I think you can somewhat rescue the correspondence theory for math by combining claims like “this math is true” with claims like “this part of reality is well modeled by this math” to create factual claims. That approach should be enough for decision making. And you can mostly rescue the correspondence theory for morals by translating claims like “X is better than Y” into factual claims like “my algorithm prefers X to Y”, since we have some idea of how algorithms might have preferences (to the extent they approximate vNM or something). I agree that both areas have unsolved mysteries, though.
I think you can somewhat rescue the correspondence theory for math by combining claims like “this math is true” with claims like “this part of reality is well modeled by this math” to create factual claims
Then you would have some other form of truth in place before you started considering what true maths corresponds to. Which may be what you mean by somewhat rescue...embed correspondence as a one component of a complex theory. But no one is really saying that correspodence is 100% wrong, the debate is more about whether a simple theory covers all cases..
And you can mostly rescue the correspondence theory for morals by translating claims like “X is better than Y” into factual claims like “my algorithm prefers X to Y”, s
Why should I go to jail for going against your preferences… why not the other way round? Getting some sort
of naturalised “should” or “ought” out of preferences is the easy bit. What you need, to solve morality, to handle specifically moral oughts, is a way to resolve conflicts between the preferences of individuals.
I think you can somewhat rescue the correspondence theory for math by combining claims like “this math is true” with claims like “this part of reality is well modeled by this math” to create factual claims. That approach should be enough for decision making. And you can mostly rescue the correspondence theory for morals by translating claims like “X is better than Y” into factual claims like “my algorithm prefers X to Y”, since we have some idea of how algorithms might have preferences (to the extent they approximate vNM or something). I agree that both areas have unsolved mysteries, though.
Then you would have some other form of truth in place before you started considering what true maths corresponds to. Which may be what you mean by somewhat rescue...embed correspondence as a one component of a complex theory. But no one is really saying that correspodence is 100% wrong, the debate is more about whether a simple theory covers all cases..
Why should I go to jail for going against your preferences… why not the other way round? Getting some sort of naturalised “should” or “ought” out of preferences is the easy bit. What you need, to solve morality, to handle specifically moral oughts, is a way to resolve conflicts between the preferences of individuals.