A bit more on dialectic. A contradiction leads to explosion, as explained. Dialectic bases itself on contradiction, where "opposite sides" lead to a "...
Cheers. Might leave the idealism line where it is, unless it becomes salient. Except that I will point out that the argument above applies to ontic id...
This was perhaps partially answered by the stuff about dialectic. My worry is that @"Wayfarer" argues for what he calls epistemic idealism when talkin...
We could do that again, but it's sunny... :wink: Long ago, in a previous forum, there was a long debate concerning the chairs at the end of the univer...
The result of contradiction in classical logic is not just vague - it's quite literally anything. (p ^ ~p)?q. From a contradiction, anything goes. Tha...
While dialectic has a certain appeal, I'm not as enamoured by it as you. I see two major issues. First, and most obviously, in classical logic asserti...
Logic isn't a replacement for natural languages. Nor is it a set of rules for how one ought construct arguments. This was part of the subject of my th...
Cheers. I am versed in anglo philosophy, with its emphasis on critique. It's not sufficient to learn about Buddhism or scientism, they must also be su...
Take this as granted. We can grant the point that we only know things with our minds. Reality is just what is the case. It is neither subjective nor o...
I admire @"Wayfarer"'s work, and that he and I agree on a great many things. In particular we both have a distrust of scientism, as well as the sort o...
Reality "exists independently of any particular mind" yet " has an inextricably mental aspect". Again, you mix two quite different things - the world,...
Here: " ...it is empirically true that the Universe exists independently of any particular mind." yet "...its existence is inextricably bound by and t...
One might even say that the latter has little if anything to do with the former - that how things are is a different type of question to what we shoul...
From A Private View of Quantum Reality. https://d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2015/06/WFC.gif If this were how the wave function is, unobserve...
Sure, all that. You want your cake and to eat it. On the one hand there is a world that is as it is 'independent' of us. On the other, what we say, th...
So, what is a "direct proof"? I gather you think using MT is direct, but RAA isn't? What's the distinction here? While you are there, what does "FALSE...
The grain of truth in @"Leontiskos"' position is that reductio arguments need to be used with care. If we have a bunch of assumptions that lead to a f...
So here's the apparent problem: A, A?¬B?B ? ¬A A, A?¬B?B ? A It seems we can infer both A and ~A from the same thing. But that's because the two assum...
I don't see where I require anything like that in that post. After all, it's your post. It might help if you explained what FALSE is. As it stands, I ...
If ¬(B?¬B) is true, as it must be, then this is not a valid use of modus tollens. Again, as i pointed out previously, you are comparing two very diffe...
The post does not show that I said I 'preferred the reductio to the modus tollens". And what I am after is a straight forward explanation of what "FAL...
Ok, Presenting a statement that someone has not made is not presenting an interpretation. :roll: Quite so. So what? It remains that RAA is a valid inf...
Neither do I. This distinction between false and FALSE is not my doing. It seems to be another case of Leontiskos confabulating arguments on the part ...
And even if they were right, the conclusion does not obviously follow - indeed, it is very unclear what the structure of the argument is. SO I supose ...
Hello, creative. How are the fish hooks? It exactly does not depend on the values given to the variables. That's kinda the point of using variables - ...
Isn't it something like that "if it is not possible that A implies a contradiction, then A is necessarily true"? Or "If in no possible world A implies...
Comments