jkg20

Read the last sentence, looks to me like you are making a claim about the logical positivists being self-refuting on the basis that they equate falsif...

What kind of idealism are you talking about and who falsified it? Your example begs the question against at least one form of idealism that I'm aware ...

Now you've lost me completely, since many of your own posts use modal terms like "possibile" "possibly" "might have" etc - in a way that would suggest...

I'm not clear what this third option is. If by "pulling the rug out from under" you mean something like "negate", the negation of the claim "Only non-...

Let "F" stand for "is nothing". Let "G" stand for "is zero" Then statement 1 becomes, in first order predicate logic: 1) -?x(Fx) Statement 2 becomes 2...

Incidently, I'd be interested to know what your prof told you regarding that last exercise we were struggling with - I only gave it a few moments of t...

There seems to be some element of talking past each other here between you and MetaphysicsNow. Perhaps you are right that because there are infinite p...

Congratulations, that's great news - the work you put in paid off. Now you can get on with enjoying some real philosophy ;-)

Good luck with the exam, by the way.

Hi If you mean that from 1) above you first use the universal elimination rule to derive 3) Ey(Tya->Az~(Taz)) and then use it again on 3) to get Ey(Ty...

The negation in 2) above has widest scope of all the logical operators, so -(a?b & (Fa & Fb)) is not equivalent to a=b & (Fa & Fb) but to (a=b V -(Fa ...

First of all you don't ever substitute quantifiers like " -(Ex)", you substitute only the variables bound by quantifiers (in this case "x"), so you do...

It's basically to do with the negation of quantifiers. If I say everything is red , Ax(Rx), then the negation of that claim is equivalent to saying th...

Happy to (try to) help:smile:

Sorry to interrupt here, but MetaphysicsNow gave an argument for that premise in terms of consistency of reasoning: I suppose you disagree with that a...

Agreed. I will reread the paper and perhaps start a new thread. Whilst the author certain says that his position should be distinguished from what he ...

Point taken. I was just wondering whether you thought that these latest approaches to QM actually had metaphysical consequences that took instrumental...

Quantum Mechanics Unscrambled. Just read it. Overly complicated - one suspects that at some points he is just showing off that he's technically profic...

@"apokrisis" So for you the "shut up and calculate" approach of some of those who support CI is no longer an option under these new "Bayseian" interpr...

Nobody (as far as I know) has ever proposed a naive picture whereby a photon travels through the electromagnetic field. That would be a complete misun...

Perhaps my reading is even more superficial than the article, but it seems to me that the new probabilistic approach being sketched in the article is ...

@"Eros1982"Maybe I could have been a little clearer about why the formula AxEy((Rxy & -Ryx) & -(Rxx <-> Ryy)) is not true in the domain you give. The ...

That's a tough one. I guess you have to show that the negation of the formula can be true under some interpretation, which seems to be what you are ge...

So @"MetaphysicsNow"'s point is more or less the freedom of will issue that I raised a few days ago :

Sure, 4 might need some more filling out, but the filling out is to be neurophysiological in nature. There is perhaps an epistemological point that we...

I think Metaphysics now is trying to suggest that even if X is not explicitly saying this, what X is saying does entail this. That to me is the import...

Denmark is indeed often pointed to as a model working state. I'm interested though: I've been reading recently that there may be structural problems w...

Orwell was an exceptional writer and human being. Another work in the same spirit by another writer (although this time fictional) is The Ragged Trous...

I think the issue is that whilst society is mired in capitalism, seeing fit to disperse the surplus freely is not a coherent option. Under capitalism ...

So when we will get this promised proof of God's existence then?

I too would like to live in such a world, and contrary to @"Bitter Crank"'s comment, there are plenty of resources around to do this, although many of...

The basic necessities of life need to be produced. The current mode of production is capitalistic, a system which requires that people pay cash for th...

There are issues about freedom of will involved here aren't there? X's position seems to be that his OCD rituals are out of his control because caused...

Take a look at the Kastrup thread - plenty of confusion and some obscurantism, doesn't help that QM purloined the term "observer". Anyway, I'm interes...

I have the horrible feeling that @"numberjohnny5" is going to come right back at you and say relations are just mental and so material things always i...

Because to account for the fact that there is (presumably) more than one thing that is true, you'd have to have different particular things interactin...

Thanks for the précis! OK, his answer to the question is full of references to non-neurological concepts (power/simplicity etc) - so I guess the quest...

I don't know about ProcrastinationTommorow, but for me your reply misses the point. And then you ramble on about propositions being ultimately brain s...

I'm not sure the mind likes anything, but insofar as you mean "how do paradoxes arise"? perhaps Kant's suggestion is worth thinking about: that it is ...

Too many books to read, too little time in which to read them. Ghilcrist is a long way down on the list - I'm looking for a précis :wink:

I think you pinpointed the real problem with this kind of discussion in your first post above: human beings (and perhaps other animals) think and feel...

Moliere is (par for the course :wink: ) right, I think. Provided that one views any purported causal correlations between mind/brain as causal correla...

Frege certainly appears to have been a realist about all kinds of mathematical objects: numbers, functions, sets.... What I'm not clear about from the...

Thanks Wayfarer - I'll take a look at that paper: I've heard of Tyler Burge in other contexts (externalism in the philosophy of mind) but have not rea...

Yes, I think so - in any case I'm still waiting for a definition of distinctness of realms in terms other than self-containment. However, your point a...

OK, but by introducing the notion of appearances into the definition of metaphysical realms, the suggestion appears to be that what we can know puts a...

Yes I do mean Identity Elimination, and its precise use for you will depend on exactly how the IE rule is defined by Forbes. However, as I was taught,...

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither a monist nor a dualist, I'm just curious. So how does one define distinctness of metaphysical realms if not in terms o...

Conditional elimination rule is basically just another name for modus ponens, so yes, if you are going to use it, you will need to either assume the t...