Uhm, not really. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “math relies on things doing math”. Math isn’t about the thinking apparatus doing math. It’s a way of systematically reducing the complexity of your mental models—it replaces adding pebbles and adding apples with just adding.
If you imagine a universe with 4 particles in it, then 2+3 is still 5.
Right, which explains his position: math is real and 2+3 really is 5, but he does not know what that means, or where that is true.
You are right though, it isn’t a fully fleshed out account. All I said is that it explains his position clearly, not that his position itself is perfectly clear.
Uhm, not really. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “math relies on things doing math”. Math isn’t about the thinking apparatus doing math. It’s a way of systematically reducing the complexity of your mental models—it replaces adding pebbles and adding apples with just adding.
If you imagine a universe with 4 particles in it, then 2+3 is still 5.
I found Eliezer’s post “Math is Subjectively Objective” which explains his position very clearly. Thanks for your help.
No it doesn’t, since it ends “Damned if I know.”
Right, which explains his position: math is real and 2+3 really is 5, but he does not know what that means, or where that is true.
You are right though, it isn’t a fully fleshed out account. All I said is that it explains his position clearly, not that his position itself is perfectly clear.
I don’t think it even makes it clear that math is real, just that mathematical truth is objective and timeless.