38 ms·
> If something is ineffable, i, it is certainly neither true nor false. Wouldn't it instead be the case that it's simply not expressible inside a given formali
by wwweston 13y ago
> If something is ineffable, i, it is certainly neither true nor false.
Wouldn't it instead be the case that it's simply not expressible inside a given formalism (or other form of expression)?
- wyager 13y agoThat is absolutely the case. If something is "ineffable", it's probably logically ill-defined, and we should treat anyone who tries to use something "ineffable" in formal argument as a mystic spouting hogwash.
- muhuk 13y agoThis seems like a valid argument to me. Could one of the downvoters perhaps care to point out the errors in it. Or is it just because of the word 'hogwash'?
- wyager 13y agoI'm very concerned at the number of people on HN who seem to have bought into this religious mysticism disguised as math. That's one of the oldest tricks in the book.
- muhuk 13y agoBut logic is subjective and reason is impotent. What is the purpose of philosophy other than to protect us from acquiring knowledge about reality? We'd be defenseless without faith and mysticism.
- orasis 13y agoThis present experience is ineffable. Is this present experience hogwash?