frank

What exactly is the probability of life after death? Ball park?

The US is declining, China is rising. It would be fair to say we're headed toward multipolarity. On the one hand, two superpowers make the world safer...

What difference does it make?

I think this is the same as saying it may or may not be true.

You could say Augustine was a naturalist because he warned not to go around explaining everything with miracles, but to look for natural causes. If he...

Naturalism is about causation. It posits that we should proceed with the assumption that natural causes are there to be found. And British empiricism ...

:chin:

Because we don't learn to associate the word with one wavelength. We associate it with experiences, but those experiences reflect both physiological p...

I guess he isn't familiar with discussions about color itself, but they're pretty common. I think we just learn to associate a certain word with a cer...

I always dance like that. Scottish people do this: https://youtube.com/shorts/MA5t6xPscjg?si=IgCAMIFGehuqbDKR

Yea, but the OP wasn't saying that the set of red things is a definition of red. It was saying the set is redness because it has all the instantiation...

The hallmark of rationality: speech.

If anybody has any ethical questions, they can just ask me.

Why do you say that?

Mary Tiles (a philosopher of math) says she can imagine mathematicians ditching set theory someday.

:up:

had to google that

Everybody in this thread has their own private set theory. :lol: Except me.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The mainstream view among mathematicians is that sets are abstract objects. You can see them with the mind's e...

@"litewave" seemed to be suggesting that people know firsthand about sets because they can see them. That is incorrect. You can't see a set.

The point is a set isn't something you can see, anymore than you can see infinity.

Nationalize everything!

A set is an abstract object.

AI's for socialism! https://www.artsatl.org/wp-content/uploads/metrop_5.jpg

Not in set theory. A set is criteria. It's an abstract object.

You think knowledge is limited to what you can see? If so, she's never seen a set. A set is an abstract object.

She probably knows about redness as a universal.

A set won't give an adequate intensional definition of a property, though. 1. Redness = the set of all red things 2. Karen believes the rose has the p...

AI's read mammograms more accurately than humans.

I get it, I'm just saying that elements of a thing's structure and potential can also be counted as properties. I think the idea of properties is pret...

Wouldn't surface texture also count as a property? Can we think of surface texture as a realized event?

Set theory itself leads straight to Russell's paradox. There's nothing particularly intuitive about axioms that block it. They just wanted to use set ...

I didn't know there could be the property of having a property, so I learned something.

I think flourishing comes from being your authentic self, as opposed to what das Man tells you to be. If being authentic means admitting that you beli...

I have wondered why a topic like this would be cause frustration, say for people like Richard Dawkins. It just comes down to what you're inclined to b...

Having the property red is not the same as the property red. Having a ball is not the same thing as the ball.

Membership in the red set entails having red as a property. Entailment doesn't get you to identity, though. Or if so, how?

So if I say the peony is red, I mean it's in the set of all red things. So did we change from the set is the property to being in the set is the prope...

yes :heart:

Okey dokey

That was the labor secretary.

For me, at base, it's not my anger or your anger. It's just anger. Telling who it belongs to is an intellectual matter.

We can't get rid of properties or talk of properties. Fear not.

Oh, sorry. I thought that's what you were looking for in set theory. I think logic is fairly intuitive, though.

GDP is up 3.3% QoQ!!! Trump is a genius! And the economy always gets better after the first quarter.

I think I understand what you mean.

So you're saying that having a property is a matter of being a member of the set of all things that have that property. That's trivially true.

So the peony has the set of all red things. How does it have that set?

1. The property of redness is the set of all red things. 2. A peony has the property of redness. 3. A peony has the set of all red things. Help me out...

For thousands of years mathematicians would have said that set theory is illogical. It flies directly in the face of Aristotle's finitism, but it solv...