AJJ

Moving this discussion over here: Yes, I just gave one. You, however, have simply been asserting. I observe that something over here can interact with...

As opposed to argument or observation. What I observe about locations is they exist within a unified space (a thing is here relative to a thing over t...

That’s pure assertion, I’d say. Even accepting all that, the question remains: Where are locations? Locations have a location, sure, but where?

It doesn’t matter how locations are defined. I’m asking, where are they? Where is “between the orbits of Venus and Mars” located? The answer, it seems...

Where is “somewhere on Earth” located? Somewhere in space. Space you say is “extensional relations”. Where are they located? You say they are themselv...

My location is a location, I understand that. But where is it?

I misread your post. But maybe that’s a fair question: Where is my location located?

Sure, that was my point and objection to your view view that there isn’t anything with no location in time or space.

So where are “extensional relations” located?

So in your view matter isn’t extended within space? Just extended?

Where are space and time located?

I understand all that perfectly well mate, no need for the daft questions. But isn’t correspondence theory your thing? You’re in effect arguing agains...

Feel free to explicate that if that was really your intention, but without the questions.

All right mate, I figure you’re just messing around now. Good talk, all very interesting.

A description is a picture in words or representation of something.

It’s a matter of a proposition describing a state of affairs.

Your questions indicate the issue is around taking meanings to be identical to states of affairs, which is not something I’ve been saying. But fine: I...

And I’m saying your questions are irrelevant, since I haven’t said anything about meanings being identical to states of affairs.

I’m not saying those things. If I have you’ll have to quote where I did.

I don’t see how the above is really any different from what I’ve just said, but whatever. It’s actual if it’s actual. You’ve said in this thread you b...

The irony here is you seem to be making the same objections I was making to you about this in my objective values thread. The meaning describes a poss...

I’ve not said anything about the meaning leaving an individual’s head. I’m saying the meaning either matches a fact or it doesn’t. What role does a pe...

I’ve given an example. Your response was to basically insist I was arguing meaning to be extramental, when there was no indication I was. The dog is o...

We don’t recognise the match extramentally, but there’s the point: The match is something we recognise, rather than cause. The match is independent of...

Even assuming the obvious misreading (I said I don’t think meaning is extramental) your response seems strange... A misreading and a typo?

I don’t think meaning is extramental. I’m saying once a meaning/proposition such as “the dog is on the rug” is created, whether it matches a fact or n...

You said above that propositions are the meanings of statements. So I’m talking about the meaning of those words matching a fact.

The dog is on the rug. If the dog is on the rug, then that proposition matches a fact. If it isn’t, it doesn’t. I’m not seeing where I come in to that...

Because something can match another thing regardless of anyone thinking it does. The existence of the proposition depends on thought, but I don’t see ...

If a proposition is true when it matches a fact - and the fact is objective - then why in your view would that truth not be objective? I understand me...

I looked up those verses and they’re about the difficulty of entering the Kingdom of God. If those are the ones you meant then I suppose he could have...

Look, my first post explains the argument clearly enough. If you don’t get it, then I guess you don’t get it.

My argument has never been that we are disembodied souls placed randomly in a human body. That’s just a way of visualising the argument. In fact I did...

If you split humanity’s entire population into a group of 1 and then the rest then you have a point here. But we’re not doing that. Since we want to w...

The argument doesn’t posit this. That’s just a useful way of visualising it. The fact is we don’t know where we are in history - beginning, middle or ...

The idea is just that it’s unlikely for a random person to be at the beginning of a history like that, and way more likely they’re at the end of one.

OK... will you deign to share why?

They do though. If you’re plucked out of a history that ends with us having colonised the galaxy and put back in randomly, it’s highly unlikely you’ll...

Well it’s how the argument I’ve been making goes.

I don’t think either is OK, since we can’t be anyone else. The thought experiment involves abstracting yourself from history then putting yourself bac...

I don’t think so: We know who we are among everyone currently alive, but we don’t know where in human history we all are, except that we’re currently ...

That’s assuming we expand out into the galaxy, which I figure would involve a huge increase in population (through the occupation of other planets) th...

What is your distinction between “best chance” and “most likely”? Whichever generation you bet on is going to be against the aggregate probability of ...

If the 3-1 is the best chance available then the 3-1 is the most likely to win. Most likely to win is what “best odds” means right? Payouts come into ...

If the chances are 3-1 and you’re getting 3-1 on your money then you can bet all you want since you’ll break even. Does “best odds” not mean most like...

It seems to me what you’re doing is selecting an option and reasoning that you’re most likely not to have selected that option. You’ve chosen a ball b...

I haven’t said the answer is more likely right than wrong. For whichever generation we might be in you can say we’re most likely not in that generatio...

Yes. Sure, but those arbitrary groupings are real and that’s what we’re using. Whatever the last five are, because that will be the range with the mos...

You seem to be saying you’re more likely to be in a generation other than the one you’re in. Once you’re in a generation there is no chance you’re in ...

Well sure, I guess reasoning doesn’t generate information, but it does discover it. The groups we’re using in the thought experiment are real though: ...