5 ms·

While you claim to oppose the postmodern idea that there is no truth, you’ve ceded the premise to the postmodernists by framing truth in their terms of objectiv

While you claim to oppose the postmodern idea that there is no truth, you’ve ceded the premise to the postmodernists by framing truth in their terms of objectivity and subjectivity. The success of the postmodernists was precisely to discredit all “subjective” truths by way of distinguishing them from “objective” truths, which no common person can deny. A stronger position is one that does not require the truth to be objective or material to in turn be universal and self-evident. Abstract truths, such as e^(i*pi) = -1 have no material basis and cannot be materially proven yet remain true and universal. The simultaneously purely abstract and non-arbitrary nature of mathematics is an obvious chink in the armor of the postmodernists’ worldview, so it is no surprise they have gone so far as to now discredit the universality of math by arguing that 2+2=5 https://twitter.com/kareem_carr/status/1289001355437379589?s=20 https://twitter.com/kareem_carr/status/1289001355437379589?s... (this is a Harvard phd student)

jackcosgrove 5y ago
I'm curious do you believe abstract truths are immanent or transcendent?
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  If by that you are asking whether abstract truths dwell purely in the minds of humans (or otherwise) or exist in some external “realm of ideas” to which minds must be connected, then I don’t have a position on that because I see it as a meaningless distinction. I don’t see a meaningful difference between the two possibilities from my perspective, the result would be the same.
sidpatil 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by the universality of math. There exist different algebras which define addition differently. In the case of 2+2=4, this is formalized by the Peano axioms [1], which define addition of natural numbers. However, in tropical geometry [2], addition returns the minimum of the numbers, not their sum. The author of the original tweet makes this point, and I strongly agree with it: https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1288957167844962306/photo/1 https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/12889571678449623... As for 2.4 + 2.4 = 5, I think the tweet author is being a bit sloppy there in his explanation. But consider 0.1 + 0.2. Ask a human, and they'll tell you it's 0.3. Ask a computer, and it'll likely tell you it's 0.30000000000000004. The point is that in both scenarios, 0.1, 0.2, and addition are defined differently. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_geometry
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  > I'm not sure what you mean by the universality of math. There exist different algebras which define addition differently. Yet each one is self-consistent and potentially independently discoverable by sentient life forms light years away from us, even though these different algebras have no material form. > But consider 0.1 + 0.2. Ask a human, and they'll tell you it's 0.3. Ask a computer, and it'll likely tell you it's 0.3000000000000004 Just because the computer performs imprecise arithmetic does not make .1+.2=.300000004 a meaningful statement from which an entire self-consistent arithmetic system can be derived. The computer’s result is in error. It’s called floating point error.
abernard1 5y ago
> While you claim to oppose the postmodern idea that there is no truth, you’ve ceded the premise to the postmodernists by framing truth in their terms of objectivity and subjectivity I do not. What I am saying is that knowledge—if such a thing exists at all and is worthy of defense by humans—can be addressed in a rational, objective way. Lots of things are approximations, but we do not deny the existence of categories as useful phenomena or an epistemological tool. To paraphrase a famous exchange of ideas, GB Shaw: "All chairs are quite different" vs. Chesterton: "Well how do you then call them all chairs?" The postmodernist sleight of hand is to say that perhaps because there are differing contexts that there is not a universal tendency; such a commonality is either non-existent or should be disregarded. They would not categorically discard visceral human experiences that lead to say "thirst" or "hunger" or "anger", but they will claim that there are not common phenomena that engender "awe" or "wonder" or "intrigue". I disagree with that statement. That humans can reliably classify things that are "beautiful" across cultures (and have done so for millenia, even when they hate each others' cultures), shows there is a common tendency towards taste. When thirsty, many people drink water, but the postmodernist looks at the few drinking Brawndo and has to deny the generalization that water quenches thirst but of thirst entirely.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  > They would not categorically discard visceral human experiences that lead to say "thirst" or "hunger" or "anger" Of course they wouldn’t. It would be too difficult for the average person to buy and they don’t need to especially since it isn’t really their goal to dismantle truth completely, their goal is to dismantle the values we hold as a society so that in the vacuum they may impose new values upon us. They do that under the guise of questioning truth. This is why I said that when you embrace their objective/subjective categories you are helping their cause. Once those categories are established and accepted by society it is simply their job to argue that the values they do not like are subjective and arbitrary, then people who have accepted the subjective/objective dichotomy will do the rest.

jackcosgrove 5y ago

I'm curious do you believe abstract truths are immanent or transcendent?

