InPitzotl

How does it answer anything? Well, that was a response to this: ...sounds pretty relevant to me. You speculated about fears people have that they don'...

Yes. I quoted the thing that's not quite right. Here it is again: I quoted it in my first post. You're pretending to be more reasonable than you evide...

I think you're missing the objection. It is theoretically possible that some atheist somewhere is scared of a being higher than his/her self. But you ...

I'm not sure you're following this discussion. Let's grant that an atheist says something. Let's grant that said atheist cannot defend it. What has th...

Exactly.

Or possibly any other reason. I'm out of milk. Possibly it was stolen by a gremlin. Since when does not proving something isn't true justify that the ...

A suggestion based on what? You've got this backwards. My conclusion is that (A) is lacking proper justification. You have to give proper justificatio...

Actually, (A) is jumping to conclusions. (C) is just a weird appeal to authority in an attempt to back up (B); it's weird because (B) is more an excus...

You want to prove S. So you're going to "set about trying to prove it" by commencing a task P. Essentially, P is a search algorithm; you're searching ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction#Irrationality_of_the_square_root_of_2

I think you're focused too much on proof by contradiction. Essentially, I gather you're imagining a "proof by testing each case" kind of method. By yo...

There are no two integers p, q such that (p/q)^2=2.

Sorry, you're just repeating yourself. Sure, so say I write a program P to methodically check for counterexamples to the Goldbach conjecture (methodic...

If they cannot both be true, then I'm not sure you're telling me anything interesting or meaningful when you say they are not the same task. There's a...

I wouldn't think this would have to be said, but I'm making the assumption that ExP and ~ExP cannot both be true.

It depends on how reasonable the claim is. The question is supposed to be about burden of proof. It would appear to me that these are the same task. Y...

My answer would be, "it depends". I would hope that if X does not exist, it should be difficult to prove X does exist; otherwise, our proof method wou...

No, I didn't miss your point. I dismissed it. This was quite explicit in the last post... you explicitly asked if I meant that the positive claim was ...

No; I mean that some negative claims, like "there is no horse running in my fridge", can be reasonably held with less burden than other negative claim...

I don't need to check the fridge... there isn't enough room in my fridge for a horse to run in it.

I don't understand the question (quite frankly, I have problems even parsing it). Are you asking why I think claims of the non-existence of something ...

It is indeed! They are equivalent in that they are all negative claims. But I don't think they have equivalent levels of burden. I don't see the self-...

You explicitly did exactly that: ...that's the same quote in the post you replied to.

You're oversimplifying this. Ignore the negative part and focus on burden. Compare the following claims: There's no dangerous mold growing on butter i...

Wrong. If it is impossible to get a 6 on the second throw, then the probability of getting 6 on the second throw is 0, not 1/6. And if the probability...

"Bits" assumes classical computers, simulating classical universes. Try instead to imagine a quantum computer simulating classical universes. As menti...

To me, the word "water" is a label that I attach to a particular kind of thing in my environment. The stuff that comes out of my taps when I open them...

Any description of the physical world by any person is simply a model. This includes the description "water is H2O". I have a deeper problem that star...

No, that's not what I mean. If I mix baking soda with vinegar, it will bubble. The bubbling produces a gas we call carbon dioxide. That gas is heavy; ...

Pretty much. You have exactly the same mechanics here as you do with materialism. The only difference is that you posit those things to be composed of...

If I grant this, then the explanation is wrong. H2O can be an idealistic substance. But for this to be an explanation we need to fit some relevance cr...

I have a feeling you're not even having a conversation with me. Why then do you reply? First you didn't respond to what I wrote. Then you claimed you ...

I quoted this in my post: Again, RogueAI is explaining why H2O and water mean different things. But his explanation is that, under idealism, H2O doesn...

You're talking about something completely different. I'm responding to @"RogueAI" talking about idealism-water, which is not in fact H2O, because H2O ...

I don't understand. Surely under idealism, if I open up my tap and let that stuff go into a cup, that's called water, right? Surely then, under ideali...

(-Facepalm-) ...are examples of minor sentences. That in mind, your diatribe is kind of hard to take seriously.

I am just a member of this forum. By whose authority? You're just another member of this forum. Yes, this isn't a pub. But, it is a philosophy forum o...

Well technically he's right. It's a minor sentence. Whether or not it's a "proper sentence" sounds like something we shouldn't really care about. You ...

So? "Okay" isn't a sentence. "Aha" isn't a sentence. "Yes" isn't a sentence. "Yes, sir" isn't a sentence. But "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" ...

Huh? ETA: Just to emphasize, Banno is a native English speaker. Your factoid on English is just that... some factoid... something some grammar teacher...

There is life on this planet.

Well, not quite. Three receptor types do not imply three primary colors. This might be the case if each receptor were sensitive to different parts of ...

It does, but you're attacking a straw man. A "world" is not an entire decohered universe. That's correct, but that division is an entanglement. Radioa...

Everything you have after "Therefore" does not follow from what you have before "Therefore". Can I guess? Are you perhaps suggesting MWI requires worl...

I don't think you grasp what a world is. If you have a wavefunction expressed as A+B, you have two worlds. If you have a superposition, you have multi...

You're still counting the wrong thing. Believing that France exists is not making 67 million assumptions. Also, if those worlds are a problem with MWI...

I propose thinking of probability a bit more abstractly. Probability fundamentally is a measure; when you assign a probability value, you're assigning...

Still two, or many. It depends on how you resolve the fact that the BR appears to work in MWI, and that's something I'm not sure how to do... possibly...

Okay, I'll try this way. What about it?

Okay, history. Regarding the history of Schrodinger's cat per se, that was introduced in 1935 by Schrodinger's "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quan...