Post #560149
2026-03-06 22:12 UTC
@shriramk@mastodon.social To me this is an odd (and, frankly, extremely personal-seeming) attack. It is possible to have a formal system that one enjoys manipulating (a subjective assessment) that is limited in scope or does not capture other aspects of the system. I, fundamentally, do not think that you must formalize your entire world in order to pick parts of it off into interesting and fun abstractions that can be manipulated into and of themselves.
I read this as arguing that Lindsey's personal, subjective, enjoyment was invalid due to not having a complete formal world model, and I ultimately think that this isn't a valid position. You might not have the same opinion, but I find it bizarre to argue that the very enjoyment is wrong.
Replies (1)
-
@shriramk@mastodon.social 2026-03-06 22:16
@ckfinite@universeodon.com Nowhere did I question Lindsey's right to, or sense of, *enjoyment*. Nor would it make any *sense* for me to say "no, you didn't really enjoy the thing you said you enjoyed". I'm pointing out that Lindsey was already informal in various ways, and PL people have a particular blind spot about how formal/informal we really are (as in, we think we're super-formal when we're actually only 1-2 degrees more formal than the entirely-informal).