on the more , no one is even meant to use homotopy type theory to talk about godel's ontological 🥹 like god forbid 😭
2026-06-23 07:23:09
0
Bear :
what did i just stumbled to
2026-06-23 08:34:07
0
Fico🇻🇦 :
Unlarpable
2026-06-23 13:38:09
0
rucksj :
question-begging final boss
2026-06-24 04:14:35
0
bonitinho :
i tried to do a response to sogel's opus magnum (informal) but its so extense and complicated
2026-06-24 15:52:41
0
Cogi :
Well bro if i have tbh thats kind of confused, like a sort of running togheter of formal limitation of one reconstruction with the refutation of the thesis of Pruss, its alr that the RTT section maybe can show that the typed version of Ess u cited has to face a problem of stratification type, but in the end what i notice is that i dont see any proof of failure of the Pruss Godelian arg. For what ive really seen, the first part maybe only argues and shows that that particular formalization encounters some difficulties, but if we have to specify the weakest point out of all is that one that goes with a jump from mathematical obstruction to metaphysical conclusion. Claims, et exempli that a nontrivial cohomology class or in another case that a failure of a certain combination gives an “absolute proof” is easily considerable an overstatement + if we look at the cohomology obstruction in ur model has done everything but not proving that the Godlike conjunction of positive properties is impossible in reality.
Ive also seen too much of assuming abt what the poor Pruss must accept, specifically if we take the objection and we confirm it expecially depends on RTT then theres a missing critic that still has to appear and show that Pruss view really commits him to that exact framework. Otherwise ur attack goes against a model instead of a specific target, feel free to correct or argue against one of my points my glorious indonesian ❤️
2026-06-23 09:42:27
1
Exploring Acatalepsy :
@zarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriko
2026-06-23 07:15:35
1
To see more videos from user @exploringlove, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.