Michael

Or we write it as: a) p b) ¬Kp a is knowable, b is not knowable, a ? b is not knowable. It's really straightforward logic. Fitch et al. know what they...

It's in the article. (A) K(p ? q) ? Kp ? Kq (B) Kp ? p 1. K(p ? ¬Kp) Assumption 2. Kp ? K¬Kp from 4, by (A) 3. Kp ? ¬Kp from 5, applying (B) to the ri...

No. It's p ? ?Kp. ? is the symbol for "it is possible that".

No it doesn't. As I've said before, I just don't know how to explain this to you any more clearly than I already have.

I know. But as I said above, a statement doesn't need to state every fact about itself. Your claim that I am quoting is written in English, even thoug...

No, it doesn't. Imagine these two propositions: 1. "the cat is on the mat" is true 2. "the cat is on the mat" is true and is written in English To rep...

It doesn't. I thought we went over this? You seemed to understand it here:

He previously submitted a story that he claimed afterwards to be deliberately racist and sexist and so he was banned from participating again.

Doubtful. It’ll be the usual blather and refusal to resign.

Holy shit, Sunak and Javid gone?!

Yes, that's exactly the point. It is true but can't be known. Therefore, the (unrestricted) knowability principle is false.

Then the claim that if a proposition is true then it is knowable is wrong. One must instead claim, as Tennant does, that if a Cartesian proposition is...

So light with a wavelength of 650nm is the same colour as light with a wavelength of 651nm because they're very similar wavelengths?

You've talked before about unspoken propositions. How does that square with abstract objects not existing? Does it just mean that we can say things th...

We can't be, that's the problem.

Not when you're arguing against certain brands of anti-realism which deny the "trivial" distinction that realists take for granted.

Well, I have a map of the United States which is definitely not a part of the United States. Exactly what I said before; the utterance "the cat is on ...

And again, you're just being too literal in your reading. When others talk about a distinction between language and the world understand it as your of...

I think you're being too literal in your reading. They're just saying that the utterance "the cat is on the mat" is not the cat being on the mat. What...

Kellyanne Conway denies Trump press secretary lied: 'He offered alternative facts'

Then read up on Tennant’s and Dummett’s responses. They’re in that SEP article. Tennant’s is the simplest: Tennant (1997) focuses on the property of b...

10-year-old girl denied abortion in Ohio

Yes. Regardless of the symbols you use to express the proposition, it is impossible to know that the cat is on the mat and that nobody knows that the ...

I'm sorry but I just don't know how to fix your confusion. I've tried my best.

Here are two propositions: 1. the cat is on the mat 2. the cat is on the mat and the mat was bought from Ikea Both are true, and even though the first...

p ? ¬Kp is how you express it. The problem is that you seem to go from "p ? ¬Kp" is unknowable to "p" is unknowable. And that just doesn't follow.

This is where you have a fundamental misunderstanding that I don't know how to explain to you. Maybe like this? a) p b) a is not known to be true Both...

That p ? ¬Kp is unknowable isn't that p is unknowable. The number of coins in the jar is p. We can know p.

2 does that. I don't understand what you're asking for here. The argument simply shows that if you take the knowability principle and the non-omniscie...

It isn't. We can count the coins and then we will know how many coins are in the jar. Which is why it is possible to know it. Which is why the knowabi...

1. p 2. p ? ¬Kp Assume p is true. Both 1 and 2 are true. Neither 1 nor 2 are known to be true. 1 can be known to be true. 2 can't be known to be true.

I'm not interested in proving that propositions exists. I am simply, for the sake of argument, taking as a premise that "p" is true iff p, or to use a...

These are two different propositions: 1. There are 163 coins in the jar 2. There are 163 coins in the jar and no-one knows there is It is possible tha...

No it isn't. There are some things which are unknown truths which can become known, e.g. the number of coins in a jar.

The same with S(M). As the article says, "the Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneo...

No it doesn't. "There are 163 coins in the jar" was an unknown truth before someone counted, and then it became a known truth. I don't know what you m...

You said: "Since S(M) never possesses any explanatory power above M, and yet S(M) is always more complex than M, S(M) can always be discarded via Occa...

I don't know, as I previously said.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5738/ignore-list-browser-extension/p1

This is what the Wikipedia article says: A brain evolving naturally requires a much larger ecosystem (a Star, a habitable planet, millions of years of...

I have no representatives.

OK, I've done some further research and in classical logic ¬?x(x=q) isn't allowed and in free logic T(q) ? ?x(x=q) is false. I'll strike out the free ...

According to the knowability principle, if a proposition is true then it is knowable. Therefore, if a proposition is not knowable then it is not true....

a. "p" is an unknown truth b. "p" was an unknown truth These are not the same proposition. According to the knowability principle, if a proposition is...

This (and the comments by @"Snakes Alive" in the discussion you linked to) would suggest that ?x(x = q) is valid in first-order logic, and doesn't req...

Then what logic am I using when I say that if John is bald then John exists? Or that if the cat is on the mat then the cat exists? Because they seem l...

How is it ill-formed? It makes perfect sense to me: If John is bald then something exists which is bald If John is bald then something exists Are you ...

Is there a difference between "if John is bald then there is something that is bald" and "if John is bald then there exists something that is bald"?

I'm pretty sure my comment above addresses that. If John is bald then John exists If the proposition "it is raining" is written in English then the pr...

I'm just explaining what is meant by the predicate T. I could have written the argument as: 1. ?p: "p" is true ? p But that would require more typing.