#18 On truth, beauty and exploitation
Yeah, you’re probably right. I’m just trying to be part of the fun of a unique, intricate worldview but strict naturalism is hard to argue against. You don’t really need
The work of Jamie Freestone and Mathew McGann
Yeah, you’re probably right. I’m just trying to be part of the fun of a unique, intricate worldview but strict naturalism is hard to argue against. You don’t really need
Dear Mat, The strict naturalist says that everything is made of quarks and there is no independent physical existence for concepts: they are either instantiated in matter or not. Of
Thank you for the kind words. I’ll now avoid trying at all to recapture that out of fear of failing. Shall we call you a non-Platonist? Or perhaps you want
Dear Mat, Great letter. I feel like we’re finally getting into it… whatever it is. You asked a quick question: I’ve quoted this book [David Deutsch’s Beginning of Infinity] tons in the last letters
And here I was thinking these letters might be my one sanctuary from any mention of Trump. Strangeness and plausibility, what a nice combo. I can immediately see how science,
Dear Mat, Sorry I’m late. Can I blame Trump? Anyway, as for your last letter, not bad. It’s like the reduced randomness = better art idea. It reminds one of Kolmogorov complexity.
My draft letter, written while reading your last one, says “I’m confident that it won’t get in the way of future letters.” I suppose I need to reconsider that line.
Dear Mat, Congratulations and I accept your excuse. But I ask, How many more of these “children” do you anticipate having? And will their births interfere with more important work