anything i...

But this here is the very move that is unmotivated: it responds to no imperative other than your 'will-to-system', which, as Nietzsche rightly observe...

Another line of thought - in truth, the only one that makes sense of the PoSR to me - is the Leibnizian one of grounding sufficiency in the 'nature' o...

Stop. Talking. About. Solving. Problems. Start. Talking. About. Conceptual. Determination.

But, to be blunt - this is wrong. I'm not denying the fact of consensus - clearly Cantorian infinity and ZFC axiomatics generally win the day - but th...

I think you're just... wrong about this. I mean, yeah, the question of values is something so far underdeveloped in this thread, but the emphasis on p...

I'll stop you here; again, you're changing the language: it's not 'solving questions' at stake: it is posing problems, determining the concepts throug...

I would fix the bolding part: it'd be a case of giving up the idea that there are irrational numbers by denying that such areas can be measured ('are ...

Some good discussion here! Will respond piecemeal to things... But this isn't the goal at all. The goal is to respond to problems as they arise, and f...

A problem of knowledge? No. A problem of life, a problem of living. You're missing the empiricism. I believe in tomorrow. Do you?

Bourgeious escapism.

Not at all. The other option is simply to reject that irrationals are numbers tout court. And for the longest time this is just what happened. For a g...

But the question is whether or not we can keep both at the same time. As they put it, the irrationals force the criteria to 'come apart'. The question...