@foysavas.bsky.social
I wonder if our universe, obviously temporal, might nonetheless be grounded by that atemporal structure.
How would that work? Who knows, but, I guess that's where Gödel's combo of platonism and intuitionism sits.
How would that work? Who knows, but, I guess that's where Gödel's combo of platonism and intuitionism sits.
August 28, 2025 at 6:45 PM
I wonder if our universe, obviously temporal, might nonetheless be grounded by that atemporal structure.
How would that work? Who knows, but, I guess that's where Gödel's combo of platonism and intuitionism sits.
How would that work? Who knows, but, I guess that's where Gödel's combo of platonism and intuitionism sits.
Another great episode!
I've never been a fan of the ontological argument, but...
I do interpret its modal collapse as implying that the described maximally positive god exists only in an atemporal structure.
I've never been a fan of the ontological argument, but...
I do interpret its modal collapse as implying that the described maximally positive god exists only in an atemporal structure.
August 28, 2025 at 6:45 PM
Another great episode!
I've never been a fan of the ontological argument, but...
I do interpret its modal collapse as implying that the described maximally positive god exists only in an atemporal structure.
I've never been a fan of the ontological argument, but...
I do interpret its modal collapse as implying that the described maximally positive god exists only in an atemporal structure.
Kripke wrote an essay considering Wittgenstein's Rule Following Paradox, which was one W's major critiques of Russell's formalism. You'll enjoy the rabbit hole!
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgen...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgen...
Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
March 4, 2025 at 5:12 AM
Kripke wrote an essay considering Wittgenstein's Rule Following Paradox, which was one W's major critiques of Russell's formalism. You'll enjoy the rabbit hole!
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgen...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgen...
If the two of you opt to resume banter on types, I'd love to see stones like the Kripkenstein rule following paradox, types as constraints in TLA+, and Hamkins potentialist structures thrown into the soup.
March 4, 2025 at 3:07 AM
If the two of you opt to resume banter on types, I'd love to see stones like the Kripkenstein rule following paradox, types as constraints in TLA+, and Hamkins potentialist structures thrown into the soup.
Loved this episode! Definitely bring fun passionate minds onto the show. We can all read papers and work out proofs alone, but there's a dearth of online conversations like yours.
March 4, 2025 at 3:07 AM
Loved this episode! Definitely bring fun passionate minds onto the show. We can all read papers and work out proofs alone, but there's a dearth of online conversations like yours.