I'm rather surprised at some of the responses here. Related to this issue is the coordinated deplatforming and defunding of people like Alex Jones and...
No it doesn't, it's just a collection of worlds. It doesn't matter what world you are in, you're setting up the set of relevant worlds in the modal di...
You are doing exactly what I mentioned and thus are, wittingly or not, playing a shell game. You're defining philosophy so broadly that it applies to ...
In nearly every case I see this sort of thing it's some pointless complain by a conservative or libertarian who wants people to stop pointing out that...
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Philosophy doesn't interest most people, and isn't all that relevant to most problems outside some fairly specif...
No, a frame is just a set of worlds that share some relevant feature(s). An accessibility relation tells you which worlds can quantify over which othe...
That's not an accessibility relation obtaining, that's merely establishing what frame (the set of worlds) is being quantified over. That you're speaki...
You're really misunderstanding my point. Yes, I'm in grad school for CS but that's not coloring my view here at all. If anything, I'm far more pessimi...
I don't understand what you're saying hers. How does an accessibility relation obtain (that is, become actual in the real world)? An AC is just the de...
I'll be the first to point out something that everyone reading your post can tell in a near instant. Your political leanings are showing very clearly,...
I'm sorry but I think this is about the most pointless question to ask because the explanation is obvious if you ask nearly any regular Joe. Computers...
Something about this seems mistaken. You say an incomprehensible world be would chaos, but is that a preclusion to existence? Sure, why not? It's fair...
1a is probably false, depending on what you mean by intelligible. Lots of worlds are presumably unintelligible if their structure is such that it runs...
That does not follow. For one to be larger than the other all that need be true is that one set has a greater cardinality. What this will mean is that...
Incorrect, their argument was that some were not "qualities" as you deemed them because they are part of reality. Pointing out that some aren't (as th...
#1 is false in some sense. Unless you ignore modern math, there are a hierarchy of infinities. #2 is extremely wrong, there are many infinite numbers....
Planck Length, Planck Scale, speed of light (which is basically a scale constant) are not in any sense arbitrary. Unless Im mistaken, the SI system is...
I always find these descend into throwing around words that obfuscate conclusions that aren't pretty. So the idea that we need to be capable of sinnin...
Hm, okay but I don't really get what their point about infinity was supposed to be. It didn't really sound like something which would accurately chara...
How is this different from what I said? Well I that's definitely not how I described infinity, and it doesn't even seem correct because it's too vague...
The word you're thinking of is "singleton" I believe. And no, that's not just the singleton of a set. It was the definition of the number one in set t...
I didn't reference going through with suicide or the morality of it. In fact, I think people ought to be legally allowed to seek assisted suicide meth...
It seems easy enough to modify the above argument so that it is sound. For example, in Greek mythology all winged horses are horses ... in Greek mytho...
I really don't know what you're talking about. Infinity (as in the cardinality and ordinality of sets which can be put into a function with a proper s...
Hm, I think that is exactly what I'm saying. The usual defense I see of this is that Aristotelian logic was intended for real things so existential im...
This is either nonsense or splitting hairs in a way that changes nothing. What counts as a "proof" is determined by the axioms and the inference rules...
I said in Aristotle's logic. I'd agree if you said the rest of logic has an implied conditional. It's in the definition of logical consequence, after ...
The problem is logic is supposed to work everywhere. There's no way to demarcate fictional or formal objects as a realm where logic need not apply. So...
Yeah it's existential implication. Because I'm going from talking about a class of things and proceeding to a conclusion about a particular. But of co...
That's fine. "Pure" energy isn't a thing, so yeah it's the energy of X of in some form (chemical, thermal, mechanical and so on). As I said in another...
No, that was not Bramantip, it was Darapti. Like Bramantip, Darapti is also not a valid argument in modern logic because as we see is Syllogistic, it ...
Having X joules of energy in state Y causes Y to evolve to state Z. The ~5 joules of energy in the sunlight caused 1g of water to increase by 1 degree...
Who else is being confused by it? Physicists and those studying the subject know very well that energy isn't this other thing, tangibly out in the wor...
While I think it's certainly true that we have to be careful in throwing out modal language and respecting where certain semantics apply and do not, I...
Well, what's wrong with soundness relying on validity? :) For validity, we just want to ensure the logic cannot take us from truth in to falsity out b...
Well, yes it does. In any logical system I'm aware of, a proposition P being false is always a way in which ~P is true, even if there are multiple tru...
That's validity. Broadly, validity is defined as "Truth preservation over all cases", or if one wanted to be a douche, "Preservation of the designated...
Who cares about certainty? It's always this weird kind of desire for something that is either impossible because it's formulated to be so or else it d...
You are confusing convenient speech patterns with the literal belief in the things spoken about. This is an obvious misunderstanding. You already know...
I don't see where the problem is. There are many conditions whose truthhood which will entail negation of some statement. There are many ways for some...
I don't really understand what you're saying here. No physics student, much less a physicist, treats energy as a tangible thing. You yourself point ou...
No. "Proof" is defined by the axioms and inference rules one adopts. Ergo, there's no way to independently prove the validity of such things because p...
Again, that's not the point. Knowledge is irrelevant to whether or not determinism is true or false. Come on. The physical state of your brain (or wha...
Sure, but the theory of definite descriptions is on shakier grounds these days when compared to Meinongianism, which has had an unexpected resurgence....
Comments