Numbers

[Phil Scott]

Apologies for the shameless plug, but I think the introduction I have to the simply typed lambda calculus in my thesis isn't entirely terrible, and I'm parroting stuff here that I expound on there.

 

[Bomb#20]

You have jumped to about ten bad conclusions.

Possibly, but claiming I have and showing that I have are two different things.

We are talking about the nature of measurement.

All are subjective.

All what? All measurements? Show your work.

If we follow your logic we conclude nothing exists.

How do you figure that? What did I say that you think implies nothing exists?

 

[untermensche]

We are talking about the nature of measurement.

All are subjective.

All what? All measurements? Show your work.

It's common knowledge.

Measurements are dependent on the conditions they are made in.

 

[Bomb#20]

We are talking about the nature of measurement.

All are subjective.

All what? All measurements? Show your work.

It's common knowledge.

And you've measured public opinion to determine that it's common knowledge, have you? Or are you using the phrase "common knowledge" to mean "conventional wisdom among people who share untermensche's philosophy"? I expect if you ask a hundred people at random whether it's a fact or a matter of opinion when they count their change and find that the shopkeeper shortchanged them, most of them are going to say it's a fact.

Measurements are dependent on the conditions they are made in.

And? "Subjective" doesn't mean "You might get the wrong answer if you count the tree rings in the dark."

 

[untermensche]

No. Subjective means if I am accelerating at x I get measurement x. And if I am accelerating y I get measurement y.

Dependent on conditions.

 

[fromderinside]

Infinite regress to meaning. Subjective regress from measure is conditions from conditions are dimensions etc. When does one get away from subjective to objective? Or are you insisting everything is subjective, needs a brain to be. That doesn't seem to help at all.