Michael

And that's precisely why it is wrong to reduce the object of perception to the external world causes of the experience. In terms of the external world...

Jan. 6 committee notifies DOJ that Trump tried tampering with one of its witnesses, Cheney says I wonder if he left a voicemail. Otherwise how could j...

I don't think that follows at all. Electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of ~650nm consistently triggers the experience of the colour red. The e...

This discussion was merged into A universe without anything conscious or aware

Read Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. What is life? I know that I’m alive and that a rock isn’t. But there’s no proper understanding of wh...

That doesn't follow at all. There are five chickens in a cage. They haven't been eaten but they can all be eaten.

I said I can't give you a definition of "proposition", just as I can't give you a definition of "number". But I know which things are numbers, which t...

I know exactly what I'm talking about, thanks.

I can't give you any meaningful definition of "proposition", just as I can't give you any meaningful definition of "number". I can give you examples o...

I don't need to have some kind of in-depth metaphysical understanding of the nature of language and reasoning to make use of formal logic, just as I d...

And that's precisely why the knowability principle fails, as Fitch's paradox shows. It isn't possible to know that p is true and that p is not known t...

No it doesn't. It says that if you accept the knowability principle and the non-omniscience principle then it follows that all truths are known. As I ...

Sorry, not sure if I was clear, but that quote was from the article you posted. Capra explicitly sets out the argument as: Premise 1: Goats eat everyt...

That doesn't address what I was saying about your argument. Formal logic is concerned with the relationship between propositions. In the case of a ? b...

It can't be made about Fitch because his premises work. You just don't seem to understand propositional logic.

The first premise should be "Goats eat everything":

The first flaw in your proposed paradox is what I explained here. Your symbols are wrong. It should be: ?x(Cx ? ?Ex) For all things, if that thing is ...

Compare with: 1. If God is omnipotent then it is possible for God to create a rock that he cannot lift 2. If God creates a rock that he cannot lift th...

You haven't explained the logic behind your "chicken paradox". And as I mentioned here your symbols were wrong anyway. And as I said here, you're equi...

The proposition "Joe Biden is President of the United States" was known to be false in 2016 and is known to be true now.

Michael Fabricant. Got to maintain the hair status-quo.

Which ones? Write them out.

What rules of inference get you there? Also the symbols here make no sense. I think you need something like: ?x(Cx ? ?Ex) For all things, if that thin...

You're equivocating. It is possible for us to later eat something that is currently uneaten, or for something that we have eaten to have before that t...

I like how you had to specify it was the fruit, not the bird.

I didn't mean to suggest that abortions should only be allowed for rape. Because we can't wait for a rape to be proved in court and because we can't p...

Boris resigns

Hmm, ten talented writers and twelve stories. Who are the two untalented writers?

That's more than 9 words.

@"Baden" Zahawi among cabinet ministers about to tell PM to resign :rofl: Firing your boss just after he promotes you. Love it.

We address the problem in formal logic. We start with the two premises that the anti-realist accepts: Knowability principle ?p(p ? ?Kp) Non-omniscienc...

No. It was true before we knew 1 and false after. No. It was true before we knew 1 and false after.

In practice it may be that asserting a proposition implies that one believes one's assertion (see Moore's paradox), but in formal logic there is a dis...

I don't understand what your comments have to do with anything. If we accept the non-omniscience principle then there is some p which is true and not ...

I might believe it to be so? e.g. intelligent alien life exists, the real part of every nontrivial zero of the Riemann zeta function is 1/2, and it wi...

It's knowable because we can look for the cat and see it to be on the mat. In doing so, what was once an unknown truth (1) is now a known truth and wh...

It’s an unknown truth because 2 says so. Do you not understand than an argument can have more than one premise? Your reasoning here is ridiculous.

You just don't understand symbolic logic, so address the argument in natural language. 1. the cat is on the mat 2. it is not known that the cat is on ...

p means "the cat is on the mat" ¬Kp means "it is not known that the cat is on the mat" p ? ¬Kp means "the cat is on the mat and it is not known that t...

a the cat is on the mat b nobody knows that the cat is on the mat Both a and b are true. This means that, even though a doesn't say so about itself, a...

Who cares about the rate? They happen, and so abortions should be allowed to account for them.

Contraceptives fail. Rape happens.

Did you not read what I said? Contraceptives fail. Rape happens.

1 is knowable. But this doesn't address what I said before. You clearly just don't understand logic.

Contraceptives fail. Rape happens. Also, there is no fine line between abortion and murder. True, but Thomas' opinion questions the legitimacy of the ...

Yes, but those limits are this:https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1544617010683908097

Possibly: https://twitter.com/jgforsyth/status/1544617641142370304

It's not ambiguous because of the second premise: a) p b) p is unknown

It doesn't make it ambiguous. b is a second (true) proposition that asserts that p is unknown. To repeat an example I gave earlier: 1. "the cat is on ...

It can, but Fitch's paradox takes an example of an unknown truth to show what follows.