Banno

I'll agree with that.

So what would your replacement be?

Infinity.

I don't think time plays a role here. I think logic tells us what we can reasonably say, and helps us recognise when we've said stuff wrong. Our respo...

I think the expectation is that folk will look at the related articles for more detail. Or alternately, I'll have to disavow it's authority, which I a...

Wolfram uses "real", which I suppose is better than "cardinal" or "Ordinal" a s a definition. But it's authoritative that it's a quantity, not a quali...

It's on my "to do" list.

Mine? I just go to Wolfram: an unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number. That way I can share the blame.

Trouble is that folk often think along these lines and conclude that no one had have any absolute, objective understanding of reality. They drop the m...

Yes, that's the point. If we came across an apparent example of something's both being and not being the case, we would first assume that we had misse...

So you want contingency without necessity. I'd say that was an impossibility, but for you, that's not a problem.

Yeah, I did. Several times. Try this one: All theorems of propositional calculus are necessary theorems of modal logic. The Law of Noncontradiction is...

"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained! Is this not why you are here!?"

I think we are in agreement. Expressing it as a different propositional syllogism, introducing predicates, and introducing modality are all unjustifie...

Infinities - all of them - are cardinalities. Like odd numbers.

Put simply, I wish I had your problems. Do you want the coffee or not?

No, I don't. You have claimed that LNC is contingent. I've explained in several different ways how this leads to inconsistency. A couple of other folk...

For something about which no fucks are given, this topic attracts a lot of posts.

Fun, but. Then we get things like: Which is just wrong.

et al... I'm thinking that your notion of context is along the right track. The Op was a request for further on the article. There's a trail of academ...

Tell that to a mathematician.

In the cup. Me. Or @"TiredThinker". Either will do. Yes, except that it is expanding. What threads like this show is that folk have odd notions of inf...

Speaking for myself, I can only keep one issue in my head at a time. If I am telling someone you want coffee instead of tea, I am focused on the coffe...

The equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting "Nah, nah, nah..." in the hope that the problem will go away. Sure, infinite oceans a...

Sure there are other ways to pars it. Unless you can rule out the MP parsing, showing that there are other parsings is irrelevant. Can you rule out th...

Modus ponens: If p then q p therefore, q p: A Republican wins the election, q: If it's not Reagan who wins, it will be Anderson So: If A Republican wi...

Sure. But (1) is true.

Indeed. That' the point.

How?

Well, if it were written I might scan it. One potential problem in my way of thinking about logic is that it ought not be possible to give an account ...

Apparently. So what remains is for an account to be given of how to talk about a god without such limitation on divine omnipotence. Can you do that? T...

I'm not so sure. Kripke broke the link between necessity and the a priori; do you want to put it back? Do we have grounds to do so?

Not quite. No need for "personal being" - the argument would apply to a necessary rock, were that posited by someone. And truth ranges over statements...

SO failing to prove that the Snark is a Boojum is reason to believe there are no Boojums.

Scepticism and acceptance are neither here nor there. What counts is critique.

It's here: (My bolding) But it'd be maltreating a deceased equine to continue. Once LNC is rejected, reasoned discussion follows. Lesson is, don't pay...

Hey, my OP, my god. It's pretty clear that Bart is using a confused notion of the relation between necessity and contingency. His notion of God is con...

Oh, formulating the question was as much a part of this thread as the question itself. The thread was https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11355/...

I'll stand by this. While narcissism is also apparent in the Democrats, it is perhaps not as institutionalised there as in the Republican Party. The o...

I've started a few threads on the topic of god, and on first glance would be taken as arguing that he doesn't exist. In several places I have made it ...

This is how "...exists" must be used in the ontological argument. So one version fo my OP would be to ask if (x) ?(E!(x)) - if there is some being tha...

OK. This line of thinking came about as a result of @"Bartricks"'s claim that LNC is true but contingent. Now he doesn't have a consistent leg to stan...

Lemon gives this brief natural derivation: (1) P & ~P Assumption (2) ~(P & ~P) 1, 1, RAA There's the predicate version to consider, too: ?(x) ~( F(x) ...

Belief in god is used to excuse immorality. Hence disrupting that believe is a moral act.

Nice. But I hear a rumour that @"Jamalrob" may have preempted us.

Have a look at this: Folk think that they are enacting god's will. And the results are irrational and immoral. Sewing a little doubt is a moral obliga...

Well, it's good to know that they are not intent on repealing the law of gravity. That's a pretty damning document. They know the laws of god and what...

Philosophy is often seeking definition.

That's were I am, too - finding the point from which each side subtends an angle of 120° or 60°...

I'm using a more recent notion.