The point is that there is no need to posit "a number" as existing between the symbol "1", and what the symbol refers to in a particular application o...
There are numerous ways multidimensional time has been approach. From physics it's a different approach as from metaphysics, but each way helps us to ...
No, of course not. That is the mistaken description of how "1" is used which I am trying to expose. If "1" referred to an object called a number, then...
No, "1" is a symbol. So long as each 1 represents a different object there is no problem to add 1+1 and get 2. But if both 1s are supposed to represen...
I believe a temporal distancing is required, to separate future from past. I think Peirce posits a vague now. But this separation between future and p...
I would say that since metaphysics is the discipline which addresses the issue of what is an "object", and metaphysics therefore determines the meanin...
What I described is not hidden variables, it's faulty principles. That is epistemic, and it does not lead to MWI, far from it. I don't see any physici...
Isn't this obvious to you? If I count the object as "1" at time x, then I count the very same object as 2 at time y, this is a faulty count, counting ...
This is what I object to. In no way can a value be an object. Otherwise any count would be invalidated, as I explained. That there's a cult of mathema...
I think it's very clearly epistemic, as the uncertainty of the Fourier transform, to me is clearly an epistemic vagueness. I think I've sufficiently e...
It's relative to human convention, or agreement. Whether it was your idea, or mine, or someone else's is not relevant I don't see how you construe thi...
The point is that it is relative to something. Whether it is relative to my own personal decision, or agreed upon decision (convention), does not chan...
This does not account for the problem that I mentioned, which is the issue of saying that the constraints apply themselves in this type of emergence. ...
A mathematical value is a type of "worth", it is the value which something has (what it is worth) within that mathematical system. Therefore that valu...
That use of :application was a quote from your post. Nevertheless, I've explained how }self-applied constraints" is illogical involving contradiction....
Right, I've said this numerous times already in this thread, there is no question of whether or not 2+2=4. It does, without a doubt. What is at issue ...
Do you not understand that a logical principle is required to say that ten dimes is equal to a dollar? Suppose that you had not learned any arithmetic...
Who would be applying constraints on this planet then? It would not be appropriate to refer the "application of constraints" unless there is something...
You're missing something, what the expression represents, it's meaning. So there are three layers, the expression "four quarters", what it represents ...
No, it's an observation. I did not grow up with any theistic assumptions, I didn't go to church, and was not indoctrinated. I studied philosophy in un...
OK, good, you are clarifying what you mean by expressions of value. MY point is that "different expressions of the same value" refer to different thin...
I just did. This is how I represent "one dollar", like that or like this, $1. Something equal to a dollar is "ten dimes", or "four quarters". I really...
The problem here is that you do not account for the acting free will, final cause. It does not act according to these constraints, the determining con...
No, I'm not arguing against the notion that 2+2=4. And, the fact that I've explicitly stated this numerous times, and explained that what I am arguing...
I don't see how this can be so difficult for you. Let's assume "4" represents an amount, number, or quantity. And we can also say that "2" represents ...
If we look at reality, as we know it, to find out what distinguishes or separates the determinate from the indeterminate, we see that the past is dete...
The use of "value" in the first statement is extremely ambiguous because it is not related (grounded) to anything. The supposed "value of the carbon f...
That's because we qualified value with "quantitative" value. But your assertion "different expressions of the same value" does not show that qualifica...
Thanks for the reference, it's a good read. You might understand, from what I wrote, that I do not disagree that it is possible to treat the LNC and L...
If you were looking for something profound, you've come to the wrong person. I was just pointing out the mistake of those who say that "2+2" and "4" r...
Oh here we go, I see everything you do as backward, and see what I do as backward. This is not true. We cannot ground truth in a definition. Your defi...
Yes, I think I've stated about four times now, on this thread alone, that I agree that two plus two equals four. I've been very clear in the point I'm...
This is exactly what I was talking about. If you take the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle out of context, remove them from their relatio...
Quite obviously,"2 apples + 2 apples" signifies two distinct groups of two apples, and the "+" represents an operation of putting the two groups of tw...
That's incorrect. The three so-called fundamental laws of logic, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle, ar...
So you're agreeing with me, a quantity is necessarily a number of things, therefore a property of those things, hence a predication. You named that gr...
It was when I first produced that quote. We were interpreting "2+2=4", a phrase which the equals sign is a part of. That is bull shit. Clearly I do no...
Right, that's because without the PNC, there is no such thing as truth. That's why I frame it as a contest between pragmatic naturalism and the quest ...
Quantity is a predication. There is no such thing as quantity, without it being a quantity of something. I think that's half the problem here, some pe...
I'd prefer to frame it as the contest between pragmatic naturalism and the quest for truth. Your approach is, who cares if this naturalist metaphysics...
I don't see how that's relevant. Since you and I are both human beings, we're interchangeable when someone says bring me a human being. It really mean...
Right, and "emergent" implies that there is a time prior to, hence a "before" the thing emerges. That's exactly the problem with your claim that time ...
Sorry Luke, I have no Idea what you're talking about here. I did not use "it", and you're not making clear what "it" refers to. I said something diffe...
Why does Wikipedia agree with me if I am wrong? I can assure you that I didn't write the page. Why does Wikipedia disagree with you and say that under...
Again, you are ignoring the contradiction involved in "time emerges". Time must already be passing for anything to emerge, so time is necessarily prio...
Thanks jgill, the others just don't seem to get it. We could say the same thing about all forms of measurement. Two different things are two kilograms...
What are you talking about? How can you be so daft in your interpretation, when I've explicitly stated over and over again what I am arguing. Your mis...
The Stanford article doesn't seem to address Bks 9-12. This is where Aristotle "worked it out". You really just need to read his Metaphysics thoroughl...
Comments