/lit/ - Literature

>>21255941
>hey senpai what's that? small bear. what do? wash. we call washing bear then

>>18386817
isnt this begging the question?

>>18312705
i thought we are just talking about self-reference without paradox?
>>18312727
this just seems like a stupid argument. most of the people itt didn't have the sense to call you out on the statement here: >>18307222. the entailment, to me, does not follow. you can have toy physics based on arbitrary models. just because you are playing with toy models, doesn't mean you are not doing physics. it is just that the models you are currently working with may not actually map out the physical world

if metaphysics is a higher order model-making which provides constraints on models (a decent approximate description i think), then it does not matter if the particular models that are being constrained get instantiated or not. mathematics when it deals with objects which lack valid physical models still has some objective validity. a similar thing can be said for metaphysics. but this is not too much a problem provided that our constraints are so general and obvious, it would be inexcusable to deny them (for the CTMU, the best alternative i can think of is if we have an alternative metaphysical system where reality is paraconsistent in a way that is somehow even more radical than langan's dialetheism. of course, i can't think of such a system, though hey it may still exist).

i believe this higher order restrictive capacity of metaphysics is extremely important practically. bergson's holographic model of the mind is a very ingenious resolution to several problems in philosophy of mind. i believe the CTMU only generalizes his insights

What are some good, basic, books to start understanding economics better?
Can't really start with the Greeks, so I guess it's good to start with The Wealth of Nations
what next?