I know @Wei Dai’s post isn’t entirely serious, but I want to flag that the position that we could have understood values/philosophy without knowing about math/logic is a fictional world/fabricated option.
It cannot exist, and updateleness can be taken too far with compute constraints.
I want to flag that the position that we could have understood values/philosophy without knowing about math/logic is a fictional world/fabricated option.
Maybe but I don’t believe that you know this. Lots of important concepts want to be gotten at by routes that don’t use much math or use quite different math from “math to understand computers” or “math to formalize epistemology”. Darwin didn’t need much math to get lots of the core structure of evolution by natural selection on random mutation.
Perhaps more seriously, the philosophers who got a temporary manpower and influence boost from the invention of math and science should have worked much harder to solve metaphilosophy, while they had the advantage.
This contradicts my position in Some Thoughts on Metaphilosophy. What about that post do you find unconvincing, or what is your own argument for “philosophy being insoluble”?
I know @Wei Dai’s post isn’t entirely serious, but I want to flag that the position that we could have understood values/philosophy without knowing about math/logic is a fictional world/fabricated option.
It cannot exist, and updateleness can be taken too far with compute constraints.
Maybe but I don’t believe that you know this. Lots of important concepts want to be gotten at by routes that don’t use much math or use quite different math from “math to understand computers” or “math to formalize epistemology”. Darwin didn’t need much math to get lots of the core structure of evolution by natural selection on random mutation.
Perhaps more seriously, the philosophers who got a temporary manpower and influence boost from the invention of math and science should have worked much harder to solve metaphilosophy, while they had the advantage.
It’s quite possible that we have solved metaphilosophy, in the direction of philosophy being insoluble.
This contradicts my position in Some Thoughts on Metaphilosophy. What about that post do you find unconvincing, or what is your own argument for “philosophy being insoluble”?