Good point, maybe I should have had it as if p then Kp and the conclusion as if p then Bp ? ?¬p. Or consider the simplified argument here. Edit: I’ve ...
It seems to be paradox whether it's about omniscience or our everyday, limited knowledge. I know that my name is Michael but it's possible that I'm wr...
For those of you who can't seem to get past "omniscience", consider instead this simplified paradox of knowledge: Kp ? x knows that p is true Bp ? x b...
Possessing those documents is against the law. So are you saying that he didn't possess them? Then what were these non-existent things that he suppose...
And on a side note, that he would declassify documents just to take them home shows how incompetent he was and how dangerous it was for him to be Pres...
That's about procedures. Some people say that a President just has to say "it's declassified", others say that it actually has to go through a process...
1. Knowledge entails belief. In other words, if I know p then I believe p. 2. For everything that is the case, this hypothetical person knows that it ...
No he can't. Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets The TS/SCI documents that were taken might involve the identity of spies or informa...
I think Moore's paradox might be a useful thing to consider here. That I believe that p is true doesn't entail that p is true, and so "I believe that ...
Why is it suspicious? They didn't have enough evidence to obtain a warrant earlier, and even issued a subpoena to have him return them which he defied...
That's the point of symbolic logic. Ordinary language is often vague and ambiguous and open to misunderstanding. Symbolic logic allows us to clarify o...
I'm not here to teach. In fact I specifically posted this to get answers from people more knowledgeable than me because, as I said, the conclusion see...
I don't want to turn this discussion into a lesson on symbolic logic so I'll just refer you to these: List of logic symbols Modal logic As I mentioned...
Some of you are reading too much into the word "omniscience". This isn't a discussion about God or anything like it. This is just a discussion about t...
Again, from the OP: 1. Kp (premise) 2. ¬?p (premise) 3. Kp ? ?¬p (from 1 and 2) This is a valid argument. To deny the conclusion you must deny one of ...
Well, there's a difference between these two: 1. I believe p but I am wrong 2. I believe p but I could be wrong How do we formulate these in symbolic ...
The rules of inference don’t change. You can only avoid the conclusion by rejecting one of the two premises. Either I don’t believe that ontological s...
You're really reaching with what you mean by "property". I wouldn’t say that that the vase will fall off the table tomorrow and break is a property of...
Maybe the problem is with the interpretation of the English sentence. These two don’t mean the same thing: It is possible that I know everything and a...
That's what I'm suggesting. The conclusion is counterintuitive, so something is probably wrong somewhere but I can't see where. 1. ?p: Kp (premise) 2....
Even if X is a property of something that exists in my mind it doesn't follow that I know that it will cause Y. You're just asserting that the solipsi...
The future is not a property of things that exist in the present. Neither are counterfactuals. Neither is the decimal notation of pi. You can't go fro...
If I don't know that God doesn't exist then I don't know everything. As I said before, you equivocate on the meaning of "what is the case". Given 1 an...
We have to use free logic for this (classical logic doesn't allow for "p does not exist"): 1. ?p: ?x(x=p) ? K(?x(x=p)) 2. ?p: ¬?x(x=p) ? K(¬?x(x=p)) T...
Ontological solipsism claims: 1. If Y exists then Y is a facet of my mind 2. If Y is a facet of my mind then I know that Y exists 3. Therefore, if Y e...
You can't go from: 1. If Y exists then X knows that Y exists to: 2. If Y does not exist then X knows that Y does not exist Ontological solipsism only ...
You're equivocating. As per 1 and 2, "what is the case" is restricted to "Y exists". Hence you are only concluding: If Y exists then X knows that Y ex...
Your reasoning is faulty. 1. If Y exists then X knows that Y exists 2. X knows that if Y exists then X knows that Y exists 1 does not entail 2. And no...
The square root of two is mind-independent even if only my mind exists. You conflate mind-independence with mind-independent existence. The solipsist ...
I could say the same about your bare assertion that the square root of 2 and my future feelings would be directly available to my mind. And again, you...
Comments