Banno

Curious, that this discussion is occurring in the world that the participants call in to question. A bit of a performative contradiction, no?

There's an (in)famous counter to this, from David Stove, a parody: 1. One only ever tastes oysters with one's mouth 2. Therefore one never tastes oyst...

Some folk might find the thread on Austin: Sense and Sensibilia of use. With great care, Austin dismantles the accounts of perception that are so prob...

Yep. Cheers. Now (1) in the OP is can be adjusted by simply specifying that the topic of discourse is change over time. but then what of (2)? Needn't ...

Well, why not play the game? For my part the notion of "objective" truth causes more problems for those of a philosophical bent than it heals. In part...

No, it doesn't. See here. It's doesn't say anything, because it is not well-formed. Literally, it says there does not exist an x such that x - which s...

I suspect so. The usual conclusion is that one cannot have a set of all sets. If that is what your "set of all existing things" is, then it's ill-form...

Well, this has proved to be a contentious issue, which is to me somewhat puzzling. There are plenty of folk hereabouts who will agree with you, but I ...

This sentence is six words long. I don't much care what god thinks. There are true sentences, contra , and, it seems, your good self.

Of course - at the expense of not telling the truth.

We don't usually write the implication backwards. C ? T. But, in the absence of further clarification, I Understand to be making the claim that time i...

Trouble is, that's just an idealisation. https://museumofpsychology.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/man-cutting-the-branch-sitting-on-illustration-by-frit...

What did you make of the article after a read? For those who don't see the point of the topic, consider

Hmm. The difference between injective and bijective functions is more complex than I had thought. This Maths Is Fun site sets it out pretty clearly, a...

Then why do you think bijection requires counting? https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/f741f72813b9c5681d6a37450158e20322349532/2340_0_4269_2563/master/426...

Hmm. Maybe I misunderstood 's issue. I had taken him to be suggesting bijection would not do the task set it...

well, this stuff.

You are perhaps right, but I don't see as it helps. Again, the point is pedagogic, not logical. Here's the question: One might understand this as: Wha...

Infinity minus any finite number is still infinity. Doubtless others might make this informal answer rigourous. I don't see what is "undefined" here, ...

The issue here is not one of logic, but of pedagogy. The logic is clear, there are multiple infinities. The issue is why some folk cannot see that to ...

A valiant effort. I suspect it is in vein, and that the issue here is not logical so much as pedagogic.

By bijection. See Open Logic Ch.4. "Counting", and ill-defined notion, is not involved in bijection, although "enumeration", a well-defined notion, is...

We can't help that you can not see what is going on here.

Then I'm sorry for you. All I can suggest is that you read the section of the Open Logic project on Russell's paradox again, very carefully. Because t...

How does one not laugh at this?

I enjoyed your recent chat with .

And this shows that you have not understood R = {x : x ? x}: :wink:

And if you want a better understanding of the issues here, see Chapter Four of Open Logic. Unlike Philosophy Forum, it's guaranteed free of psychocera...

Nice try, . Then have a look here: Banno's Law says that it is easier to critique something if you begin by misunderstanding it. That is what your OP ...

But ~?x (x) is not well-formed - it doesn't say anything. And ~?x (Exists<x>)? I guess you could go for a free logic and write something like ~?x (?!(...

I dunno. Equivalence: Usually "?", sometimes ??, means "(p?q).(q?p)"

:meh: Odd. Whatever. :meh:

:worry: I'll leave you to it.

And yet Cantor. So you have gone astray somewhere.

At the least, it might be worth setting out what you take Quine's objection to be and how this overcomes it. As it stands, "expressions of language th...

Ok. I think is right. I'll leave you to it.

That's what logical equivalence is. Ok, so you think it means something like that if time passes, then change happens, and if change happens then time...

'tis an odd thing, culinary appellation. "Gherkin" tends hereabouts to be used for all sizes of pickled cucumbers; that seems not to be the case in fo...

Hmm. T is equivalent to C? I suspect it's an implication - "if there is a change then there is a passage of time" or some such. But the problem is tha...

Trouble is, the paradox is right there in the initial version of Principia Mathematica; that is, an "invalid" statement was implied by the formalisati...

ZFC is, I believe, set up specifically so that "a list can't list itself". That's how it avoids the various paradoxes.

Cheers. And thanks for the thread - far and away the most interesting in a few weeks. I'm thinking that in order to interpret charitably, the domain m...

I'll need more than that, if I'm to stay in the air conditioning! I'm having a bit of difficulty in bringing out the validity of the OP. Three assumpt...

Of course it is incomplete. Gödel.

Here it's high summer. But heat instead of cold might drive folk inside. Or if not heat, smoke. But I have far more demanding issues to contend with -...

I might have supposed that the logic is the structure given to our statements in physics. Rather than one of logic or physics having precedence over t...

Interesting. But Quantifier Variance Dissolved In your example, it is difficult to see how folk could come to agree that they are both nominalists in ...

Folk trying to do physics without the maths, again. It never works out well.

Trouble is, folk don't want the problem to go away. They want to compound it.

Well, the page changes from left to right. But also I have had nothing in my pocket for a few days now. That's P1 and P3 out. :meh: