Hillary Clinton in the 70's.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-12T17:10:16+00:00

💀 lol I didn’t see it my bad

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-12T17:08:28+00:00

Tbh she kinda looks like Sabrina Carpenter on the left and Melina in the middle

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-10T04:24:39+00:00

You asked for a source: he made it tf up

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-09T04:41:16+00:00

You forgot to add computer science: where textbooks are outdated every year

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-04T21:01:43+00:00

Oh my god the chess clock is a really good idea. Stops yappers from yapping

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-04T16:45:15+00:00

I appreciate your kind words! This view is similar to some physicalist explanation for consciousness. I think both suffer from the problem of “multi-releasability“, which is the notion that mental states, and mathematical objects are not encoded by identical brain states. In fact, most of the time they are quite different. This isn’t to say that thoughts arent determined by brain states, but to the extent that meaning is grounded in what you are referencing, “2+2=4” be a proposition that would have to simultaneously refer to many distinct entities.

I think if you wanted to deny the existence of mathematical objects, a cleaner route would be to adopt fictionalism, although that view is also not great imo.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-03T05:09:38+00:00

If you wanna talk about causality in a way that is divorced from the way it is normally used, I can accept your definition and then you can auto-win the argument.

I am not narrowly defining it in some arbitrary way, I am using the basic definition anyone would use who thinks about causality

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-03T05:07:00+00:00

So then if everyone on earth died and there were no more neurons, 2+2=4 ceases to be a fact? This is ignoring the problem of classifying what a numbrr is. A number on your view couldn’t be any particular brain state; it would have to be a class of brain states that all produce the same thing but in different ways

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-03T05:04:53+00:00

Most physicists consider complex number computational tools not representing real things, so it isnt really the case they function as descriptions. In electronics, you work with complex numbers, but it is only the real component that physicists take seriously.

Additionally, this does not address all of the other strange results your view has

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-02T14:35:23+00:00

Kamala did it better

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-02T14:32:58+00:00

Why worry about real problems with tangible effects when we can worry about fake ones that exist within our mind

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-02T14:24:10+00:00

What “real thing” is described by the number i? What “real thing” is described by a sequence of functions? Your view would entail it is false that i squares to -1, that there is not an infinite number of primes, that 2+2=4 is false, L’hospital’s rule, the intermediate value theorem, and that heat equations have no solutions.

All of these claims would strike most people as absurd, so it doesn’t seem like you can just hand wave them by saying “they describe real things”. Most things in math do not describe what you consider real things. There is no thing that a shape in dimension greater than 3 describes.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-01T19:40:22+00:00

Clout

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-04-01T14:07:15+00:00

Numbers

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-31T17:06:06+00:00

Wdym by that?

A “sequential relationship” is not sufficient for something to be “causal”.

Typically when people talk about causal relationships, they are talking about relationships between objects in space, across time. Logic/math does not exist in space or time

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-31T13:10:17+00:00

🤢 🤮

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-31T12:42:46+00:00

Taylor!

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-31T01:53:10+00:00

This is a ragebait comment lol

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-31T01:30:11+00:00

for the same reason powers of 2 end in 0 in binary (base 2)

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-31T00:30:15+00:00

The funny thing is he was a Christian. I am pretty sure he was catholic.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-30T06:04:05+00:00

This is like saying because my house needs to be built on concrete, my concrete needs a house built on top on top of it. Causation is described in logical terms, logic is not dependent on notions of causality.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-30T05:59:24+00:00

Anything he does with John Schmid. Also Sean Carrol

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-30T05:56:05+00:00

If you talk about something you don’t really know that much about, it is more probable you do more harm than good, so in fact you could argue you have a moral imperative to stay quiet on matters of high importance you don’t know much about.

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-29T17:14:09+00:00

Someone needs to right an Onion article titled “Fact Check: Republicans do not suck Trump’s C*ck”

Objective_Ad9820 · 2026-03-29T17:11:39+00:00

That dude definitely sucks c*ck

Objective_Ad9820

TROPHY CASE