I guess we're just supposed to take it as a given that infinite time is impossible, yeah? There's no contradiction in postulating an infinite series o...
It's a fair point. I would just like to point out the leeway I gave myself. I said the elimination of singularities was part of the reason, not all of...
No no no, calculus makes use of multiple legitimate infinities, namely having the reals be larger the naturals. This is absolutely indisputable. If yo...
If you accept nearly any mathematical system, you're going to assume some infinity or other. If you dont, you're either an ultrafinitist (who nearly a...
I know what you're suggesting, I even precluded it. The whole point is you cannot use standard maths and make this argument. Every science uses some m...
Man, I went to a pretty big HS and they didn't have it. Or maybe they did, but it certainly wasn't a required class. Then again, Texas sucks most of t...
Name three instances. Or we can just use calculus, which requires multiple levels of infinity and resolves such apparent paradoxes. I mean sure, dropp...
Not logically prior (logically, all worlds are on par, it's the metaphysics where the differences come, e.g. being actual). It's prior in the sense th...
I think he's saying that if you cannot ever close one's set of beliefs under logical entailment because you're saying you could always yield new facts...
Sorry for the late response, busy few days. Except that our justification about what's possible and what's not is usually grounded in the same thing a...
That seems wildly incomparable. If I say "You would have enjoyed yourself had you gone to the party", the "you" there (assume it means Michael) is sti...
It was that, and hence my response regarding how you do not have direct epistemic access. If this access isn't infallible then there's no particularly...
How is it contradictory? It's just an instance of using a gender neutral pronoun to refer to a singular person who prefers such pronouns be applied to...
That's not what I said. I said that perception is not identical to reality, which is what you said. A consistent "set of facts" is one way of articula...
That's irrelevant, the point can be generalized to instances where speakers don't know they're contradicting themselves but other people do and thus t...
But the everyday use of modal notions are what goes into how they're used in modal logic, no? Otherwise it would just be another area of pure mathemat...
There's no possible way to justify this, you only have access to your perceptions. The world of perception is not identical to the world itself. It wo...
I don't see what the argument is for the claim that it's unnecessary. We don't even have direct access to our own world, so are we able to learn anyth...
By "indiscernible" it is meant they are ontologically indiscernible, not that we merely lack the means by which to tell them apart. So this: Is not ri...
Reference and self-identical aren't the same thing. It's not literally required. Classical logic without identity is already a well studied formal sys...
it's of course true that "Everything" and "nothing" are in the majority of cases bounded when they're used as quantifiers, and sometimes as zero for t...
The law of identity is not a law about reference, it says that everything is self-identical (the conclusion of investigating the formalism being we ca...
By requiring that all terms carry a subscript to separate them into two categories. One where that's valid and the other where it isn't: I don't even ...
This has nothing to do with the truth-predicate though. That some class of terms may not be self-identical does not mean that the terms aren't true wh...
The problem is this isn't obvious in e.g. quantum mechanics. We seem to have plausible examples of objects which are not self-identical (I don't think...
It does hold necessarily. Basically, the logic is structured to have two types of terms: Terms to which identity holds and terms to which it does not....
Sure it does. While I did not quote the paper in which this is done, non-reflexive logics can and have been formulated within a metatheory that itself...
Yes I rather like the bank account metaphor. I'll do you one better (hope Sci-Hub links are allowed), here's the link to the full paper: http://sci-hu...
But "mostly" is by definition not exclusive. So sometimes we do reason differently and don't usually see the fuss in it. Well we can think that but wh...
This is mistaken. For one, "nothingness" has to do with mereology, not set theory. Set theory and mereology are not the same, and use entirely differe...
Number of points here. In the first point, if that's the role of logic, well, I don't see what binary logics will be doing here. People don't inherent...
I somewhat confused. In the part you were quoting, I was talking about whether it's possible have a logic to represent the idea that some objects migh...
Presumably the way the world "behaves" matters at all levels and in all disciplines as opposed to just being restricted to the everyday world. I mean,...
What does "require" mean here? I'm assuming we don't want to beg the question and say "We need identity because otherwise things aren't identical" or ...
Nothingness is the dual concept of everything (or would it be "everythingness"?) "Everything" would be the mereological sum of all objects. So nothing...
Maybe it a just me - but given you mentioned it I assume this is a fairly common view - but it seems clear that philosophers in general do think such ...
Formal systems are by definition constructed things. They're systems of deduction we create from assumptions and derive results from using inference r...
Different levels infinities have different sizes. They're size is definite. "Infinity" is not one value. The real numbers have a cardinality (size) la...
Godel's theorems only apply to formal systems, as per Godel. For any formal system capable of representing basic arithmetic, we can prove the the Gode...
"Logical necessity" is not some extra-systematic modality applying to everything, it's determined by the set of logical truths of a given logic. Dropp...
You are playing with words in a way that is unhelpful. I am not claiming bodies are more than bodies. Referring to a body with such characteristics as...
So this is something I'm not well read in and it puzzles me. You say this: I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Even if I think s...
How could you even conceivably be part of the "performance"? You, as an individual with little to no power to affect large social change, would at mos...
I know we're supposed to assume for the thread that your list is roughly accurate, but number 3 just looks too contentious. I know I don't always act ...
Comments