MindForged

Because you haven't given a reason to motivate believing existence or persistence is dependent upon perception.

An interesting quote from a paper I had saved on my laptop might be of interest here with the discussio of identity in QM and how one can give an unde...

Fair enough.

I'm aware. What you said, however, was that objects assign properties,; objects don't do anything. Objects have properties. If that's what you meant t...

No, a proposition is just an object. An object doesn't assign properties to itself, an object is just something with properties. I said the contradict...

??? I said there isn't a contradiction. Also, what @Rich said.

But doesn't that show the weakness of this view (relying on intuition to settle the matter)? Intuition doesn't really seem to lend much justification ...

Um, that's incorrect. A proposition is just an object, whose ontological status will depend on what view you adopt about abstract objects. A statement...

Identity regards the properties of an object, LNC regards whether some proposition is the case or is not the case. Again, if you drop equality out of ...

Um, what? It literally is an axiom. That's how it's introduced within a logic, it's presupposed as true in all models. It is a truth claim. Specifical...

It's an ontological issue bearing on identity, not an empirical (epsitemic) one. As per the article linked, the photons are completely physically indi...

It's raining and it's not the case that it's raining. I'm sserting a proposition and its negation both hold, not that there is some object which has a...

Didn't I answer that? We are committed to *trying* to remain consistent, but that doesn't mean we can actually meet that commitment. Nor, do I think t...

I'm just here to say the title of this thread is hilarious. Props~

Thanks for that, you explained it quite well. My education at uni didn't require me to learn any physics more complicated (annoying) than relativity, ...

Well I missed where the disagreement was then, we both said that Godel showed a limitation on the ability to give proofs in mathematics. Sooo, eh, wha...

Quantifying over the properties of an object is a second-order task, it's not relevant to the LNC which requires only 3 things: negation, conjunction ...

I know what identity is, I was spelling out the properties of the identity relation, which is what the principle is. To "violate" the law of identity ...

I can mostly jive with what you're saying. However, here I think there's something one might argue. To say that something is reality is "more fundamen...

The POI says that for every "x", x stands in a symmetrical, transitive and reflexive relation with itself. I think stating the the way you have is som...

This is not an obvious truth. Take Identity. There are known systems of logic which lack the Principle of Identity or even change the law itself. Name...

But I think, as I say in the OP, my issue with this is: Is the suggestion that the same rules apply to every possible world? In other words, even thou...

That's not quite right. Classical logic is not the logic we first worked out, classical logic is the logic created by people like Frege and Boole in t...

...yea? I didn't say Godel's results made math "unlogical", I said his Incompleteness theorems entail that any sufficiently expressive formal system (...

I don't really understand this. The LNC is an axiom in reasoning, there's no reason why it cannot be subject to refutation. That we wish to remain con...

Ah, my mistake then.

I think I was mostly with you until you said this (depending on what you meant). If by this you meant a particular set of axioms are rationally warran...

Um, that's incorrect. There's nothing impermissible about time being infinitely divisible. Whether anything can be infinitely divided, well, I don't k...

I have a number of issues here so bear with me please. Um, no. Science uses mathematics, which is constructed via axioms which seem plausible and usef...

Of course not. Propositions can be false and so fail to describe something about the world (if it's a claim about the world anyway). However, the fact...

A lot of this is just wrong but I'll focus on one thing because @BlueBanana is on the rest. This is incorrect. You are confusing lacking particular un...

Yea Explosion is wild. That's why dialetheists adopt a Paraconsistent Logic, most often dropping either Disjunction introduction or disjunctive syllog...

Here's the simplest way. Take 2 arbitrary assertions and assign them to the letters "P" and "Q". "P" = "It's Monday" "Q" = "I'm green" 1) P AND ~P 2) ...

I swear you sound like a computer generated message.

You're confused. That's an assertion *about* the world. The proposition the assertion expresses is not part of the physical world. It's an abstract ob...

I'm responding to a bit more than what you said to me because I feel more can be said. Logic need not "conform to experience" in order to be useful. A...

Man, this thread is hilarious and sad. I just gave up earlier in the page wen some guy basically just substituted "being keen on evidence" for "belief...

Kind of a horribly vague question. For one thing, "number" is going to be quite different depending on A) What kind of "number" you're referring to B)...

Vicious circularity is when one is face with some issue, and one's solution to the problem has the same issue and the problem propagates when they try...

Do you believe that or is it simply false? Seriously, read the research linked. It's about bad belief formation, not that the concept of belief is som...

Belief is not passion and if you cannot even understand the role of evidence in motivating believing or disbelieving some proposition, you are beyond ...

How am I ignoring evidence? Beliefs *don't* mostly permit ignorance, that's a vapid assertion. The whole point of evidence is that it motivates *belie...

You are unreal. It's not that they believed on "non-evidence", it's that only a fool immediately changes everything they believe at the first inkling ...

You do realize that I was using your proposal and you just agreed (umwittingly) that it was indistinguishable from belief, don't you? Your proposal is...

What a whopping non sequitur. That science has improved over time doesn't show that it is above exactly the bias you complained about beliefs being su...

How does that change a thing? My point is people's biases will do the exact same thing if they are "constantly observing evidence" instead of believin...

I already answered this and showed the shell game. Let's try again: People will do exactly the same thing if they are "keen on evidence" (e.g. believe...

Your point? Are you serious? Yes people disagree on what exactly a belief is. What does that have to do with anything? There is no philosophical conse...

You are quoting it referring to people who form beliefs in an irrational way. Great argument, I never realized that people could use a tool incorrectl...

You are reaching. Again, this is neither state in the research and is even contradicted by it. : I mean if you literally get rid of one of the most ba...