When did I claim that rationality was mathematics?
Right here:
you are attempting to disagree with a mathematical fact.
it needs a mathematical proof.
Here you go.
Maybe not "rationality" exactly but Aumann's work, whatever it is you call what we're doing here. Rational decision-making.
So yes, Aumann's theorem can be proven using a certain system of formalization, taking a certain set of definitions and assumptions. What I'm saying is not that I disagree with the derivation I gave, but that I don't fully agree with its premises.
If what you mean to say is that Aumann's Agreement "Theorem" is a fundamental building block of your particular flavor of rational thinking
When did I say this?
You didn't yet, I didn't say you did. I'm guessing that that's what you actually mean though, because very, very few things if any are "true, full stop." Something like this theorem can be fully true according to Bayesian statistics or some other system of thought, full stop. If this is the case, then in means I don't fully accept that system of thought. Is disagreement not allowed?
Maybe not "rationality" exactly but Aumann's work, whatever it is you call what we're doing here. Rational decision-making.
How does what I said there mean "rationality is mathematics"? All I'm saying is that Aumann's agreement theorem is mathematics, and if you're attempting to disagree with it, then you're attempting to disagree with mathematics.
What I'm saying is not that I disagree with the derivation I gave, but that I don't fully agree with its premises.
I agree that this is what you should've said, but that isn't what you s... (read more)
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.