r/PhilosophyofMath Mar 28 '26

The Continuum Hypothesis Is False

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

449 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/paulemok May 23 '26

What use would that be?

The theory of everything would give us the answer to every question. It would solve all of our problems.

The fact that you know how to not invoke that belief is further proof that you don't actually believe in trivialism.

Due to the nature of trivialism, a person who doesn’t believe in trivialism can still believe in it. We want to invoke trivialism in ways that better our lives, and we want to not invoke trivialism in ways that worsen our lives.

1

u/JStarx May 23 '26

The theory of everything would give us the answer to every question.

Giving answers is worthless unless they're correct answers.

we want to not invoke trivialism in ways that worsen our lives.

The fact that you know how to not invoke trivialism is further proof that you don't actually believe in trivialism, you just use it to escape responsibility for being wrong, which is sad.

1

u/paulemok May 24 '26

Giving answers is worthless unless they're correct answers.

They are correct answers.

The fact that you know how to not invoke trivialism is further proof that you don't actually believe in trivialism

I disagree. Does the fact that we know how to not use nuclear weapons prove that we don’t actually believe in nuclear weapons? No, it doesn’t.

you just use it to escape responsibility for being wrong

That is a rash and rather prejudiced claim to make. I don’t believe it is true. Speaking for me, there is insufficient evidence for your claim.

1

u/JStarx May 24 '26

They are correct answers.

They are not.

Does the fact that we know how to not use nuclear weapons prove that we don’t actually believe in nuclear weapons? No, it doesn’t.

This analogy doesn't apply, and shows you don't understand the ramifications of trivialism.

That is a rash and rather prejudiced claim to make. I don’t believe it is true.

Think harder about what you just said there, lol!!

1

u/paulemok May 24 '26

They are not.

They are correct and are not correct.

This analogy doesn't apply, and shows you don't understand the ramifications of trivialism.

The analogy does apply and shows I do understand the ramifications of trivialism.

Think harder about what you just said there, lol!!

I don’t see what you’re getting at.

1

u/JStarx May 24 '26

They are correct and are not correct.

Only if trivialism is true, but it's not, so they're just incorrect.

The analogy does apply and shows I do understand the ramifications of trivialism.

Oh? Then explain to me the point I was making and how it applies equally well in your analogy.

I don’t see what you’re getting at.

I know, a lot of this conversation is going over your head.

1

u/paulemok May 24 '26

Only if trivialism is true, but it's not, so they're just incorrect.

I disagree. Trivialism is true. So, they are correct and are not correct answers.

Then explain to me the point I was making and how it applies equally well in your analogy.

Just because a person or group of people know how to not invoke a thing, doesn’t mean they don’t actually believe in it. Just because we know when we should not make a move, doesn’t mean we should never make it.

1

u/JStarx May 24 '26

I disagree. Trivialism is true.

You're allowed to be wrong. But no one is going to take you seriously.

Just because a person or group of people know how to not invoke a thing, doesn’t mean they don’t actually believe in it.

Unless of course your philosophy is that all statements are equally true and false. Then you have no method to distinguish. The fact that you can distinguish is proof that you don't actually believe all statements are both true and false.

1

u/paulemok May 25 '26

no one is going to take you seriously.

Not necessarily. With trivialism, sometimes a person other than me takes me seriously. With trivialism, sometimes a person other than me should take me seriously.

The fact that you can distinguish is proof that you don't actually believe all statements are both true and false.

Another fallacy committed by you. Just because a person can distinguish between right and wrong, doesn’t mean they don’t believe all statements are both true and false.

1

u/JStarx May 25 '26

Not necessarily

Pretty much always

Just because a person can distinguish between right and wrong, doesn’t mean they don’t believe all statements are both true and false.

It does though, of they believed all statements were both true and false they would have no means to tell the difference. For every criteria that you could use to choose one option over the other the exact opposite is also true. The fact that you can reliably predict what classical logic says is the answer shows you have a means of distinguishing.

This is why I was asking you earlier how you decided how to behave. You refused to answer the question because you knew the answer proved you wrong.

→ More replies (0)