You are not adhering to the definitions Michael. "Possible" refers to what may or may not be. "Actual" refers to what is and is not. If you say that t...
As I said, the two (possible and actual) are not opposed to each other. But obviously, saying "the book is possibly in my room", is to say something c...
I don't understand your use of "complement". You need to explain how there is a "complement" to "possible". As I said, there is no opposite to "possib...
"Possible" is not defined as non-actual, it is defined as what may or may not be. And, since actual is defined as what is, it is a logical conclusion ...
The problem is that you have no argument for me to address, your analogy does not relate. Look at it this way. I'm not saying the actual world is no l...
That is not what I implied at all. The point being that "possible" must be taken ais a value judgement. So to make your analogy accurate, we'd take a ...
The problem I see with the possible worlds scenario, is that if we assume possible worlds, and we want to assign "actual world" to one of them, then w...
And we do not know whether it is raining or not, if knowing requires truth in your sense, despite the assumption of the hypothetical. The hypothetical...
Just demonstrating the faultiness of Andrew's example. I think this is a sort of self-doubt, a form of skepticism related to one's own beliefs. Someti...
Yes, and the hypothetical consists of statements which someone makes, therefore, assumptions. Do you understand that there is a separation between the...
We are aren't talking about whether we should call it true or not. We are talking about whether epistemologists should call it knowledge or not. If th...
It does not actually show the logical consequences which follow when it is actually raining in the real world, and the problem is that your assertions...
When the hitch hiker starts offering to pay for gas, it's a dangerous situation. Next the hitch hiker tells you where to turn and which roads to take,...
In other words, in the real world, it is possible that Alice could have real knowledge, but it is also possible that it is not knowledge. So we cannot...
Then your hypothetical does squat, as Srap says, toward justifying your claim. We still cannot ever correctly judge that what Alice has is "knowledge"...
You seem to have lost track of the point (if you ever followed it). The point was that we cannot say whether or not "Alice has knowledge" under your d...
The future and past are very real. The future, as what will be, is a world of possibility. The past, as what has been, is the world of actuality. The ...
The example cannot serve this purpose, because it premises that we can know up front, infallibly whether or not it is raining. You claim to be disprov...
That's not what we were discussing though. The issue was, if it must be raining in order for Alice to know that it is raining (i.e. true in your sense...
That's a very clear explanation. This points directly to what I said to Janus above. Empirical evidence in itself does not justify a belief, what is r...
It seems you have a misunderstanding of justification. Empirical evidence, along with logic comprise justification. All logic requires premises, and m...
What type of knowledge do you assume that a "hypothetical" gives someone? It's not true knowledge. When you assume hypothetically that it is raining, ...
That something has "three edges and vertices" is a judgement. Who makes that judgement? As I said, these are all things which we say about objects. An...
Lots of people do. I do it every day before I go outside. Don't you? I do not see how you could be using "determine" in any way other than this here. ...
By Andrew's definition, we can't honestly call anything knowledge, because we can't really know whether it actually is knowledge or not. I don't agree...
The issue is, who determines whether or not it is raining. Here, you are asserting "In the first scenario it is raining, in the second scenario it is ...
OK, but someone has to judge "if it is raining outside", in order for us to call what Alice has "knowledge". We need to know the answer to this. And i...
Yes! This, I believe is the situation. And I think that to coming up with this is a very good example of philosophizing on your part. The use of the t...
That's not the beginning. Prior to this, you were insisting that if something which is thought to be "known" turns out to be incorrect, then we must c...
Math is based on made up axioms, like Tones described. It's imagination, fiction, not truth. The majority of the axioms which get accepted into the ma...
I cannot answer this. I cannot judge a justification without seeing the specifics of the justification. Sorry, I'm not familiar with "Cartesian certai...
You seem to be missing the point. In each case, there is no measure until the measurement is made. There is no number assigned to the supposed quantit...
That was quite the rant Tones. I hope you're feeling better now, to have gotten that off your chest. And if so, I'm very happy to have been able to as...
Really, where did you get that idea? I am in the habit of dismissing what are commonly touted as the "truths of math", for being in some way faulty. H...
Right, but saying "I'm justified" is not acceptable justification. Nor is an appeal to authority, or to the norms of our society. Infallibility is a c...
Excellent! But it looks to me to be a left ear rather than a right. Was the camera on "selfie" mode? Maybe call it "Selfish Sub Bourbon Rhapsody". And...
See the difference between these two concepts of "time" val? The one says that time is what is measured. The other says that time is a measurement. Cl...
You are just begging the question Michael. Sure it is true that someone could count the coins, and determine how many there are. But until someone doe...
I didn't say the axioms are wicked, I said they are wlly nilly. And it was Tones who stated that idea. I just went on to draw the conclusion that when...
So you say, but as I explained, I think you are being dishonest in your statement. You are using "can be true" which honestly implies possibility, to ...
That's exactly what I don't agree with obviously. If you think so, explain to me who has counted the coins in the jar and stated the answer. An "answe...
That's what you say. He says he knows it, you say he does not know it. It's your word against his. We can move to analyze the justification, and show ...
But I said more than that. I said that whatever the proposition means must be related to what is actually the reality of the situation, and through th...
This cannot be correct. A proposition requires an interpretation and a comparison with what is the case, to be determined as either true or not true. ...
The measurement of one is incommensurable with the measurement of the other, therefore the relation between the two measurements is an irrational rati...
You clearly misunderstood what I said. Or, as is often the case with you Luke, you intentionally misrepresented what I wrote. Whatever, I will repeat ...
War and Peace is great, never dull, with excellent character development, along with the parallel development of the character of the countries involv...
Consider the root of "rational" is "ratio". Now think about an irrational ratio such as that expressed as pi, and you'll get a glimpse at the problems...
Comments