Posted: May 30, 2019 6:10 am
by Cito di Pense
BWE wrote:I wish I understood what you wrote there. I feel like I would be entertained.

What you wrote was pondering what it means that the universe is consistent. However, you might just be on the wrong, wibbly track again. Isn't it just more correct to use consistent in reference to descriptions? These are abstractions of what we observe, and they necessarily omit details in order to give the satisfaction of consistency. Think of that as a labor-saving device. What does it mean that we want and use compact descriptions? We want so many, many things, not all of them, or even very many of them, consistent with anything you didn't just make up on the spot.

How do we get consistent descriptions? We make them that way. We find plenty of inconsistent descriptions, too, but for some reason, those are less interesting to those who ask why mathematics works.

You could go off into conniptions of ooh and aah over the fact that there are descriptions at all.

I like that idea, conniptions about descriptions. It's like a pome.