The lunacy of Eugenia Cheng

I was really disappointed with this interview. Just as Mike (rightfully) pushed back on the lunacy of Robert Spalding, he should have pushed back on the lunacy of Eugenia Cheng. The notion that "1+1 doesn't always equal 2 because 'not not hungry means hungry'" is absolutely idiotic. 1+1 equals 2. This is a mathematical observation--the problem of "1+1" has one correct answer. The fact that "not not hungry" means hungry is a product of language convention--it is not a mathematical observation. Language can evolve over time--1+1 will never not equal 2. The claim that 1+1 can have different answers reeks of the "there is no objective reality, we can all experience our own subjective reality and every viewpoint is equally valid" persuasion. The ultimate irony here is that Robert Spalding made a very similar in flavor claim when he suggested that election deniers were in touch with reality to the same degree as people who believe Biden won the election. Just as it is objectively true that Biden won the 2020 election, it is objectively true that 1+1=2, and to suggest otherwise on either front is equally idiotic. This is another great example of our political spectrum being a horseshoe when one travels to the extremes. Robert Spalding and Eugenia Cheng are two birds of the same feather, and I wish Mike had called it out for both of them.