Banno

Indeed, and your explanation was that they move because of force and energy; yet force and energy are defined in terms of time. Hence, on your own acc...

You were talking about force and energy, both of which are time dependent: Energy and force are defined in terms of time.

1.43 seconds, actually. And it will take that long, measured or not. Force is defined as mass times acceleration, and acceleration is change in veloci...

Thanks for your reply. Isn't the broken window captured by accessibility - from those worlds in which the rock goes through the glass, all accessible ...

Santa is fat, hence, there is something that is fat Santa is fat ?(x)( x is fat). (Existential generalisation) It might be worth considering the sugge...

Why introduce "necessarily"? What does that mean in this context? "In every possible world? Extensionally, the predicate 'p' is <a,b,c> - just those i...

:rofl:

So did I. My apologies for compromising you.

Not quite, I think. Rather, apparent differences in belief, and therefore apparent conceptual differences, are in the main differences in expression. ...

I recall that when I wrote that I was thinking that (30) restricted the domain. But looking at that again, i can't fill it out. So the conditional in ...

So applying the principles from the previous post, water = H20 Allow me instead to address the evening star, Hesperus... So does the reply in the prev...

Almost. Anyway, back to the article. So are there referentially opaque modal contexts? By that we might understand, are there modal contexts were subs...

It's not a prejudice. There are very good reasons for rejecting essentialism, with a large literature to back them.

Might be worth considering this article, perhaps after Quine. On a quick look it seems more polemic than analytic. On my browser pp40-41are missing. B...

Same. I was going to follow that with a series of posts on each of the approaches in the article, but travel intervened. Extensionally, Sydney just is...

:lol: Now the Mods will be after you for going off topic... You gave up your immunity with your other powers. I'll shut it now. Enough corrupting the ...

Indeed; as a great writer once put it, But I bet you are glad you are no longer obligated to deal with this particular bit of melodrama...

Cool. If you have a problem with my posts, tell the mods.

~ ...will accept and learn from criticism.

This sort of response goes back years. See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/881390 for a more recent example of the same sort of thin...

I missed your post, my apologies. Yes, it's not non sense. I hope to show that it's not referential opacity that is the problem in modality - becasue ...

Notice that it's (?x)?(x > 7) that is problematic, not ?( ?x)(x > 7). It seems to be the de re necessity that fixes or restricts the accessibility inv...

Many of the threads in the All Discussions page at the moment are the same sort of shite. "The Mind is the uncaused cause", "The logic of a universal ...

(I'm somewhat regretting being here - the forums are overrun with idiots. Good to have a few folk, such as your good self, to talk to) I suspect that ...

I've several years of graduate logic to call on. You are a fool.

You don't understand those points yourself. :roll: Your stupidity is doing my head in. I'll have to leave you to it. You and your ilk are a large part...

You wriggle and squirm. and Yet You do not have anything more than a superficial grasp of logic. You were not presenting a reductio. You are a bit of ...

You blatantly contradicted yourself, at least twice. and Yet Not so unfounded...

I've been traveling these last few days, but hope now to get back to this thread. We have, for the case of attitudes, and But Philip is aware that Cic...

Let's not move on to neuroscience just yet. There is plenty of more in the article at hand.

, . Neither of you have read much Davidson, have you.

The difference between This: “without minds, there are no possible worlds" is what Corvus is maintaining. He thinks it a counter you your “It is possi...

:roll:

the actual argument here is about the scope of the operator, not about personality.

I think point very pertinent.

Indeed it is. There is a distinction between “it is possible for there to be a world without minds”, account, and your “without minds, there are possi...

To Part 2, and quantification. The key here may be Here Quine is I believe throwing his lot in with Russell and Kripke, accepting a descriptivist logi...

yes, I agree. Quine dropped modality too quickly. So the issue here is why did he think it necessary to drop modality and have his concerns being answ...

Let's have a quick look at the sort of reasons we have for not treating existence as a predicate. One example: From we infer And write ( ?x) (x is in ...

Yet And since (p&~p)?q ...the OP both exists and yet does not exist. :confused:

Oh, very much so. His academic reputation began with his New Foundations, an alternative axiomatisation of set theory. Unlike ZF, NF apparently allows...

Thanks for the diagram. While it's an inserting observation I'm not able to see where it might go in elation to the OP.

Yep.

Yeah, it's a good point. I'm not sure where to go with that, so will give it some more thought. Have you a link? There are arguments that the number o...

I really don't see why you need to make this yet another thread about me. Can we please have mod attention to this persistent failure on Leon's part t...

Logic.

Very clearly, in the first sentence you say that the OP does not exist. In the second you say that the OP exists. If you cannot see this to be a probl...

:up: So you will not be putting up your hand? Me neither.

Hmm. If you cannot see the contradiction in those two sentences, then there is not much that can be done to explain it further.

Cheers. It is perhaps becoming clear how two somewhat different uses of "necessity" are at work here. One has necessity as opposed to analyticity, the...