fdrake

Maybe this will help you rustle people's jimmies. (1) Countries' legal systems should be able to punish those responsible for working conditions that ...

Highlighting a circularity wasn't really my intention. Noting that you used 'acceptable' there was a rhetorical move to highlight the territory knowle...

I agree that once you "determine a set of acceptable answers" the "metaphysical and logical questions are mostly settled", but that process of "determ...

It's a question of how it's implemented. A UBI replacing all other social safety nets would be at least as bad and enable, if not come directly along ...

For the most part it looks like a difference in emphasis to me. Which is not something that can be decided by modal logic in full. You pick the axioms...

Just some thoughts on my frustrations with modal logic and how it relates to any metaphysics of possibility. That the last step doesn't say anything a...

"If I punch my laptop screen, it might break" "What does that might mean?" "In some possible world" "That includes this one?" "Yes, the actual world i...

Accessibility relations tend to be reflexive. "If I punch my laptop screen, it might break" doesn't have to mean "There is another possible world in w...

Please cite where you got this from? Also, you should edit the giant copypaste so it's more readable.

"If you consistently state policies which are on the left, we have the majority of supporters, it's just a question of getting the message out there" ...

This. You don't learn to improvise first. Seeing the relevant holes in things requires first knowing what is relevant to them. Learning what's relevan...

Don't you know that people are poor because of the welfare state? If companies don't have to employ people, they won't. Governments create artificial ...

You can ignore or report the posts. Also, maybe it's a personal thing, but I gain a lot from going through something, even if I'm making loads of mist...

How about you try making a thread like that? Pick something that interests you, start doing exegesis for the general reader. Set some requirements for...

Try to publish on academia.edu or arxiv.org depending on the content type. You're more likely to be able to upload philosophy things on academia.edu t...

In my experience we lose the energy to continue it. It takes a lot of effort to write exegesis and discuss it in spare time. I keep coming back to a s...

There's been a good Philosophical Investigations reading group within the last while. We never finished the book, though.

:up: Looks good to me. I've never even thought of using numerical methods in proofs! That's very cool. Think it's curly braces. \{\} They need \ in fr...

Hmmm. The series goes complex for some k_i, if you meant the interval of rationals (0,1), I guess you mean k_i is either 0 or 1 for all k_i. But that ...

Here..!

(1) The sequence contains irrationals. The infinite sum remains rational. (2) The sequence can consist only of rationals. The infinite sum can be irra...

No. 1 + root(2) + 1/2 - root(2) + 1/4 + 1/8 ... Also, if your sequence must output a rational, it can't output an irrational.

e^x -1 = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{x^i}{i!} No.

With this procedure you can produce rationals arbitrarily close to irrationals but not irrationals. If you want the procedure to be infinite, you're n...

I don't know the derivation for that one, just looked on the wiki page for series expansion of root 2. How about: e^x = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^i}{...

Finite sequences don't automatically have the same properties as infinite sequences. It doesn't boil down to that at all. \sum_{i=0}^{N}(-1)^{i}\frac{...

I would cut you more slack if you demonstrated more understanding. You've been thoughtful, but the rigour's lacking. This shows whenever someone spell...

Nah. Well thought criticism is welcome.

Try and prove it! This discussion might be helpful.

I don't think this is right. Infinite convergent sequences of rationals typically converge on non-rational reals, even though all the finite sums and ...

Very interested in your continued exegesis, then!

The sequences don't terminate for any real number which has an infinite (non-repeating) binary expansion. EG pi/10 would never terminate. The conseque...

Yes! You can quite happily map a countable set of irrationals to any other countable set. Convert all real numbers to binary strings! The line is an u...

Can you guarantee uniqueness of the structure? It seems to me "Here is one hand" is a bedrock for philosophy. But not for examining the self reports o...

As far as I know, we'll continue to vet content which will be submitted to guest speakers. And we'll have a think about what to do to make guest speak...

Mismatch of expectations I think. I'm guessing we need a word limit.

If you're gonna ask a long question, you need to set up context. It's probably more to do with question length / complexity / number and how much time...

I think your procedure does produce an injection between the sets, but the initial set you're feeding into the injection is actually uncountable. You'...

Seems Prof. Pigliucci is more busy than he thought and doesn't have much time to reply to anything, unfortunately.

I think I know that what anyone thinks they know is not knowledge.

Ultimately, the stakes of the Liar sentence are the consequences it has: if you can formulate it in a language, it does weird shit; has unfavourable i...

And so can be made indistinguishably close to either side of the middle?

Did you have only a fried egg? Did you have a fried egg and did you have beans? Sorted. Ultimately not a problem with conjunction, a problem with the ...

The two claims you made mean the same thing. Why doesn't "This sentence is false" have truth conditions when "This sentence is short." Does? You have ...

Row three.

This sentence is short. This sentence is false. Why is the first truth apt but not the second?

That's how conjunction works. Look at its truth table.

X = This sentence is false. Assume X is true, then X is false. Assume X is false, then X is true. Y = This sentence is false and this sentence is true...

Something I don't get, though I don't know enough to decide if this is actually an error in the proof or a limitation of understanding, is that the pr...