Interesting submission, though I wanna contribute that the leap from Maths to Physics in this sentence is not ideal:
> Ditto for the truths of physics; the mass of a carbon atom would be the same on their planet
Equating the prerequisites of maths to the definition of mass (pun not intended) in physics... to me this seems like a giant, intellectually superficial leap.
Taking leaps based on superficial ideations is sometimes necessary to present ideas at all.
But it's worth noting that equating physics to math in this way is intellectually wrong.
Interesting post in context. Most of Silicon Valley has adeptly aligned itself with the dynamics of the post-truth era, where objective facts are subordinate to narratives.
The motto for 2025 is exploiting ambiguity to shape narratives, influence policy, and maximize profit...Bend laws and redefine ethical boundaries...
> Ditto for the truths of physics; the mass of a carbon atom would be the same on their planet
Equating the prerequisites of maths to the definition of mass (pun not intended) in physics... to me this seems like a giant, intellectually superficial leap.
Taking leaps based on superficial ideations is sometimes necessary to present ideas at all.
But it's worth noting that equating physics to math in this way is intellectually wrong.