Banno

There is nothing "behind"; no separation between word and thing. The Map is not the territory, but we can still talk about the territory.

Yep. The question becomes an ought, not an is. If you mean that science is not certain, then, yes, obviously. I've shown that it does. Now you are beg...

Yep.

Falsification was first developed by Karl Popper in the 1930s. Popper noticed that two types of statements are of particular value to scientists. The ...

One step. Anotehr step involves one accepting the observations of the verification. That is, forming a belief. But various folk - from Feyerabend to Q...

Sure. I agree. But that's just to say that the consequences are challenging; none of this discounts what Feyerabend says. You havn't shown that he is ...

Ok. I do not agree that the scientific process is algorithmic in the way you describe; nor, even, that it ought be. The first point is about the histo...

But... verifiable is exactly what a falsifiable hypothesis is not.

I had understood that what is to count as "objectively verifiable" is itself one of the main issues in epistemology. When ought one believe such-and-s...

So the word "formally" bugs me. What precisely is the difference between a formal justification and any other justification? Moreover, does an insiste...

Certainty is a type of belief. It is not a type of truth. One can believe, and even be certain, of whatever one wants. Hence to say that no one can be...

Yeah, cool. I know what solipsism is, and can spell it, too. It should be rejected on the grounds that the level of doubt required exceeds what is rea...

Being inconsistent allows a system to prove anything: (p & ~p) > q; that's not very helpful. Hence, there is a natural preference for being consistent...

Yeah, cheers. What bothers me is that it is clear from my notes that it was something I had forgotten. That strikes me as over reach. How is "the cat ...

OK - that's new to me.

Where is that from?

If it is consistent, then it is inconsistent? No. If it is consistent, then it is incomplete. If it is complete, then it is inconsistent.

Sure. If it is inconsistent, it explodes, and hence anything follows. So what? If the theory is consistent, it contains unprovable truths. If, as you ...

Did you mean "it is necessarily incomplete"?

Yeah - only in the sense that it was Yohan who did not yet exit.

Really? You remember your last sleep, but cannot imagine being asleep again?

Sure. ...became universal instantiation - which (should have) cleared up what was going on. Do you want to be able to claim to have a red nothing in s...

Take the domain of discourse as everything in storage, and hence "everything is red". Now derive "something is red"... Can't be done. All one can deri...

https://scontent.fcbr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/80872433_2998253560184902_4819702133660057600_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ohc=N_SiO90KVU4AQkQ2OKrMk...

Look with care, and you might notice that you assume your conclusion, around about were you imagine your self as seperate from your body.

Perhaps you confuse being true with being justified. There are obvious empirical truths - such as that you are reading this post.

And yet we know of unprovable truths. Epistemology is broader than computability.

@"Pfhorrest", at some stage one has to suppose that the unwillingness to learn displayed here is wilful. When one reads: the only sensible thing to do...

"Not everything" is not "not anything".

There's a need to pretend profundity. It's an odd thing. Is it pretence? Perhaps.

meh.

Coventry, not Manchester; and possibly apocryphal. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/myths/churchill-let-coventry-burn/

Juxtaposing evil and righteousness does nothing, because it tells us nothing about either. Calling an act evil pushes it away from explanation. It den...

Whatever you like. Sometimes we impose.

I think I have to pay that. SO maths is made up, and we find - "discover" - ways to use it.

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2017/03/16/11/margaret-tsuma.jpg?w968 True.

That says more about the world than is needed. Stuff does stuff. We make patterns. Sometimes we read patterns into what the stuff is doing. Less metap...

Nu. They are just patterns. No need for any additional metaphysics. That’s part of the point of this approach.

same thing.

yep. Simple. 3+3=6. A pattern that is useful.

the golden ratio is one of the patterns that we found. Just like counting and stuff. Some patters are useful.

What do you think? Can you demonstrate their consistency?

again, what does this lead to? Is it fun to play? Some rules lead to a more interesting game. The preference for consistency is one such rule.

we could do that. What are the consequences? Anything. Not a game worth playing. That’s why we don’t play that game.

Let's call them Fhorrest Integers. Are they the same as Gill integers?

Let's call them Gill integers. A GIll Integer differs from other integers in that when summed, they add to zero. Now, is there more than one Gill Inte...

We choose when and where to apply the rules.

But can there be an integer bigger than another integer? What does bigger look like here?

well, hence we might presume a number bigger than the first number bigger than any integer.

I'm tossing it away because it is silly.