I don’t see anything to engage with here. It’s all setup and definitions and throat-clearing so far; of course one could argue with them, but that’s true of every formalization of everything, they’re always unrealistic and simplifying, that’s the point of having them. Perhaps it leads to some interesting conclusion one doesn’t want to believe, at which point one could go back and ponder the premises to think about what to reject or learn about the bare formalization itself, but as it is...
I don’t see anything to engage with here. It’s all setup and definitions and throat-clearing so far; of course one could argue with them, but that’s true of every formalization of everything, they’re always unrealistic and simplifying, that’s the point of having them. Perhaps it leads to some interesting conclusion one doesn’t want to believe, at which point one could go back and ponder the premises to think about what to reject or learn about the bare formalization itself, but as it is...
That’s fair. I’ll update on this for the future.
I do think/hope sequels to this would have more content to engage with.
Thanks for the reply.
P.S: I sent you a follow request on Twitter. My UN is “CineraVerinia”.
I would be grateful if you accepted it.
It is impossible to look up specific follow requests, sorry.