Banno

Well, as you may have noticed, I agree with this.

Understood. Just ruminating.

Try it out - see how you go.

I agree.

Spoilers?

Nuh. I'm focusing on getting through them all, but go back to get more starts as well. I've got all stars up to ?7, and a few beyond that. I find the ...

Yep. So construct a right triangle with sides equal to the tow squares; then the hypotenuse is the length of the desired square.

= I know...

That's odd; the internal voice I use when reading your posts is a falsetto.

AH, I did it, but in an inelegant way. No L or E goal.

The hypotenuse has to be the length of the sum of the two sides, but I can't see how to construct it.

Playing with this again, I'm stuck at 7.1 I know I've solved it before, but can't see it now.

Well, yes: How better to show that it is blather than to drag it out for hundreds of posts?

...and must there be a number that exists in all universes? The answer is "no"?

And I say we don't need to choose. Silence. But that's too simple, don't you think?

It's a useful conversation for me, since it addresses the biggest issue with silentism, that is denies that certain sorts of conversation say anything...

Well, no. IF god is not subject to the laws of logic, there is no point in having a conversation about him - that's the problem with @"Bartricks" thre...

So the member of the universe named by "a" exists in some possible worlds but not others. Must there be an individual named by "a" that exists in ever...

Indeed; so if there is a possible world in which god does not exist, than god did not create everything.

So if I could describe what I think you are saying back to you in my own terms... To build a model, we set up a bunch of possible worlds. Within that ...

Well, no. Rather it allows you to recognise good and bad arguments.

Ah, so here you are using "universe" - is that not the same as "possible world"? Or is it like "domain of discourse"?

But int he case of logic what is distinguished is coherent consistent argument against nonsense.

That's interesting. So for a theist presumably god is as familiar as that chair over there... and yet not so for others. Not sure where to go next. My...

"pat" as a term for "boring"? Interesting. Not sure. Might have to look it up.

Well, yes, in that I don't think it can be done - it woudl not be well-formed - or it would lead to contradiction. I guess I'm trying to formalise an ...

...that'd be me done.

and... repetative no original material pat old junk same-old same old

Not interested in your passive - aggressive schtick.

I don't want to go there yet - leave the good lord int he background and look at the implication of ? ?(x)(a=x)...

Yep - thanks. You are helping me to articulate my question. So is the implication of ? ?(x)(a=x) that, in any given model, there must be an individual...

OK, we might be able to build something on that. Here's the quote, in full: SO you are counting god as amongst "the familiar objects whose antics make...

Good point. So is ? ?(x)(a=x) a rendering of "a (that individual) exists in every possible world"? That seems problematic, since one could specify a p...

Given that the mods want us to flag suspect posts, would it be possible to add to the flag a pop-up with an list of explanations for the flag? Use the...

I'm interested. How does this link to Davidson?

Cheers.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7043/davidson-on-the-very-idea-of-a-conceptual-scheme/p1

Yeah, only I have, at length, elsewhere, and often. I've seen no indication from you that it would be worth my while to do so again, here. But if you ...

Logic is just grammar, just syntax. It sets out what we can consistently say. So if you would be consistent, you ought understand logic. And it has ad...

You can find out by reading On the very idea of a conceptual schema. Not at all sure what it has to do with the OP.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

I was quoting Davidson. No need to search. I'm not sure what relevance you see here. Can we get some substance to this chat?

Really? Where? Oh, Davidson. YOur point escapes me.

Whatever that is.

B applies to a theorem, not an individual. I don't think we have an answer yet. Is ? ?(x)(a=x) well-formed? Is it a theorem of S5?

So you make the theistic leap? Good for you. Just don't think that as a result your arguments are cogent.

Read Kripke.

Nothing in atheism debars this. Indeed, it avoids the theistic leap to an unjustified conclusion, and so is a help rather than a hinderance. so yes, t...

Good be sentences. What you call classical philosophy was a hodgepodge when it came to modality. The work in modality has given us a syntax within whi...

Aporia seems the natural outcome of philosophical discussion; silence follows.