https://www.lesswrong.com/w/arguments-as-soldiers I think you should consider what would happen to this website if it functioned the way you desire, without judgment on quality of writing.

I am sorry, I would like to engage on giving you detailed feedback but I am not really able to do that, because I have other things I need to do with my time. I hope that is understandable.

More generally, this is kind of "rules of engagement" you agree to when you put something out there. I'm not denigrating you by providing this criticism, in fact it is meant in a positive spirit (I promise <3). But I'm not able to provide detailed notes like a lecturer on every post that I don't like, and no-one else on LessWrong is obligated to do so either, right? They engaged with it enough to either up-or-downvote it, and that's something. But a karma system is designed to separate posts people think are good from posts people don't think are good. 

If you're asking me, that post is not super good. A different reader, a different audience, may disagree. I think you show promising signs of someone who could be a good writer. I don't want to discourage you! This sort of analogical thinking, seeing X in Y, it's all great.

But for someone to want to read it you must also work on the craft of showing me why I should care. Showing that you respect me enough as a reader to spare me from typos, to explain why an analogy is useful (in a way that I will find satisfying), to make your sentences enjoyable to read. I know I can work on that, we all can. :)

I mean it seems like the person who posted that managed to have interesting back-and-forths with people in the comments?

I agree there are some absolutely terrible commenters on LessWrong, and to be honest, I think they should be tolerated less than they currently are. But this post did have interesting debate, right? People just thought it was wrong.

Ah okay I have just looked at your profile. Perhaps you are thinking of this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SHryHTDXuoLuykgcu?commentId=cgT4ipPPQ6HcG6H8p. I just read it and unfortunately I do not think it was downvoted because of disagreements with LessWrong. I'm not much of a downvotey kinda guy myself, but I think it's pretty reasonable to downvote this. If you want my honest feedback:

• The metaphor seems kind of tortured to me.
• I don't find the analogy very insightful or revealing.
• There are a decent number of typos.
• The paragraphs and sentences are too long.

EDIT: To be more charitable, FWIW I do understand the impulse when something you really liked gets downvoted to criticize the readers and say that they just must not be smart enough to understand it. I have done this too, see here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZRToRRSirgwNeLLuL/goedel-s-ontological-proof#gruZ5HzqnxneaKgTZ. But it is an impulse that as a writer one should try to fight against, as criticism (even self-criticism, if necessary) is the only way to improve.

Would you be able to link me to an example?

I don't have too much to add to this, honestly. But this is a super high-effort comment which was a joy to read, so I'll give some commentary (mostly not arguments though).

I think the metaphysics of S5 are weird indeed, but I probably end up thinking it's okay. But I could be convinced either way on this, very weakly-held. I think your points here are good considerations about this. I think my comment thread with @jessicata raised interesting questions about metaphysics of S5, and whether we should believe that perfect-essential necessity is a property realizable at all. Though I do disagree with her, but her arguments were fantastic. 

I guess my main disagreement is that, well, I would say I am a more "mathematical reader" of this argument (I also authored this post, but in how I evaluate it). However, I do think it is sensible to think about what else we could interpret the second-order predicate P to mean, and so whether this argument "proves too much." Especially if one doesn't have a huge amount of logic-background to understand it, this can give you a first-order reason to argue against it. Although, again I probably agree with you that most such objections tend to be sort of subtly misguided, probably due to lacking mathematical background.

About Oppy's objections I'm not as familiar. I think I agree with you that the entailment thing ends up being pretty strong here. Maybe strong enough to be a reason to reject that perfect properties exist (since they have to satisfy the implication rule), but in so-believing I also end up rejecting Oppy's argument.

Indeed!

Yes, yes yes, this is of course fine to reject the axiom I agree. But the metaphysics is where it actually gets good (I only did a maths degree and am leeching the metaphysics of it out of my system with posts like these lol).

I mean I think this is a plausibly reasonable account of when mathematical objects exist I guess, kind of a "structuralism" flavour to it, I'm actually somewhat sympathetic. I didn't think of that objection!

Though I will note this is only one example of a potential object with perfect-essential necessity. I've linked the formalization which comes up with a logical model of these axioms (including all the necessity, perfect-essential necessity, etc) in a different thread on your original comment, if you're curious!

If you'd like to stop back-and-forthing about metaphysics, seems reasonable. I'm sure we'll make lots of progress if we keep going debating our priors about this! \s

I feel like the single particle universe clearly instantiates the logical system: ∃x (particle(x)).

Let me move to a different example, why do you think our universe instantiates PA? Or do you not? Why do you think it has to be instantiated physically to exist? E.g. It can be proven that Con(ZFC) is true iff a certain turing machine with 745 states halts. This can be done in the metatheory of PA, I'm relatively confident (though not certain) Do you think that our universe then either instantiates Con(ZFC) or doesn't? Since PA exists? Seems like a weird ontology for maths to me, but I guess all ontologies for maths are weird.