Luke

That's what I've been trying to figure out. Possibly what Janus said. But I doubt it is to do with translation of homophones.

The point is that basing your mathematical "principles" on empiricism or reality demonstrably leads to absurdity, including your rejection of fraction...

So "2" cannot refer to two distinct but same things? You cannot have 2 apples or 2 iPhones, etc? So "2" can refer to two distinct but same things? You...

"2" can also refer to two distinct but same things, such as "things" of the same type or category. But all categories/classifications are equally as f...

How can either the number 2 or the numeral "2" represent or mean anything in use if no two things are identical in spatiotemporal reality? Isn't the l...

Since no two things are identical in spatiotemporal reality, do you also reject the number 2?

I think the solution to the "paradox" can be found by simply reading on a little further: This seems consistent with your first solution. Your rebutta...

Your distinction between mother and mati indicates that you were talking about one word from each language with the same meaning, but that those words...

This seems about right, I think. It sounds as though the French and the Germans have intended to distinguish their national breads from each other to ...

We would expect L1 and L2 to contain different words (to express M1, M2, etc.), because they are different languages. Your parenthesis appears to indi...

Substance dualists might consider the disagreement to be more substantial. :grin:

You might consider it tedious to explain, but that the same expression in different languages can somehow mean (or "how it means") differently - as op...

It's not. Both words and pictures can have different uses and thus different meanings or senses. Think of different uses/meanings of emojis, for examp...

I disagree that "A proposition shows its sense" is "exactly correct", particularly taking into account the preceding remarks, say from 4.01 to 4.021. ...

I may have missed something, but if Brot and pain both signify bread, then I don't follow why "these words are not interchangeable for them" or how th...

What "disguise"? Of course it's an attempted stipulation, since you are attempting to stipulate what the mathematical conventions should be (because y...

The concept of infinite infinities is already part of mathematics today. Therefore, in your dubious distinction between mathematics and “imaginary fic...

It concerns what is possible in reality; what may come true or happen. And for several pages prior to this position, you said that we could not percei...

You said: So you are saying that possibility has no regard for truth or falsity, i.e. no regard for the inherent order. I still have no idea what this...

Do you think I misquoted you? Here: My question, again, what do you mean possibility has "no regard for truth or falsity"? What interpretation? I aske...

What's not true? You said: "(sets) can be assigned any possible order (in the sense of humanly created order), with absolutely no regard for truth or ...

Possibility has "no regard for truth or falsity"? What does that mean? You can't have impossibility without possibility. And I'll continue to wait for...

Your previous comments suggest otherwise: You strongly imply that the inherent order is able to be apprehended in these quotes. We must be able to app...

This was before you let anyone know that the inherent order was noumenal and invisible, which is right around the time I believe you changed your posi...

To be clear, your argument is now that: 1. We do not perceive (i.e. see) order with the senses; but that 2. We do perceive (i.e. see) inherent order w...

What failure to recognise? I suggested that you use another word or notation to mark the distinction. One meaning is to see what is visible, the other...

The article does not mention ultraviolet light. I'm sure you understand my point. The same point applies to molecules. It's not complicated; you contr...

You did not address my argument. Do you think that we can see infrared and ultraviolet light just because it exists in the world? This is your argumen...

This is like saying that we can see infrared or ultraviolet light with the naked eye. We can't; not according to any common usage of the word "see". T...

1. I note your recent change from talking about "seeing" to talking about "sensing". Have you rejected your claim that we can see the inherent order? ...

This is what we were discussing before you changed the subject to the meaning of a foreign language.

Keep spinning your bullshit.

The problem is that you weren't talking about meaning before. You said that we sense a foreign language without apprehending it. Now you're talking ab...

Earlier, you said that we sense or perceive a foreign language without apprehending it: Now you say that we neither sense nor perceive the meaning of ...

I'm not familiar with any sense of the word "see" which means "not see". Can you not hear foreign languages? This is a terrible analogy. This is somet...

And this includes the inherent order? There's no contradiction here, I take it? You have said that the inherent order can neither be perceived nor app...

I have understood it. According to your latest position, the inherent order is the true order of actual physical objects which humans are unable to ap...

What interpretation? It's exactly what you said. I don't care about your latest position. In case you missed it, my entire point for the last three or...

Here you say that "the exact spatial positioning" is not what is being demonstrated (i.e. shown) in the diagram. However: Here you said that the exact...

By "shown" you do not mean "displayed". After all, "it is not visible". Therefore, you must not be making the argument - as you did earlier - that we ...

I'm glad that you finally acknowledge the role played by the senses in "showing". Only a couple of posts ago, you stated: But you now concede that sen...

You avoid the question instead of answering it. How can location be shown to someone without it being sensed? "Shown" in the sense of a logical demons...

Do you think that location can be shown to someone without it being sensed? Anyway, that's not what I said.

Exactly, so why did you identify/equate "the inherent order" with "the exact spatial positioning shown in the diagram"? It sounds very much as though ...

This is irrelevant to my question. I did not ask you about the history of philosophy or why there must be inherent order; I asked you specifically abo...

You said that "1) We do not perceive order with the senses" and that "2) We cannot apprehend the inherent order". Therefore, how do you know that what...

You spoke of an "external perspective", which implies an internal perspective. You might recall I asked you about it and you responded: It was when I ...

Apparent order is not perceived? Do you know what "apparent" means? If apparent order is not perceived, then your earlier distinction between "interna...

Do we perceive both the apparent order and the inherent order? Is there a difference between the apparent order and the inherent order? If so, what is...

Are these both the inherent order (bolded)? If so, then why do you say "along with the order"?