3 ms·
Exactly what would you accept as proof? A deduction in ZFC or Homotopy Type Theory? Or an empirical experiment, where we split the world into two parts, one we
by mafribe 10y ago
Exactly what would you accept as proof? A deduction in ZFC or Homotopy Type Theory?
Or an empirical experiment, where we split the world into two parts, one were we police terrorism as the french are doing now, and one where terrorists are treated like random robberies and crimes of spurned lovers; then wait for 200 years and see which side does better?
- leereeves 10y agoDoes the snark mean you don't have an actual argument supporting the 'axiom' (really just a premise) that "terrorists will take over the world"? You can't avoid the need to prove your premises by calling them 'axioms'.
- mafribe 10y agoI was not addressing the question of whether the axioms are true or not, although I have an opinion on this matter. I was addressing lazy "whataboutism". You still have not given an workable account of what you would accept as "proof". I imagine that that's because you have not actually though about this issue. The question of regime change has been thought about deeply for millenia, but there has never been a "proof". Instead, those who think about politics usually look at the history of regime change. This is not because they don't want to have higher standards of evidence, but because nobody knows how to do better.
- leereeves 10y agoProving this is nearly impossible, that's why the discussion never ends. The argument 'If we don't ban encryption, the terrorists will take over the world' is compelling, if you believe it. But it is simply a dire prediction of the kind that can be made (and often is) about anything. Even regular murders. Not so long ago politicians were talking about crime waves and 'superpredators'.
- mafribe 10y agoOne feels that there is a certain ... tension between your That cannot be accepted as an 'axiom' without proof. and your Proving this is nearly impossible