It is limited to 1 or 0 in any individual (i.e., actual) case, where there is a determinate fact of the matter. Not if we want to be precise in our la...
Strictly speaking, probability only applies to the long run of experience, not to an individual case. In general, the probability is 1/52 that the top...
I think that there is an equivocation here on what we mean by "probability." You are really talking about our (subjective) confidence in the truth of ...
I suspect that the popular persistence of substance dualism is grounded in the common-sense apprehension that there seems to be a significant and fund...
Based on the thread title, I assume that you intend to be asserting here that the king of France exists and is bald, which would be consistent with (3...
It is not anything in particular; i.e., it need not be something that actually exists. The relation is real apart from any individual relata. Hmm, may...
Another way to think about it is that nothing exists without being in relations. In fact, existence is reaction, the state of being in dyadic relation...
Your logic is evidently too narrow. "____ is red" is a monadic relation; its reality does not require an existing subject to fill the blank. "____ is ...
Just curious - is there a reason why you prefer "crispness" as the term for the opposite of "vagueness," rather than something like "determinacy" or "...
Not necessarily prior, since identity is a relation. There is also the Christian concept of God as Trinity, such that Being and relations are both nec...
As you probably know, Peirce claimed in the article that "any normal man" who engaged in the kind of Musement that he recommended, and did so "in scie...
I find it fascinating what a startling diversity of opinions there are about that article, even among Peirce scholars who have written at length about...
My personality is not conducive to being quite that "reckless," so to speak; but I do see this as a place where I can try out new ideas as working hyp...
Oh, good grief. My point was not to "represent" @"Terrapin Station"'s position, but to draw out some consequences that I saw as entailed by his positi...
One quick clarification - it is not that the potential individuals in a continuum are indistinguishable, it is that they are potentially distinguishab...
Correct, but @"Terrapin Station" defines time as the series of changes itself, so of course he holds that there is no time in between. He explains thi...
Sure it could; as potential individuals, they are not distinct within the continuum, but they are capable of being distinguished by being actualized. ...
Actually indistinct, but potentially distinguishable - like the drops of water in the picture that @"Rich" posted, except that the number of drops is ...
What do you make of Peirce's theism? It was unconventional, to be sure, but he still explicitly affirmed the reality (not existence) of God as Ens nec...
You can in a true continuum, since every part of it is also a true continuum; e.g., the parts of a truly continuous line are also truly continuous lin...
F is generality, not-F is particularity. You reject not-F as a real property because you reject F as a real property. Basically, your contention (as I...
Okay, I am thinking of contiguous in the sense of melding into one another so as to be indistinct. In that sense, two discrete things cannot be contig...
No matter how many times you say it, it will always be incoherent to me. If time is defined strictly as the change from F to not-F or vice-versa, then...
It sounds like I was right - your reply is that F in this case is not something that you recognize as a real property, so not-F is also something that...
Only if you concede that there is some distance between the two "adjacent" points. They are not and cannot be contiguous, any more than the zeroes and...
That seems rather arbitrary; having the property not-F is equivalent to lacking the property F. I suppose that your reply would be that F in this case...
Let the record show that you introduced this diagram. Remember, on my view a truly continuous line has potential points exceeding all multitude betwee...
Those are all excellent examples of pragmatic explications of concepts, which (from where I sit) demonstrate the reality of generals. Possessing a pos...
If x is F and x' is not-F, is the next step that x is F again or that x'' is F (and so on)? When x changes from F to not-F and when x' changes from no...
How is that a real connection between the two changes? As you noted, we can only "count" those units from "outside" that hypothetical world. There is ...
Yes, and here is what you "explained." I then cited my dictionary and provided a lengthy excerpt from it, confirming that "quality," "property," "char...
I have asked you for your technical definition, but you keep claiming that you mean nothing other than the colloquial sense of quality or characterist...
If no time passes while x is F or x is not-F, then how are the different changes between these two states of affairs connected? As I mentioned a while...
It is what any normal English-speaker calls "discrete." My dictionary defines it as "consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : noncontinuous," ...
Right. Notice that your view thus requires time to be discrete, since every "lapse" of time requires an actual change. If nothing changes, then no tim...
Okay, suppose now that x constantly changes back and forth between F and not-F. There is only time whenever x changes from F to not-F or vice-versa. W...
What blocks me from restating your view as effectively holding that particularity itself is identically instantiated in (all) numerically distinct mat...
No, I did not see that edit. Suppose a universe in which there is only one thing, x, and only one property, F. "Initially," x is F, but "later," x is ...
For your view to be consistent, changes never are occurring; they always either have occurred (X was P, but now not-X is not-P) or will occur (X is P,...
I am paying attention, and I am trying to understand, but you are simply dismissing my objection rather than answering it. As I see it, on your view, ...
How is that not a difference? X is P before the change, and X is not-P after the change, but there is no time in between when X is changing from P to ...
Sure, but what does that have to do with my objection? Do you deny that everything is always - i.e., at all times - either P or not-P, where P is some...
If everything is particular, then there are no "changes that are occurring." If everything is always either P or not-P, then nothing is ever in some i...
By the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle, X is never both Y and not-Y at the same time, and X is always either Y or not-Y at any assignabl...
When I first started getting acquainted with Peirce's thought, several people warned me that it would take a while - and I have found that to be very ...
Why not? How can you claim that all real things are particulars, and then deny that particularity is something that they really have in common? It cer...
It occurs to me that even if this were true, then particularity itself would be a real general - something that all things really have in common. Ther...
Your mind only knows what you (presently) intend to type. Something can (and sometimes does) interrupt you before you actually type it. When we debate...
Comments