You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Just asking some simple questions.
Nozick and Peter van Inwagen suggest that there may be something rather than nothing simply because there are more possible worlds where there is something than there are worlds where there is nothing (Nozick 1981: 127–128, van Inwagen 1996). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-020-00277-6
Mathematicians would be out of a job if they had nothing to study.
JR said:
Nozick and Peter van Inwagen suggest that there may be something rather than nothing simply because there are more possible worlds where there is something than there are worlds where there is nothing (Nozick 1981: 127–128, van Inwagen 1996). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-020-00277-6
lmao these arguments are so sus to me... in comparison St Anselm's had a pretty solid thing going on
How do you know there isn't also nothing?
Madeleine Birchfield said:
Mathematicians would be out of a job if they had nothing to study.
I'm doubtful about that.
We do have nothing to study. We call it . Of course, we also have other things to study.
What I mean by "nothing to study" is if mathematicians were required to work inside of the empty membership-based set theory, or inside the empty category, or inside the empty univalent universe.
Yes, I was making a joke. Sorry. (-:O
I like to believe that nothingness was living a very content life, until it realized its own absurdity. Then, like another Wile E. Coyote, it spontaneously combusted and turned into all possibilities, all at once.
I was going to post about Zen, but I had nothing to say.