CyberRabbi 5y ago
If by that you are asking whether abstract truths dwell purely in the minds of humans (or otherwise) or exist in some external “realm of ideas” to which minds must be connected, then I don’t have a position on that because I see it as a meaningless distinction. I don’t see a meaningful difference between the two possibilities from my perspective, the result would be the same.

sidpatil 5y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by the universality of math. There exist different algebras which define addition differently. In the case of 2+2=4, this is formalized by the Peano axioms [1], which define addition of natural numbers. However, in tropical geometry [2], addition returns the minimum of the numbers, not their sum. The author of the original tweet makes this point, and I strongly agree with it: https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1288957167844962306/photo/1 https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/12889571678449623... As for 2.4 + 2.4 = 5, I think the tweet author is being a bit sloppy there in his explanation. But consider 0.1 + 0.2. Ask a human, and they'll tell you it's 0.3. Ask a computer, and it'll likely tell you it's 0.30000000000000004. The point is that in both scenarios, 0.1, 0.2, and addition are defined differently. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_geometry

CyberRabbi 5y ago
> I'm not sure what you mean by the universality of math. There exist different algebras which define addition differently. Yet each one is self-consistent and potentially independently discoverable by sentient life forms light years away from us, even though these different algebras have no material form. > But consider 0.1 + 0.2. Ask a human, and they'll tell you it's 0.3. Ask a computer, and it'll likely tell you it's 0.3000000000000004 Just because the computer performs imprecise arithmetic does not make .1+.2=.300000004 a meaningful statement from which an entire self-consistent arithmetic system can be derived. The computer’s result is in error. It’s called floating point error.

abernard1 5y ago

> While you claim to oppose the postmodern idea that there is no truth, you’ve ceded the premise to the postmodernists by framing truth in their terms of objectivity and subjectivity I do not. What I am saying is that knowledge—if such a thing exists at all and is worthy of defense by humans—can be addressed in a rational, objective way. Lots of things are approximations, but we do not deny the existence of categories as useful phenomena or an epistemological tool. To paraphrase a famous exchange of ideas, GB Shaw: "All chairs are quite different" vs. Chesterton: "Well how do you then call them all chairs?" The postmodernist sleight of hand is to say that perhaps because there are differing contexts that there is not a universal tendency; such a commonality is either non-existent or should be disregarded. They would not categorically discard visceral human experiences that lead to say "thirst" or "hunger" or "anger", but they will claim that there are not common phenomena that engender "awe" or "wonder" or "intrigue". I disagree with that statement. That humans can reliably classify things that are "beautiful" across cultures (and have done so for millenia, even when they hate each others' cultures), shows there is a common tendency towards taste. When thirsty, many people drink water, but the postmodernist looks at the few drinking Brawndo and has to deny the generalization that water quenches thirst but of thirst entirely.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
> They would not categorically discard visceral human experiences that lead to say "thirst" or "hunger" or "anger" Of course they wouldn’t. It would be too difficult for the average person to buy and they don’t need to especially since it isn’t really their goal to dismantle truth completely, their goal is to dismantle the values we hold as a society so that in the vacuum they may impose new values upon us. They do that under the guise of questioning truth. This is why I said that when you embrace their objective/subjective categories you are helping their cause. Once those categories are established and accepted by society it is simply their job to argue that the values they do not like are subjective and arbitrary, then people who have accepted the subjective/objective dichotomy will do the rest.