You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Srap Tasmaner

Comments

In: Infinity  — view comment
Here's another way to look at the difference: the Cartesian product of the natural numbers and the natural numbers is different set, certainly, which ...
January 28, 2026 at 23:05
In: Infinity  — view comment
The natural numbers are also a proper subset of the rationals, but they're the same size.
January 28, 2026 at 22:25
In: Infinity  — view comment
That's a step in the right direction. You have to switch from a count noun to a mass noun. Water from a fire hose. But even that's not good enough, be...
January 28, 2026 at 14:20
In: Infinity  — view comment
That's what I meant. I was very pleased you had the same thought.
January 28, 2026 at 07:01
In: Infinity  — view comment
I had to double-check but I never posted this! A couple times I wrote a post which contained exactly this point. (This post is what was left.) It woul...
January 28, 2026 at 00:33
In: Infinity  — view comment
Eh. A procedure, as I'm using the term here, accepts some input and yields some output. You show me a natural number, and I can show you another. What...
January 27, 2026 at 18:27
In: Infinity  — view comment
Before we even get to the question of what a numeral refers to, you face an issue of what makes any given numeral count as a 1 (or as a numeral, or as...
January 26, 2026 at 20:55
In: Infinity  — view comment
I think the tricky bit is that philosophers hear "1 finger and 2 fingers make 3 fingers because 1 + 2 = 3," or even "1 finger and 2 fingers must make ...
January 26, 2026 at 00:50
In: Infinity  — view comment
I keep thinking about how we teach basic arithmetic with applications, and it's a very subtle thing. We say, "If I hold up 1 finger, and then 2 more, ...
January 25, 2026 at 23:23
In: Infinity  — view comment
I was thinking some days ago that, though I'm not sure what the favored way to do this is, if pressed to define the natural numbers I would just const...
January 25, 2026 at 23:07
In: Infinity  — view comment
One additional thought. We've alluded to the spatial and temporal metaphors we often use talking about mathematics, but another very common metaphor i...
January 25, 2026 at 17:11
In: Infinity  — view comment
With regard to the number line, I'll say first that the intuitions most of us have, formed in school days, can be a bit misleading, because we are on ...
January 25, 2026 at 16:34
In: Infinity  — view comment
Because it doesn't mean that. "Next" here implies a relation, and mathematics is the study of the relations between its "objects," which it is happy t...
January 24, 2026 at 23:27
In: Infinity  — view comment
No one ever says either of those things. You're arguing with someone in your head who knows no more about mathematics than you do. * Zeno's paradox co...
January 22, 2026 at 04:25
Sunday Morning By Wallace Stevens I Complacencies of the peignoir, and late Coffee and oranges in a sunny chair, And the green freedom of a cockatoo U...
January 19, 2026 at 01:58
In: Infinity  — view comment
Maybe for you. For me, that's a theorem. Then this is nothing to do with infinite sequences, infinite sets, or infinity. Your position is that you can...
January 18, 2026 at 18:14
In: Infinity  — view comment
If I recall correctly, he specifically said "habit" rather than "rule", which suggests naturalizing logic, and indeed I think that's where he was head...
January 17, 2026 at 22:05
In: Infinity  — view comment
This is exactly right, and it is the sort of move I have been trying to hold up as a triumph of human thought. We cannot list them all, but we can giv...
January 17, 2026 at 19:13
In: Infinity  — view comment
I can put it another way: what you cannot calculate, you must deduce. Infinite sets obviously present a barrier to calculation. So we deduce. Having d...
January 16, 2026 at 05:08
In: Infinity  — view comment
This is to spectacularly miss the point. Because we can prove what the result would be, we do not have to actually carry out the pairing of every rati...
January 16, 2026 at 03:34
In: Infinity  — view comment
That was me. Now, of course, it's true there are issues with counterfactual definiteness in quantum mechanics, and "experiments which are not performe...
January 16, 2026 at 01:40
In: Infinity  — view comment
How on earth do you imagine all the natural numbers?
January 15, 2026 at 03:55
In: Infinity  — view comment
God forbid you repeat yourself ... The key word in all this seems to be "all". You might as well bold it each time you use it. Now, it's a known fact ...
January 15, 2026 at 02:29
In: Infinity  — view comment
And a circle contains an uncountably infinite number of points. Oh well, no more analytic geometry.
