Frederick KOH

Why limit your assertion to formalisms and quantum theory? Why would your assertion not apply as well to plain prose in a less mathematical endeavor? ...

Just to make sure, by "the commutativity of multiplcation" I mean 3 times 7 is the same as 7 times 3 - the order doesn't matter. Contradicting it mean...

I take my leave here.

I asked for an example of a philosophical axiom that is not also a logical or mathematical axiom. Not only do I not see the example, I see the words "...

What is the status then of mathematics that replace the parallel postulate with something that contradicts it?

Are there civilizations that assert statements that contradict the commutativity of multiplcation?

To be clear, these are your words: in response to i The words "widely accepted" are not in my comments.

Actually I was providing data problematic for your claim that

What's the difference between and

Then making coffee is also philosophy.

It is also possible to "shut up and calculate". And by your use of the word pure, nothing is.

Equations and experiments.

Philosophy only in the sense of what's left after you take out the formal and empirical parts of your area of inquiry. Or to borrow from another phras...

The authors criticized in "Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science" for starters.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Someone like Rorty would leave science alone but take issue with the philosophy of science. He hopes that we wi...

Has the parallel postulate (in geometry) been verified? Or is it false?

Give an example of a philosophical axiom that is not also a logical or mathematical axiom.

In the case of geometry, is the parallel postulate false?

It is relevant because there is point to be made about the difference between 1) "multiplication is commutative" and 2) "There is only one God and he ...

Exactly the metaphysics of presence.

What is the convention on the divinity of Christ? The existence of Thor?

In formalisms, there are no assumptions. What they have are axioms and postulates. Euclidean and non-euclidean geometry are both valid formalisms. The...

Eventually the rubber hits the road for some assertions. Like for example whether somebody is dead or alive. And then there are assertions of the sort...

In a formalism, the terms don't refer to anything in particular. What is important is how they relate to each other and the rules related to what sent...

So, assertions about God are based on conventions.

Look at "Geometric interpretation" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

To be clearer, why would your answer be preferable to something like "God created because He knew that it was evil to do so." In what way would this a...

The best representative of that side is Rorty. On the plus side he writes as clearly as any analytic philosopher. Other than the other book I mentione...

Good luck finding that opponent outside of the junior leagues.

The debate has moved beyond the simple terms that you have described. Have a look at: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/whats-the-use-of-truth/97802311401...

What about "dog"? Or "lifeform"?

How can that be? The greatest honours go to the scientists who overthrow the most established theories. Einstein was not a heretic. Newton was not a d...

And at least one of those religious orders was of fighting men who trained to kill and did kill. As valid or invalid a point as the one you brought up...

So how should we treat them when used in an argument for or against something that does involve representation.

Ignore my question if you are being ironic. But what guides or constrains the answer you give?

This is a problem only if you are essentialist about the mathematics of complex numbers. Or - you could treat it as a consistent formalism and give it...

Modulo essentialism as regards causation.

Arithmetic and geometry are the formalisation of the most basic intuitions we use in out interactions with the material world. Mathematics in its more...