Leontiskos

- These topics really can't be addressed in bite-sized forum posts. How do we obtain the simples which logic then manipulates? That is a very large qu...

Yep. At least that's the hope. :grin: Metamathematics, not mathematics. Something like "game formalism (SEP). It is something like the study of the lo...

- Good post. :up: - Sure, if you like. Whether the binding between reality and logic is metalogical is largely dependent on how you conceive of logic....

- I understand, but the same point applies to the edited post. You are prescinding from the translation and focusing entirely on the formalism. In fac...

A circle does not have a depth dimension. If we were talking about ropes we would have a different case. I mean, if we define circles as squares, then...

My "parlor trick" includes the translation. The formalism is not very difficult to understand. What's fun is the way that the translation is intuitive...

Eh. If you take it to mean axiomatic, then it has nothing to do with a good place to start. If you take it to mean a good place to start, then it is n...

There are different ways to rationally conceive or define (and draw) a circle. Equidistance from a point is one. Aristotle prefers another, "The locus...

- :up: - Teasing this out a bit more, the OP contains an implicit move, "Supposing God does not exist..., I should not pray." The formal translation d...

- :up:

Contemporary logicians like Enderton and Gensler begin the exact same way. Other starting points are possible, but they are not all on a par if one wa...

- I am very familiar with Buddhism on its own terms, and I was once a practitioner. It is surely not exactly the same, but the point here is that for ...

- Sure, but Popper's criterion is very strict and seldom followed, given the way that it excludes the soft sciences. Physicalism is metaphysical, and ...

- The West rejected the two-truth theory in the Medieval period, and I think it did so for good reason. Simplifying, some theologians at that time pos...

I think you make fair points here, and you are giving my theoretical physicalist rejoinder flesh and blood, which is helpful. But it doesn't sound lik...

- I only meant the foundation of the logical system. Frege's foundation is explicitly modus ponens, and many propositional systems similarly ground th...

- I was interpreting you, not Carroll. Yet. (!)

Well again, the definition of science comes into it. If methodological naturalism means (temporarily) behaving as if naturalism is true, and if scienc...

- The closer you get to the foundation, the surer it becomes. For example, modus ponens is arguably the most basic inference or law of propositional l...

Circles are straight lines. Squares are circles. Logic is just the manipulation of symbols. And there are no laws of logic. Really a brilliant thread,...

- I agree. :up:

And @"Hanover", here we see Banno abandoning his Godless ways: Snark = Jonah Bellman = God Crew = Jonah's shipmates The Biblical allusion is too obvio...

Well, at the very least it is a useful aid for error-checking, even if it is not infallible. It represents a form of calcified analysis that is useful...

- This OP should not cause you to despair of logic, lol. As I've noted elsewhere, the material conditional is a disproportionately artificial logical ...

I would give @"Banno" the credit of levity here, not snark. It is a philosophical joke, aptly placed in the lounge. The justifiable decision to not pr...

They are supposed to be objections to Aristotle, so yes, of course they do. You might as well have objected to Mr. Rogers by telling us that you prefe...

Hanover's trying to tell us something? Except they're not, because your "So..." is entirely different than the OP's "So..." I explained this <here>. S...

- Sure and Lionino's thread delved into this in some detail. - - No, I don't think so. The OP is nowhere near as "ridiculous" as your argument about b...

An odd bug. I go to my post <here>. I left-click on Lionino's name. I am taken to the first post of the current thread. I go to my post <here>. I righ...

Same answer: ,

- Then check out 's response.

Maybe. He left in frustration but will perhaps change his mind in time. I hope he returns.

Because . :razz: I tried to summarize why <here>.

There is an ambiguity in the order of operations here which echoes my point to . Which has precedence? The '?' or the '?'? Depending on which, the nat...

I want to say that this is off, and that the trick is the ambiguity of, "If God does not exist..." The valid argument looks like this: Suppose God doe...

To give a pertinent example, can Chomsky's mysterianism really be said to conform with naturalism? - Edit: This is perhaps a pithy way to phrase my ob...

Right, and I think this is a good way to capture methodological naturalism: I want to ask whether this is coherent, and perhaps the physicalist would ...

It seems like a compassion mindset where no one who wants to come can be denied entry. How does one go about opposing a compassion-motivated decision?...

Sure, but when I read that I see a great deal about metaphysical naturalism and nothing at all about methodological naturalism. I am wondering if the ...

- It would be interesting to know when and where the idea of "methodological naturalism" was historically born.

As I understand it, the "plane" in the definition of a circle is not a space, at least in the sense that your term "larger space" indicates. The cross...

It's been too long to do much more than mildly jog the memory.

It seems that we mean different things with the words "point" and "plane." On my view you have reified abstract realities, making them, among other th...

- My contention would be that there is no such thing as coplanar points without a plane, and that the cross-section of a hollow sphere is a collection...

For me this quote is most indicative of the relativism I have opposed: For fdrake it would seem that when we see a shape he has drawn on a piece of pa...

I take it that a cross-section is flat (i.e. two-dimensional) by definition. But this all goes back to the ambiguity of your figure. If the cross-sect...

Me neither. Banno's baiting into this thread is itself something I wished to avoid long before he resurrected this thread. If you had created a real t...

@"fdrake" if you like: a circle is the two-dimensional subset of a sphere. A sphere is the set of points equidistant from a point in 3-space and a fla...

I still think you're just plain wrong. Namely, a 2-dimensional object lies on a plane. Pretending that there is no plane is a curious move. How do we ...