January 14, 2026 at 23:07
In: Infinity  — view comment
In other words, the problem is that you'll never finish. Under this view, there are no functions on any infinite set. Not even f(n)=1. No functions on...
January 14, 2026 at 14:11
Note that to present the point, Ramsey names his philosophers "A" and "B". Indexicals are very interesting. Their analysis is both interesting and imp...
January 13, 2026 at 18:38
In: Infinity  — view comment
Btw: Is there also a difference between "all" and "every"? Because you seem to be granting what you denied ...
January 13, 2026 at 16:27
In: Infinity  — view comment
I see. I would say there's a difference between making a claim about "a subset" and a claim about "any subset"; many of us will treat the former as a ...
January 13, 2026 at 16:24
In: Infinity  — view comment
What is the cash value of that difference, as you see it?
January 13, 2026 at 15:55
In: Infinity  — view comment
And is there an element n of N such that n-1 is not a member of N0? This is a perfectly good argument, but it is not the argument you make about N and...
January 13, 2026 at 15:46
In: Infinity  — view comment
So are you saying there could be a set such that you could label every member of that set starting with 0, but you could not label every member of tha...
January 13, 2026 at 06:13
In: Infinity  — view comment
You seem to be arguing that N must be bigger smaller than N U {0} because, well, 0 is left out. Is that right? (Doofus.) But try this: instead of thin...
January 13, 2026 at 05:24
This is yet another thing from the prolific David Lewis, contextualism, the short version of which used to be that we do know things in everyday life ...
September 16, 2025 at 01:25
Indeed. Apparently we can't. Is that what JTB is for? Take a step back. Is there any prospect for any kind of theory that would pick out all and only ...
September 15, 2025 at 16:38
I don't think a JTB account is committed to this. You can, and I think this is quite common, simply be a realist (with whatever restriction). That is,...
September 15, 2025 at 14:18
It's usually taken as an inference rule, if that's what you mean. Given MP as an inference rule, can you derive MT? That is, is MT a theorem?
September 15, 2025 at 12:48
I don't know what that is. I was just referring to the form. From ~1 you can next derive ~(1 & 2), so now you have a contradiction. I don't remember w...
September 15, 2025 at 12:33
That's modus ponens.
September 15, 2025 at 12:18
I'm not sure this is right. If we say, a person S knows that P when P is the case, they believe that P, and their belief that P is "justified," in wha...
September 13, 2025 at 21:28
That's kinda the right question and kinda the wrong question. The J in JTB is supposed to exclude cases of epistemic luck: the truth of your belief, i...
September 13, 2025 at 18:04
Doing much better exceeds my ability, I'm afraid. Bayesian inference is certainly well-suited to formalizing some of these issues, but there are compl...
September 06, 2025 at 17:54
I want to say a little more about this calculation (in which I've corrected a misplaced decimal): \begin{align}P(Survival\ \vert\ Observations) & = \f...
September 05, 2025 at 19:13
Because non-physical entities do not have spatial locations or orientations. "Odd" was perhaps too polite; it's simply a contradiction. "Perspective",...
September 03, 2025 at 18:37
So could I: \begin{align}P(Survival\ \vert\ Observations) & = \frac{P(Survial)P(Observations\ \vert\ Survival)}{P(Observations)}\\0.95 & \approx \frac...
September 03, 2025 at 17:14
This is the sort of thing that bothers me, Sam. (Are the scare quotes around "looking" an acknowledgement of my question about Nancy Rynes looking beh...
September 03, 2025 at 16:06
And your explanation is to look at what you take to be the motivations of the skeptics in your story. Is that the discussion you want to have? Everyon...
August 28, 2025 at 18:11
Take a step back and consider what we're talking about here. I don't keep up with this stuff, but Wikipedia seems to believe there is still no evidenc...
August 28, 2025 at 01:13
You're trying to make an apple pie with strawberries. @"Hanover" gamely pointed out that people can't see without using their eyes, and all of the rep...
August 26, 2025 at 16:00
I struggled with the Nancy Rynes video. Is she lying? Is she deluded? Is it all true? Listening to her story, these questions don't really find any pu...
August 26, 2025 at 14:53
Except the video you posted of Nancy Rynes a couple days ago, saying fits none of those criteria. I watched it ? at the maximum allowable speed, but I...
August 26, 2025 at 03:03