mathstodon.xyz is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A Mastodon instance for maths people. We have LaTeX rendering in the web interface!

Server stats:

2.8K
active users

aadmaa

[1/4]

An interesting feature of is that if atheism is true, it is not a belief about reality itself. It is instead a belief about human ideas: that certain human ideas about reality are false.

But if atheism is false, it is indeed about reality (albeit a wrong idea about reality).

[2/4]

In the *argument from freedom*, one starts with an expansive form of atheism, and... what sort of philosophy is this? It lives in the same space as atheism: it is a completely different sort of philosophy depending on whether or not it's correct. On the one hand, if it's true, the whole argument is about human ideas and which ones are wrong. But if it's false, it is an incorrect argument about reality itself.

But hold on...

[3/4]

What's so "expansive" about the atheism that appears in the argument from freedom?

The argument from freedom starts with the atheistic belief that there is no Creator; but also... there are no truly fundamental laws of physics; no external influencers on the universe; no external sources; no external causes. Nothing is "outside of" or "prior to" to reality. There are no brute facts imposed upon reality, as if from the outside.

Why? Well - atheism is just a belief - I don't have an argument for it. But I can share that do not believe it makes any sense for reality to be subject to constraints because, to me, it is a sort of anthropomorphization: we are highly constrained creatures, and we misapply our experience to what we imagine reality to be like.

I call all these things (Gods, Laws, Brute Facts, etc.) "constraints" - and I don't believe reality as a whole can be constrained.

[4/4]

In other words, I believe the universe is *free*. We see this "freedom" problem pop up all over the place in Western . It shows up in a social or personal sense - but also in this same metaphysical/ontological sense. My essay (or, if you prefer, my TREATISE OF ROGUE PHILOSOPHY) is about: what does it mean if the universe is profoundly free?

I don't magically discover what reality is like, but (if you buy my argument) I learn some unexpected things about what reality IS NOT LIKE.

Let me know what you think, and please help share with folks who might be interested, and let them know if you can honestly say, "well huh. this is interesting. It's actually worth a read." There's a flood of information out there, and friends, it's not easy going rogue.

doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1466574

ZenodoOntic Vagueness: The Argument from FreedomAbstract   Is reality intrinsically vague? If it is, can we set a theoretical limit  on the precision with which reality can be described? And if we can, what are the observable, physical implications of that limit? This essay introduces a new philosophical argument for ontic vagueness, the argument from freedom. As it arises in the argument from freedom, ontic vagueness takes the form of the specific claim that perfect self-identity does not exist in the physical world: there does not exist any feature of nature A such that A=A. I call this claim the unreality of logic and interpret it as demarcating a concrete theoretical limit on the precision with which nature can be described, due to intrinsic vagueness.