Moliere

:up: I agree with this interpretation.

Rethinking here: Where ontology hits bottomlessness is the place of truth, but that does not, in turn, mean that ontology finds truth. I am imagining ...

Probably in us talking past one another in some sense, somewhere. I don't think I or @"Pussycat" would disagree with "ontology never finds truth" or t...

I want to condense Against Relativism in a facetious manner: Relativism is something which ND opposes. Not in the way that others do, because (various...

As a moment in a dialectic rather than a literal ground. I'm more inclined to see this as a straight expression, but I don't know. It seems hard to re...

I didn't tag @"Metaphysician Undercover" so I'm doing so now so he sees the ping. Makes sense. I suppose I was trying to pay really close attention to...

Is groundlessness something has two kinds, or is it that the detractors show themselves to be groundless whereas ND, by acknowledging groundlessness i...

The Fragility of Truth I'm taking this section to be defending truth as something fragile, rather than describing the reasons for its fragility. That ...

The Vertiginous Because of the discussion about bottomlessness/groundlessness I'm going to stop with this very short section to see what others think....

Because of the page break I decided to go back over each title previous and write it down, trying to feel the overall flow of the argument that we've ...

I have actually been tackling "Argument and Experience" since my last posting. I found myself having to go back to "System Antinomical" several times ...

I suppose my thought is that "as long as you're not copy-pasting an entire paragraph" rather than "as long as you're not copy-pasting anything" -- cop...

As long as you're not copy-pasting from the AI generated message you're using it correctly.

https://youtu.be/vwSRqaZGsPw?si=xEm-bmbLmfaUliaz

FYI I moved this to the lounge.

Go for it. It's an interesting thread.

object/subject -- this has been a distinction I've wrestled with for a long time on these fora. I tend to say "it's better to drop that notion", mostl...

Definitely. I tried to do so with the color-blind example, but it's just an example that I'm generalizing from to get at the idea -- maybe an "afforda...

Is the "of" relation an indication that the fish are a subset of the barrel? :D This is basically what I mean by using "affordances" rather than "prop...

:cheer: That you're willing to say as much is a credit to you.

At least, when it comes to Truth and Logic.

While I understand the apology I'm a sucker for pain.

Heh. Got it. That's the next logic textbook cuz of you :D

I'm interested. Where can I learn more on this? I'm a naive set theory boi who reads logic texts and that's it. I don't know what pure set theory is.

Heh. If you can help our new friend easily then by all means -- jump in! I don't think set theory is easy, intuitive, etc.

I'll go so far as to say "another logical object", yet the addition would still amount to 2 elements.

To say "a set is no more than its members" is to say that there is no condition of inclusion aside from being part of the set.

"the properties shared by the elements of the first set" might be where @"litewave" is coming from. Your expertise is not an intrusion at all. I think...

The set of all of our theories of set theory is public, but here we are attempting to figure out what the members of that set are.

Rereading I want to highlight this bit as a better explanation of what I've been saying. Naturally I'd accept @"TonesInDeepFreeze", though at this poi...

OK, yes. "a" and "b" are two things, as stipulated. (and, yes, I like avoiding boxes)

I'm thinking "none" at that level of abstraction. Or perhaps the opposite in reflection. If our domain of discourse consists of only two letters then,...

Still probably things to talk about wrt set theory, but glad you understood me.

Amen. :love:

To go back to the subset relation: if any element is a member of B, and B is a subset of A, then any element of B is an element of A.

Looking at that rendition I agree. A set is any collection of elements is a better rendition. It's another (logical) object, to the point that its ele...

heh, well, once you flip your opinion I'll return -- but my work is done :D

So what's your belief with respect to "Identification of properties with sets" now? I've tried to dissuade you, but are you still committed?

So, to read you here, I'm taking your ideas about each to be: Concrete: Abstract: And you're noting the weird part where it seems they come together. ...

I might prefer the AI to drink a bottle of milk, however.

What I mean by "abstraction" is that you can treat the phone in either way without changing anything real. You can treat the phone as an element -- wh...

I'm coming to notice that I'm pretty much avoiding "property" all together and relying upon "predicate" (to circle back to where I left you off and re...

I'm trying to say that you're correct about sets abstractness (at least, in my view, while acknowledging possibilities), and that @"litewave" is corre...

So here: A set is any given collection of objects. An average person knows what a collection is and so you can start from there. But the abstraction b...

Yeah, I tried to address that in the reply to @"litewave" -- waiting to hear back. I'd call that a hypostization, which is an easy thing to do. Simila...

A way to think about set theory -- It doesn't matter what's in the set. The validity that's being explored are the inferences one may draw about sets ...

I don't think that's at odds, per se, with defining a set as a collection of objects, or individuals. Though... I'd put it to you that the collection ...

For most vegetables I think that's the case -- especially the ones which are typically served whole rather than other prepared dishes (mashed potatoes...

Sheer stubbornness of the philosopher :D Nope. The intuitive bit I can see is wanting to equate predicates with sets since we can quantify over both. ...

Well it's not surprising that we see eye-to-eye, is it? :D Do you think this a bad interpretation @"Count Timothy von Icarus"?