Luke

Is Mozart on in the background (in reality) while you are asleep, or are you dreaming of hearing Mozart?

I don't understand what having one experience on top of another means.

How does one experience something on top of what one experiences?

When you say "these amalgamates of past experiences", are you referring to dreams? If so, then you have already told us that these "are not entirely q...

Perhaps, but the question and topic of the OP are not about pure water. @"Fooloso4" makes a valid point that H?O is necessarily water "but water is no...

Impure H?O?

Yes, and now we're going round in circles. These are not examples of rules of language use, which you appeared to be talking about in your previous po...

Thanks Banno :up:

Does language have no rules or does it have "competing rules"? What "competing rules" does language have? How is this different to the game of chess? ...

Equivocation. These are different "standards" to those in the context of norms and normativity. How does the analogy fail? Moving pieces wherever you ...

There is no such "standard"; it is merely your own personal opinion. You don't set the standards or norms all on your own. Otherwise, where can I find...

It is your belief or opinion that a rule must be explicitly stated. What's normative about that? The problem is not with your belief that you and I us...

You can believe that or you can believe that a rule must be explicitly stated. You can't have both. So I trust you've given up on your opinion that ru...

Therefore, rules do not have to be explicitly stated.

Which is it, MU?

Mind=Mind

What is the "philosophically respected way" of using the word "rule"? Is it that "there are no rules (my use) as to how you ought to use that word"?

Who told you that this is the only acceptable use of the word "rule"?

Great stuff. Well said.

Thanks Sam. An interesting paper and I found myself agreeing with some of it. However, I think the main thesis of the article is undermined by the quo...

Yes, my point was that hinges need not be expressed, and can therefore be non-linguistic. I think I responded to your post before you edited and added...

See OC 103 and 159.

There is no proof of anything, and I can prove it!

I find no ambiguity in OC 10 regarding this. Wittgenstein plainly states that "2x2=4" is a true proposition, irrespective of any and all contexts (occ...

I must have mistaken this for a philosophy forum discussion. I didn't realise it was Sam's blog.

The same charity that has been afforded to @"Fooloso4", you mean?

Did you change your opinion in the interim? Because you and Sam claimed earlier that mathematical propositions can be neither true nor false: I think ...

You've expressed it much better than I could. Thank you.

This contradicts what Witt says at OC 10. As you quoted: “'2x2=4' is a true proposition of arithmetic--not 'on particular occasions' nor 'always,'" Mo...

Consider the negation of what?

Sorry to be a dull boy but I don’t recall the movie well enough, so I’m probably lacking some context. Maybe you could start another discussion about ...

It’s a bit off topic. My guess would be that Jack’s doubts about the existence of the bartender is not a language game.

Just noticed this at OC 10: :smile:

Exactly. The entire point of OC (as I read it) is that some empirical or contingent propositions (hinge propositions) occasionally have the same indub...

Right, and actualists use the language of possible worlds metaphorically to talk about the possibilities of this world only, as I’ve been saying. If t...

I don’t think so. It’s not “a world” for the actualist, because there isn’t more than one; there’s only this actual world.

What “world” would remain for something to exist in? It’s not that everything in this world would be annihilated, but the world itself. Why is it logi...

If this world were annihilated, then there would be no possibilities. I probably should not have said in my last post: "It would remain logically poss...

I’m not saying it’s impossible that something exists - that would be absurd. Im saying it’s possible that nothing could exist, or that there could be ...

How is that analogous? The possibility (now) of there coming to be no possibilities (at some future time) is not illogical.

I don't think that's analogous. The realised empty possible world of the modal realist is equivalent to the actualist's unrealised possibility that th...

Yes, I get the analogy. The actual world is the one we inhabit, and all the possible worlds which exclude us cannot be realised for us. But, as with t...

If "possible worlds" is just another name for "possibilities", then it seems uncontroversial that modal realists and actualists alike believe in the e...

If the (i.e. our, this) universe ceased to exist, then nothing would exist. In other words, there would be “no world”, as it has been otherwise expres...

I admit it was very poorly written, but where’s the contradiction? To clarify, it is logically possible (for an actualist) that there could exist noth...

As I understand it, modal realists consider what is possible (i.e. possible worlds) to be actual, unlike actualists who draw a distinction between wha...

Sorry, I overlooked this. Why couldn’t there be a non-existent world (i.e. why couldn’t there be nothing) even if modal realism were false?

Then the reason you have offered for why there is something instead of nothing amounts to little more than: because there is something. But I don’t wi...

It seems to be much more than that given that it’s the reason you have offered for why it is logically impossible for there to be no world. The existe...

So there is something rather than nothing because of the postulated existence of this building with infinite rooms... So the absence of a possible wor...