3 ms·
I think you're conflating the philosophy of mathematics with describing the entirety of philosophy (or even just morality) using mathematics. I cannot claim to
by dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
I think you're conflating the philosophy of mathematics with describing the entirety of philosophy (or even just morality) using mathematics.
I cannot claim to understand philosophy but I can claim to understand law, and it is _not_ like mathematics. Human discretion is paramount to the system, and laws are written in such a way that humans reinterpret them afterwards, as influenced by their own cultural and social bias. How is this like mathematics? Do you need a jury to decide if a theorem is true?
I have met many engineers who treat law as if it is supposed to be exact and mathematical. They become very annoyed when it does not conform to this view, or when laws aren't written in an even more detailed, step-by-step breakdown. That is not how it works. There's a reason there's discretion in the system, if you try to regulate something as inherently chaotic as human behaviour with inflexible rules, you get crypto.
- ironmagma 4y agoI missed the reference to "law" in the parent comment. I won't attempt to tackle that except to say, we humans are machines as well, and just because we are hard to predict doesn't mean we don't generally behave according to some rules. Our laws are generally informed by the cultures the judges grew up in, for example, so any court rulings will be mostly a result of that and the ethics set down by the prevailing morals. We probably won't see any "private property no longer exists" rulings coming out of the courts anytime soon. Edit: changed example
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]