I do know more. It exists in relation to your desk. That's the only predicate that matters for this topic. That is not a very mind-independent view. T...
Sure I do. It's an object. It's on your desk. You just perceive more details than do I. It doesn't exist in you either, unless you ate your desk. Sinc...
Nowhere am I claiming that we have no perceptions. This topic is simply not about them. Again, I never claimed otherwise. It's actually quite easy if ...
Sounds like combining them would create contradictions, not just convolution. I looked up the SEP page on 'action theories of perception' and got all ...
If you want my opinion, Proper time exists by E2,3,4,5,6. Coordinate time exists E2,3,6 The time you mention above exists E2,3 (pretty much the same s...
But they also didn't know about the three kinds. That's good. What was learned? I did peek at the tail of your topic when you mentioned it. Why post l...
Why would he mention that explicitly? He published his stuff before modern physics even gave us words for the three kinds of time, and even you don't ...
That's just giving a synonym, pretty vague if 'being real' is not subsequently defined. I called my 6 definitions of 'real' R1-R6 corresponding to my ...
You mean the "ontology of time" topic. I didn't post to that since time was not defined clearly. I can think of three obvious definitions and yea, som...
The question seems to ask "what location is distance?" and "when is duration?", both circular. Perhaps you need an example to clarify the question bec...
There does not need to be an agreement as to what a word means. A great deal (perhaps the majority) of words in the dictionary have multiple meanings....
Fine, write your own, but also tell me in what way it is distinct from E4. Space and time are contained by the universe, and I see little point in lis...
That's what premises are. Definitions are descriptions about how certain words and terms are being used. The latter doesn't have a truth value to it. ...
Perhaps that is so. It isn't a theory since it does not seem testable. Call it a premise maybe. SEP calls it a principle, top of section 1 of the 'exi...
How very well argued. A raw assertion without even a definition of what sort of 'exists' is being presumed. I am looking for justified statements, not...
I've read wiki, which apparently didn't help. Quite the naive view. Does it have significant support? How does the direct realist explain that? Is the...
None of that would read different if the word 'direct' was omitted. None of it explains the difference between direct and indirect, which is what I ex...
Lacking a clear definition, let's step back from Meinong for a moment and consider the EPP principle. Existence is prior to predication, meaning somet...
Thanks to all for the active discussion. Plenty to digest here. So the set of integers necessarily exists because the set isn't empty? Pegasus then al...
Been too busy to reply quickly again. This usage of ( ?x) (x is in Sydney) is existential quantification (my E6 above, a couple posts back), a form of...
Hard to parse that, but you're apparently claiming that the meaningfulness of arguments is what makes a definition meaningful. Not sure if I can agree...
Different thesis since the whole temporal reference has been dropped. The thesis <There is a living NWR presence on our Earth at some implied moment i...
I have admittedly been slow to reply to the topic as I am busy looking up pages and trying to not just give flippant replies without thought. OK, but ...
Agree. Not-being also seems to be a predicate, so it is true that I am not batman, but not true that Santa is not batman, at least if EPP holds You're...
Neither invented nor discovered. It was popularized by him, but it was there before him. Poincare for instance said it before Einstein did. The formul...
Only sometimes, but not the important times. There are chaotic systems like the weather. One tiny quantum event can (will) cascade into completely dif...
I suppose. A frog (or a banana) would have made different choices, even if positing if some sort of 'I' was one of those things makes no sense at all....
Nothing can be illustrated by proposing a contradiction: 'if X was not X' is a contradiction. Unless of course you think there is a second thing that ...
I answered that query as best I could. It makes no sense to ask (if X happened to be not-X, what would happen?). So of course a tree doesn't make the ...
I have a science background, so I approach philosophy with that in consideration at all times. Depends on one's definition of 'free'. A compatibilist ...
I on the other hand avoid the anthropocentric view and broaden my list of examples in order to better understand. I find the chess program to be funda...
That's a different definition, and one with which I agree. From that definition, this doesn't follow: For example, a chess program has countless varia...
Depends on several factors. Ignoring choice of deterministic interpretation of things or otherwise, in what way would this entity that makes a differe...
I've been at the sand cliffs on the eastern short of lake Michigan. Interesting place. Houses fall down it now and then, inevitably. You can stand at ...
It costs about the price of a normal house. I could afford it if I had different criteria about how my earnings are best spent. No comment on the othe...
1 Go up in one of those tourist rockets or even a good airplane. It gets high enough to see the curvature. 2 Learn ocean navigation. One can tell wher...
First of all, the finding isn't a theory. It is a more precise set of techniques used to veryify Bell's theorem of some 55 years prior where he proved...
An infinitesimal is not a real number, so it doesn't exist in the set of real numbers, but that's in the sense of existential quantification. I don't ...
SD is a local "interpretation". BM is not since it requires FTL causation. Under BM, one can consider empirical measurements as evidence. Under SD, on...
Agree with all that you posted. It isn't even listed among the interpretations of quantum mechanics. It's significance is not in it being anything pla...
My point was that even if it is accepted that the human animal is doing the thinking, the conclusion that animalism is true does not follow. Yes, the ...
:100: and again illustrated by the post following Not necessarily. The two could be separate things, and it is the human animal part that is doing the...
So then how is animalism vs. not-animalism any different than a stance of physical monism vs dualism? Exactly. There are plenty of monist philosophers...
OK, I think I actually clicked with this comment. The bit about being numerically identical with a human animal makes more sense. The desired answer i...
That's a biological answer, not a metaphysical one. Yes, a human is part of the kingdom 'animalia' and a bottle (and a Tulip) is not. The distinction ...
It seems to be a biological claim. Not sure what it means for it to be a metaphysical one, or what would make us metaphysically distinct from animals ...
Actually, I also did not see a particularly observer dependent wording of any of the descriptions. Granted, all empirical investigation, only through ...
I didn't say you were talking about them, I said you were presuming them by referencing words that only have meaning in them. There are several varian...
The logic here has countless fallacies. You seem to be presuming presentism (only the present time exists), as evidenced by the A-series language if n...
Comments