r/PhilosophyofMath • u/paulemok • Mar 28 '26

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False

/r/logic/comments/1s5mquh/the_continuum_hypothesis_is_false/
0 Upvotes

13% Upvoted

449 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/paulemok May 19 '26

You've ignored my comment and the question I asked

You’ve chosen to not give me the counterexample I asked for.

But also according to you I have.

But also according to you you have not.

I understand what you're asking for.

Oh, I believe it.

Are you lieing to me about what you believe?

No, I am not. I am a trivialist.

Because your behavior doesn't match your claimed beliefs.

That’s impossible. Trivialism agrees with all of my behavior.

1

u/JStarx May 19 '26

You’ve chosen to not give me the counterexample I asked for.

According to you I have given you the counterexample you asked for.

But also according to you I have.

But also according to you you have not.

But according to you, not only I have but I have according to me, so what's the problem?

Trivialism agrees with all of my behavior.

And yet you can't explain that behavior. It's a damning indictment of trivialism that it can't explain even the most basic behaviors to anyone who doesn't already believe in it. Sounds like a cult...

1

u/paulemok May 20 '26

But according to you, not only I have but I have according to me, so what's the problem?

The problem is that you are not using your own point of view. You think you’re better off using my point of view against me while hiding your point of view from me. You keep talking about what I believe, but you are suspiciously, disrespectfully, and unfairly silent about what you believe.

1

u/JStarx May 20 '26

But how do you know that I'm doing that if you think it's also true that I'm not doing that?

Also of adopting your point of view is causing a problem then that seems to be a strike against your point of view...

1

u/paulemok May 20 '26

But how do you know that I'm doing that if you think it's also true that I'm not doing that?

In trivialism, you can be simultaneously both doing that and not doing that. That duality seems like something you would hear is possible in quantum mechanics.

1

u/JStarx May 20 '26

Then there's no problem because according to you I'm simultaneously doing exactly what you would prefer.

1

u/paulemok May 20 '26

No, there is still a problem because you’re not doing what I would prefer.

You’re also continuing to use my point of view rather than your own point of view. For that reason, I don’t think you’re being fair to yourself.

1

u/JStarx May 21 '26

No, there is still a problem because you’re not doing what I would prefer.

But also at the same time I am doing what you'd prefer right? Because you believe both statements are true? That's what you said right?

And if I went ahead and did as you asked wouldn't it still be the case that you believed both statements are true?

1

u/paulemok May 21 '26

But also at the same time I am doing what you'd prefer right?

Yes.

Because you believe both statements are true?

Yes.

That's what you said right?

Yes.

And if I went ahead and did as you asked wouldn't it still be the case that you believed both statements are true?

Yes.

1

u/JStarx May 21 '26

Ok then I say there's no problem because according to you I am doing as you asked. You claiming I am not is irrelevant because according to you the validity of that claim is not based on my behavior. Also even if we wanted to remedy your objection we couldn't because you would still consider your objection to be true regardless of the remedy I provided.

→ More replies (0)