m-theory

Yes, but what does this belief contribute? What breakthroughs has it lead to? Also I pointed out that if we can't know what is real because everything...

I think you have it backwards. Our minds reproduce what occurs in nature and not that nature arranges itself to conform with what occurs in our minds....

Well actually that is why I was discussing the argument with aletheist in symbolic form. But we can't even agree what the argument being made is. If y...

P therefor P is a circular argument. To my understanding circular arguments are not regarded as valid justification of claims.

That is fine. I just don't agree with the logical form of the argument you used to get there.

Yes except it is contradictory to say it would be true that there would be no truths for example. In logic at least that is contradictory in the sense...

No the argument is not if P then P The argument is if ~P then ~Q where p if there is there are minds and q then there are truths

I still see that as self refuting because would not be true that there were no truths

Sure that seems reasonable, if it were that judgments and truths were the same thing.

I am a person that does not know much about philosophy and I talk to myself all the time. So yes, yes I do.

Why should we have to substitute these terms if they are equivalent?

No I don't agree with that view. The argument is the combination of both statements ~P--->~Q And not Q is still self refuting

I am done with worlds. I will simply have to take your word for it.

~P = if there were not minds in our actual world then ~Q = there would not be truths in our actual world Is the inverse of P = If there are minds in t...

Perhaps that is a different topic you could post.

What statement?

And I offered to concede the point that it may be true and that we can't know.

If there are no minds = P Then there are no truths =Q (self refuting)

As far as I can tell there is no possible world argument such that it is necessarily true that truth depends upon minds and only minds. I can't even m...

You are saying that world y contains world x. Same difference.

Or your stubbornness.

Old ground

Let say world x is a set. You are saying there is set such that the set is empty and such that the set does not contain itself which we will call x. Y...

It is true that at one point in this world there were no minds, so world x is just a reference to that point in time in this world.

It is you two that want to use world x and world y. I simplified the gist in a much earlier post. We can simply examine the claim that if there are no...

Yes That is why it is a redundant step. If they are identical you can just one symbol and it will represent the same thing.

No if you claim it is true about world world x that there are no truths that is a contradiction because it is the case about world x that there are no...

Then a = b is redundant To be honest I can't tell, you are not using a notation convention, and I don't want to transcribe it.

In world y there is logic, hence there is a contradiction when you claim that it is true that there are no truths.

I pointed out that a is not identical to b. I also pointed out that if a is identical to b and a has no truth value then neither does b. That would me...

I am glad I did not make that argument then.

Yes you can assert that, but it is still a contradiction in world y. There are no contradictions in world x. But in world y to say that there is no tr...

It means an argument with a valid or sound form.

No I have already pointed out the issues with this argument.

This cannot be true in logic without contradiction.

Guys I am tired now, I say we just chalk it up to agree to disagree.

Yes I realize that. You are comfortable with your beliefs and that is fine. But I am merely pointing out why I do not accept your beliefs as logically...

The reason there is no truth value to obtain is because of logic, the logic in world y would not permit you to simply obtain a truth value where there...

If there is no truth value to obtain in world x then there is no truth value to obtain in world y.

Yes but we are talking about world x not world y

Then it is neither true or false that there is no logic in world x

Yes, the conditions of a conditional statement that leads to contradiction do not have to be met in actuality. The argument is still a contradiction, ...

I think that is where we disagree most when it comes to truth. You believe that where you lack any doubt then there is truth. That is not my view of t...

It is not a fact that is true in world x

Yes but it is not true in world x that there is no logic.

How could it be true that there is no logic in world x if there is no logic in world x?

I addressed that issue in post 484. It is a circular argument.

It is possible to talk about the contrapositive, they simply have no truth value.

Yes I know I pointed out the issues with that already. In post 484