Devans99

If you ask someone to work something out, say what is 193*636?, and they tell you the answer and it's correct, that seems like strong evidence that an...

I think that: 'you think therefore you are' means we are logically (if not physically) separate brains.

And you have a different memory to me. Different thoughts plus different memory equal different entity. So that rules out 'brain in a vat', but leaves...

I think therefore I am. You think therefore you are. Hence solipsism is wrong. Simple.

Some speculative parts of physics treat time as a complex number. It seems very much a scalar quantity so I suspect this will turn out to be one of th...

The age of the universe is a numeric property; it takes a single numeric value. Actual infinity has no fixed value. Having a fixed value is the defini...

'absolute adjective very great or to the largest degree possible' https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/absolute When we say 'absolutely...

Absolute denotes 100% certainty so it is a valid qualifier to use with 'truth'.

'Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 inclusive' https://en.wikipe...

Good point. In a universe with no absolute truth, how can you ever judge true from false? Truth looses its meaning so can't even talk about absolute t...

But for an inductive argument, its truth value is neither 100% true or 100% false but somewhere in-between. So propositions can be 'somewhat likely to...

But 'truth' has to be qualified. I think it is valid to qualify it with 'absolute'. For example, all of these are (arguably) absolute knowledge: - tru...

It's all down to dopamine and similar reward chemicals in the brain. Meaning of life = high dopamine levels. Or just do what makes you happy. If doing...

I see your point. But you could regard 1 as saying that we have split the set of statements into two parts: - The statement 'there is no absolute trut...

I think the statement is an abbreviation for one of the following: 1. there is no absolute truth apart from this statement 2. there is no absolute tru...

Its clever, but the statement 'Absolute truth is impossible' is ambiguous, does it mean: - All statements including 'Absolute truth is impossible' are...

No such number exists (as proved above). What exactly is an 'unbounded number' anyway? Numbers have fixed values; that's why they are numbers; that's ...

No it's not an assumption - assumptions are not absolute knowledge. It's a deduction that works without assuming its premises are correct - it has no ...

Absolute knowledge is knowledge which does not rely on any previous axioms. I was pointing out a type of deductive reasoning that allows acquisition o...

That flies in the face of the definition of infinity as the biggest thing ever. You cannot have more than one biggest thing ever. The multiple infinit...

I reject the proposition because it 'fucks' with logic - two things that are different are not equal. Maths can do perfectly well with potential infin...

I explained above that I believe there is only one type of infinity so therefore it is OK to take ? from both sides of an equation.

I reject infinity as a valid quantity. So I do not believe it can be used as the value of real world quantities like the size or age of the universe. ...

What mistake did I make?

I'd argue that a reasonable definition of infinity is: 'something larger than anything else' so that precludes the existence of more than one infinity...

Or a rational, real, complex, vector, matrix... not any sort of number or quantity. Infinity is a concept only and a flawed, inconsistent concept at t...

'In cosmology, the steady state model is an alternative to the Big Bang theory of the evolution of the universe. In the steady state model, the densit...

What calculations?

But we are assuming that 'something comes from nothing' naturally. So for arguments sake, I've said that matter is created during Big Bangs. They woul...

Exactly... a start of time is impossible with presentism... so the argument moves on to consider eternalism.

But matter is appearing in every possible place in the universe - Big Bangs are occurring all over through natural processes. It does not matter if sp...

I've quoted the relevant part below: The ontological doctrine, P, requires supplementation. Consider, for example, a possible world, w, at which the g...

I do not assume a first cause. All the points in the OP are numbered or lettered. If you would be kind enough to point to where I assume a first cause...

I was not trying to reach a self-serving conclusion - I am not religious. I'm just trying to discover the truth. Aquinas did not assume a first cause;...

1. The effect is in the present 2. The cause must exist 3. The cause must come prior to the effect 4. So 'prior to now' must have existed. I think tha...

I think you could say that every effect in the present has a cause in the past else it would not exist so therefore the past must have existed. Point ...

It is a fact that entropy increases with time so with infinite time we should have maximum entropy. We are clearly not at maximum entropy; the univers...

Welcome to the forum. Only now is real =presentism is what most people believe I think. Contrast to eternalism (past present and possibly future all r...

The past does not exist but it provably did exist (else the present would not exist). From the fact the past did exist and from 'only now exists' we r...

What would the nature of a creator outside temporal existence be? What would his relationship to time be? Would he see all of time in one go (eternali...

Then that would mean it is not presentism - because something timeless IE other than only now exists. Presentism claims that 'only now exists'. That c...

The fact that the past HAS existed means there WAS an infinite regress. The past does not need to still exist... even if the past does not exist then ...

But if there is a start of P, what came before it, bearing in mind nothing else exists apart from P? So you would hold that presentism is: - 'only now...

My argument for why there is a start of time is given here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1 Fair to say n...

Please remember that the 50%/50% step can be placed at the end of the calculation rather than the start (it makes no difference). It can therefore be ...

If there was a start of time, there must be something 'other' to cause the start of time. And that 'other' must be timeless.

I'm arguing for a combination of both a start of time and eternalism. The definition of presentism is 'only now exists'. If something other than 'only...

What I am doing is taking inductive statements like 'blood on the shirt makes it likely he was guilty' and fitting % numbers to them. This does indeed...

If you had to make an assumption without evidence, would you assume he is definitely guilty, definitely innocent, or somewhere in-between?

Well that relates to what degree you regard inductive evidence as true knowledge. Once you get beyond 1+1=2 nearly everything we know, we know inducti...