Based on this one either can't claim to know almost anything or else you have to change our understanding of biology and what creatures exist on Earth...
Spacetime is literally part of the relevant models in physics. Spacetime has it's own behavior which is correctly predicted by current models, namely ...
Begging the question. You're saying it's nonsense because it results in infinities having the same size when you think it shouldn't, no argument given...
The point was logic is about abstract objects, it has nothing to do with nature. I didn't say nature was illogical, it's non-logical. Some models work...
Come on. Spacetime is not conceptual, not under any model in physics. You'd have to be seriously in denial to think models saying space is curved and ...
Nature isn't 'logical', logic is just useful in understanding nature when used appropriately. Mathematics is used to give us models of nature but no m...
Um, what? 'All winged horses are horses' isn't trivially true because the term doesn't refer to anything. It's trivially true because the initial refe...
How does this follow? As long as one looks similar enough to how they did previously it doesn't seem strange that we'd still regard them as being the ...
Terms without referents. No pegasi exist, so pegasus is an empty term. It's false because we know it's true that winged horses are non-existent. Logic...
Because empty terms show this argument form to fail and thus Aristotle was wrong to deem it a valid argument, hence Classical Logic was right to dista...
Then you're using a different logic and will have to determine which logic is to be applied. But outside very deep disagreements in technical math and...
Then in that case I don't think it can exist. As I said, i doubt inconsistent physical objects can exist (though I'm unclear how to regard the mind), ...
The person's set of beliefs are, and beliefs are part of the mind. This would make minds the sort of objects that can have contradictory properties, n...
Even if this is true it's not going to be a sufficient refutation of giving semantics to inconsistency. I cant visualize the expanse of a million mile...
Sort of. As I said, I don't take it as controversial that people have inconsistent belief sets. What is the switch reporting? Well let's make it simpl...
I don't think that is the test if intelligibility, as there are many examples of consistent situations that I cannot possibly visualize but surely the...
...what? I don't think time or space are discrete, but even if it were this: Is incorrect. Logical theories are not based on numbers, number systems a...
I don't see this. If one has a coherent but inconsistent logic with the appropriate semantics, and they have a theory about the world which best expla...
I don't need to invent new symbols or anything to give a semantics to a logical system which, yes, intelligibly violates Non-contradiction. Let's note...
This needs to be disambiguated otherwise it's not coherent to my ears. Validity is a property of a logical *system*, not to the axioms of that system....
Is this something you believe? Because intuitionistic logic alone has existed for nearly a century now so it feels like a strange view to me. Logical ...
I didn't at all comment in Galileo. What I called stupid was your insistence in childishly declaring the most held philosophical position on the matte...
I'm not knowledgeable on Nietzsche but based on what you said it sounds in part correct but it ends at the wrong conclusion. It's true that what we es...
I think you typoed. Synthetic propositions are *not* true in virtue of meaning. In any case, calling these the "laws of thought" is and has always bee...
This never seemed like a real argument to me and none of those solutions seemed quite right to me. The obvious answer always seemed to me to be that t...
Unless you can actually provide an alternative mathematical formalism that is as credible and useful as standard classical mathematics this is a nonse...
Ehh, that's not a correct representation of what's wrong with Zeno's paradoxes. The fact that an actual arrow may be fired (or one may outrin a tortoi...
It's strange, it's as if you think philosophy is done by a few major names whilst ignoring progress in the field in the more than 50 years since Poppe...
This kind of statement sounds really unthinking. Making such grandiose statements as if they were trivialities is not a very good way to argue. If emp...
No one names the leaves of a shamrock as if they are different entities. It would be like Clark Kent really believing he was a different being a Super...
it's not a concept, it's a number. Remember how I said the size of the set {1,2,3} was the cardinal number 3? The size of the natural numbers is the i...
The reason the alephs can add any finite number without increasing size is because if how size is defined. As I said, a set A with the members {1,2,3}...
The size of sets are numbers called Cardinal numbers. Like some set A with the members {1,2,3} has a size of 3. The size of the set of natural numbers...
The infinity symbol isn't a number, but there are infinite numbers. My point was that what one is doing with limits (where you see the infinity symbol...
"?" isn't a number. Aleph-null is an infinite number. And again, infinity does change. You just cannot add or remove *finite* amounts of it to change ...
None of which will tell you that limits make use of infinite numbers, because they don't. The "infinity" mentioned in limits just means "some arbitrar...
That's talking about limits at infinity in in calculus, not the actual infinite numbers. Limits in calculus are usually defined as something like, L i...
Explain how this follows. You're using induction to generalize in a way that seems ridiculous. We can always find new squares to map on to so I don't ...
Although they're equivalent, I've always rather liked Dedekind's description of infinity. I think it's a lot easier to (for want of a better word) pic...
Cool. It's a a good thing "A number larger than any number" is not the definition of infinity in mathematics. The closest correct description of infin...
To be up front, my undergrad requirements for physics didn't really get into QM, so my "knowledge" of QM is a hackjob accrued from friends, colleagues...
And? That's not a contradiction. Size is understood by the theory of cardinalities, not the intuitive idea you're working from. It's not a contradicti...
It does change. The set has an element it did not have before. But the cardinality does not change. Derive the contradiction or just admit that you ca...
It's a number and a concept. Of note is that the concept is best understood by working out the properties of the numbers. Namely, the transfinite Card...
I should clear this up. I posit that those models, well evidenced as they are, are the best explanation of why we make the kinds of observations we ma...
Infinity is not defined as the largest number. Stop saying that. That is not the mathematical definition of infinity. You keep repeating yourself and ...
It's not bigger than any number. Stop stop stop using colloquial definitions when talking about a formal discipline. Infinite numbers are larger than ...
I didn't assert a contradiction. Your claim was that you have to be able to count the series in order to declare an end point, which is false. A race ...
Why are you quoting Oxford about a mathematics concept? Aside from the fact that the Oxford definition isn't really contradictory, the mathematical de...
Nonsense. The whole argument you're making assumes there needs to be counting - or as you called it, an "order of procedure" - in order for there to b...
Comments