You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

maplestreet

['Member']Joined: December 15, 2016 at 01:48Last active: December 18, 2016 at 18:423 discussions37 comments

Discussions (3)

Comments

Here you are confusing "something that is logically contradictory" with the concept of being logically contradictory. I am referring to a directly per...
December 16, 2016 at 16:51
It doesn't matter how many people can conceive of a thing or how smart they must be. All that matters is that some mind, somewhere, sometime, and some...
December 16, 2016 at 16:35
Yep. This seems to be tripping a few people up.
December 16, 2016 at 16:34
ok, this simply answers my original question directly. this is sufficient to me and similar to my own thoughts.
December 16, 2016 at 02:13
What's wrong with saying other creatures can have conceptions or judgements of consent? Either way, it really doesn't matter if you think it's a good ...
December 16, 2016 at 01:36
I do appreciate the humor though :D
December 16, 2016 at 01:05
The issue is that Metaphysician Undercover claimed that a square circle possibly exists: Depending on how one defines 'square' and 'circle', this conc...
December 16, 2016 at 00:49
OK, you are being very fair. I respect your definitions and simply therefore request that you proceed to answer my question using the following defini...
December 15, 2016 at 23:28
If I wanted to anger other people, there are much more efficient ways to do that than by providing reasoned responses, irrespective of whether or not ...
December 15, 2016 at 22:59
Good explanation, but I don't see anything fundamental or forceful about that principle. How can you prove to me that I can't have a conception of som...
December 15, 2016 at 22:57
If this isn't a troll answer, it's a very poor one.
December 15, 2016 at 22:45
If what possibility and conceivability turn out to be is something that indeed something that requires minds to be separate from what appears in the w...
December 15, 2016 at 22:44
Whether it is wrong or not is not in fact my prerogative. So long as idealism is even possible, it shows that your misinterpretations of conceivabilit...
December 15, 2016 at 22:17
The error here is to suppose that uniqueness is an inherent property of every particular. It's not. There's nothing in 'grass-green' that says anythin...
December 15, 2016 at 22:15
Sure, but this still doesn't answer my overall question. It is merely the consequent of one of the possible answers to my question.
December 15, 2016 at 22:09
1. I agree that your '1' is a legitimate possibility, with the important edit that 'hasn't been conceived' be changed to 'can't be conceived' 2. I agr...
December 15, 2016 at 22:08
It's not obvious at all to me that possibility is different than conceivability, and your comments on the matter are presently insufficient to show th...
December 15, 2016 at 21:58
This is an answer typical of someone who has never take a class on ZFC or basics of set theory. You are using "undecideable" in the sense of computabi...
December 15, 2016 at 17:30
No, but you at least have a much better understanding of my problem now. To say that something is (formally) undecidable in an axiomatic system is to ...
December 15, 2016 at 05:30
No, I don't think these paradoxes show anything in the world like this. For example, we have never found "the set of all sets that does not contain it...
December 15, 2016 at 05:24
Non sequitor. The truth of m-theory's definitional observation does not contradict my statement that Q-->(P AND Q) (by definition of Q and entailment)...
December 15, 2016 at 05:21
"If you are without power, then by definition, you cannot also have all the powers."-Of course. You are saying P-->not Q (by definition of P) I am sim...
December 15, 2016 at 05:19
Well yes, hence my original question. I am looking for a proof or serious argument that would give me a good reason to believe that "the universe is m...
December 15, 2016 at 05:01
Yup, and I agree with this part of your comment. I just disagreed with the "at which point you would no longer be all powerful." part.
December 15, 2016 at 04:59
I can accept this quote. Just because something is unimaginable to someone now, does not mean it is unimaginable in general.
December 15, 2016 at 04:54
Not quite, something that is not all-powerful could still be all-powerful, because if it were all-powerful in addition to not being all-powerful, this...
December 15, 2016 at 04:47
1. What is a square circle, and what is Godelian space? 2. More importantly, how can you prove that one cannot have a conception of a square circle?
December 15, 2016 at 04:38
But I don't need to conceive of every single property of the universe in order to have a conception of the universe. My mind can simply grasp the idea...
December 15, 2016 at 04:36
I don't see anything wrong about being uncertain about uncertainty. Keep in mind I don't see anything necessarily wrong with something being self-refu...
December 15, 2016 at 04:27
I guess I'm unclear on a lot of things you find important or relevant here. For the sake of this question, all I care about is whether or not there is...
December 15, 2016 at 03:29
A decent candidate, but many people would claim that God can conceive of Himself
December 15, 2016 at 03:10
Definitely not in agreement with the notion of physics determining what is possible or with the notion of self-consistency determining what exists eit...
December 15, 2016 at 02:45
The point though is that conceivability does not preclude the possibility of someone else or myself having a conception of it at any time prior to its...
December 15, 2016 at 02:39
This too is my gut reaction, but I'm still curious if anyone has to say anything against this or its relevancy
December 15, 2016 at 02:36
What sort of answer is this? Of course a planet so hot that it rains gemstones is conceivable, I have a mental image of it right now. And I could easi...
December 15, 2016 at 02:18
You've answered your own question. On a very basic level, remind your self that "wanted" is literally using the past tense. Did you want that thing in...
December 15, 2016 at 02:02
However, OP clearly showed why the concept of another person is inconsistent.
December 15, 2016 at 01:57