[hnfong]

> we have a theory of reality that governs things down to the atomic scale and humans and LLMs are made out of atoms.

> So because of this we know reality is governed by maths.

That's not really true. You have a theory, and let's presume so far it's consistent with observations. But it doesn't mean it's 100% correct, and doesn't mean at some point in the future you won't observe something that invalidates the theory. In short, you don't know whether the theory is absolutely true and you can never know.

Without an absolutely true theory, all you have is belief or speculation that reality is governed by maths.

> What does humility have to do with anything?

Not the GP but I think humility is kinda relevant here.

[ninetyninenine]

>That's not really true. You have a theory, and let's presume so far it's consistent with observations. But it doesn't mean it's 100% correct, and doesn't mean at some point in the future you won't observe something that invalidates the theory. In short, you don't know whether the theory is absolutely true and you can never know.

Let me repharse it. As far as we know all of reality is governed by the principles of logic and therefore math. This is the most likely possibility and we have based all of our technology and culture and science around this. It is the fundamental assumption humanity has made on reality. We cannot consistently demonstrate disproof against this assumption.

>Not the GP but I think humility is kinda relevant here.

How so? If I assume all of reality is governed by math, but you don't. How does that make me not humble but you humble? Seems personal.

[hnfong]

I guess it's kinda hubris on my part to question your ability to know things with such high certainty about things that philosophers have been struggling to prove for millenia...

What you said is only true for the bits of humanity you have decided to focus upon -- capitalist, technology-driven modern societies. If you looked beyond that, there are cultures that build society upon other assumptions. You might think those other modes are "wrong", but that's your personal view. For me, I personally don't think any of these are "true" in the absolute sense, as much as I don't think yours is "true". They're just ways humans with our mortal brains try to grapple with a reality that we don't understand.

As a sidenote, probability does not mean the thing you think it means. There's no reasonable frequentist interpretation for fundamental truth of reality, so you're just saying your Bayesian subjective probability says that math is "the most likely possibility". Which is fine, except everyone has their own different priors...

[ninetyninenine]

I never made a claim for absolute truth. I said it’s the most likely truth given the fact that you get up every morning and drive a car or turn on your computer and assume everything will work. Because we all assume it, we assume all of logic behind it to be true as well.

Whatever probability is, whatever philosophers say about it any of this it doesn’t matter. You act like all of it is true including the usage of the web technology that allows you to post your idea here. You are acting as if all the logic, science and technology that was involved in the creation of that web technology is real and thus I am simply saying because the entire world claims this assumption by action then my claim is inline with the entire world.

You can make a philosophical argument but your actions aren’t inline with that. You may say no one can prove math or probability to be real but you certainly don’t live your life that way. You don’t think that science logic and technology will suddenly fall apart and not work when oh turn on your computer. In fact you live your life as if those things are fundamentally true. Yet you talk as if they might not be.

[hnfong]

> the entire world claims this assumption by action then my claim is inline with the entire world.

That's not what you claimed and that's not what I replied to.

You said you have a theory, and because of that you know something.

The explanation or the theory does not have to be right for something to work. The fact that I'm using modern technology does not mean that whatever theory of reality in vogue is fundamentally right. It just needs to work under certain conditions.

> You may say no one can prove math or probability to be real but you certainly don’t live your life that way. You don’t think that science logic and technology will suddenly fall apart and not work when oh turn on your computer.

That's a really strong claim to make, especially with "you". You don't know how I live. It's like seeing somebody appear in Church and denigrating them for not believing in Jesus.

No, I believe the world could fall apart at any time. Most people call it death. The fact that 99.9% people believe in death and continue their lives without panicking is probably something you want to think about as well. Heck, even a sufficiently strong solar flare could bring down this entire modern technology stack. Am I wrong to continue to use the web and debate about metaphysics given this knowledge? I don't think so, and neither do I think that my presence says anything about my belief in mathematics or whatever else governing reality.

[ninetyninenine]

This exactly what I said:

This is the most likely possibility and we have based all of our technology and culture and science around this.

And that’s the summary of my claim and what I meant by this:

the entire world claims this assumption by action then my claim is inline with the entire world.

I assumed it was obvious because when does the world make a claim? The world doesn’t make any singular claim. But they do take a singular action of acting on the assumption the theories are true.

> That's a really strong claim to make, especially with "you". You don't know how I live. It's like seeing somebody appear in Church and denigrating them for not believing in Jesus.

Yeah and you know what’s crazy? I’d bet a million dollars on it. It’s insane how confident I am about it right? And you know what’s even crazier? You know that I’d win that bet even though you didn’t volunteer any information about your stance. Did I know this information through my psychic powers or what? No. I didn’t. But you also have a good idea how I know.