Nasher

Searching for truth, and the structure of thought. I am a math, logic, and Machine learning student

[Nasher @207Nasher]

The more math I learn the more it seems that the math section of my university library keeps growing

[Nasher @207Nasher]

I think we see that Erdős had one of the most important skills, the ability to find good questions to ask

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@beffjezos The analogy tracks better as eugenics then racism

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@eshear We might never know

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@foomagemindset He ascended so perfectly we’re not sure if he actually existed

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@for_nat_whilk @ZyMazza What were they?

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@foomagemindset I would think that it would be like a human, it might help somewhat but you still do not know everything about yourself even if you had a live MRI scan for you to watch 24/7

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@taijitu_sees It’s the ability to discern when the loss is valuable

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@godspeed_aflame @Lambda_backlash You also see people incorrectly generalizing it to say something much stronger about the nature of truth

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@godspeed_aflame Yes, when I actually read his paper, I was pleasantly surprised to see that there was no defined notion of “truth” needed

It just needed recursive

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@MatjazLeonardis The idea is more that if you understand exactly what it is then you’re able to define exactly it’s boundaries and represented inside of a formal system

Their may be other valid ways to understand or formalize it but you can argue that those are separate, albeit different, ideas

[James Pierce @RealJamesPierce]

The best philosophers aren’t trying to do philosophy, they’re just trying to understand.

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@HughAndFree The point I’m making here is that the limits of formal systems means much more than just the limits of logic. It is the limit of what anything could do.

[Nasher @207Nasher]

Learning some extremely basic Metamathematics and model theory fundamentally changed the way I think and understand the world.
It’s basically the rigorous philosophy of language stuff. I now better understand the structure and limits of thought

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@HughAndFree That’s fine, the style of thinking doesn’t change the limitations. If something isn’t impossible, it remains impossible

thinking in pictures is still isomorphic to a more complicated formal system

You can also represent hazy things have different levels of expressive capacity

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@HughAndFree However, we can still know what universe of numbers we intend to talk about using some sort of higher order logic that doesn’t actually let us prove things.

There’s a trade-off between expressive capacity and proof ability in a system, this trade-off exists while you think too

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@HughAndFree Nothing can break the rules, there is no recursively innumerable system that can represent all truths about numbers. Your brain is subject to the same limitation

[Nasher @207Nasher]

@HughAndFree Tbh, i’m not sure which claim you’re referring to, the riggrios philosophy of language part, the structure of thought part, or the fundamentally changing the way I think part?