If your differentials don’t add up to the integral, pick a better epsilon. Seriously—inconsistent implies untrue, but reversing it by changing one of the premises arbitrarily doesn’t help get to truth either.
That’s a really good point. The solution there would be to acknowledge the uncertainty, rather than changing either the sum or the components.
Another bullet for me to bite:
I’m fairly confident in #1.
I’m highly uncertain on #2.
I’m middling uncertain on #3. I don’t intuitively like it, but I’m not actually sure how firmly I can defend that position (to myself).
Existing human ethics is not math, it is inconsistent but it works within its limits, so in this sense it is true. What is untrue is any formalization of it that relies on the high-school math.
If your differentials don’t add up to the integral, pick a better epsilon. Seriously—inconsistent implies untrue, but reversing it by changing one of the premises arbitrarily doesn’t help get to truth either.
If your differentials have an associated error term that is O(epsilon) or worse, then no choice of epsilon will get them to add up correctly.
That’s a really good point. The solution there would be to acknowledge the uncertainty, rather than changing either the sum or the components.
Another bullet for me to bite: I’m fairly confident in #1. I’m highly uncertain on #2. I’m middling uncertain on #3. I don’t intuitively like it, but I’m not actually sure how firmly I can defend that position (to myself).
Thanks! It adds up again!
Existing human ethics is not math, it is inconsistent but it works within its limits, so in this sense it is true. What is untrue is any formalization of it that relies on the high-school math.