I think the question isn't clear. What does it mean to say that I smell some X? When I see Joe Biden on TV I am seeing Joe Biden on TV, and the term "...
I made much the same point here in another recent discussion. So to avoid using the terms "direct" and "indirect", my own take is that we have an expe...
Wording aside, the general idea is that when I put my hand in the fire the pain I feel isn't a property of some external world object but a mental phe...
If nothing is experienced then what is the distinction between having an hallucinatory experience and not having an hallucinatory experience? It seems...
Which is correct. Maybe for mathematical realism, but then that’s a problem with mathematical realism. Just be a mathematical antirealist and accept t...
The consequence of this is that even though we have strong a posteriori evidence for some scientific theory we can rule it out a priori. That seems qu...
There's the Lambda-CDM model which entails eternal expansion (and eventual heat death), and the energy-time uncertainty principle which entails quantu...
Axiom Jane is standing between John and Jack, with John on our left and Jack on our right Inference The person to the right of John is identical to th...
There is. The extensional reading of "1 + 1" is the number 2. The extensional reading of "3 - 1" is also the number 2. And the number 2 is identical t...
Which is why I keep saying: either we are most likely Boltzmann brains or our scientific theories are incorrect. Well, this ties into my rejection of ...
The "laws of nature" are just descriptions of how things behave. Perhaps you meant to ask why things behave the way they do, or why their behaviour is...
Many mathematicians? This goes back to what I said here: Infinite sets have a use in mathematics. That's all that matters. Reading more into them is a...
It was controversial when they didn't know better. It's not controversial now because they know better. Those opposed to set theory now are, for the m...
See the argument here. If we can dismiss the claim that we are most likely Boltzmann brains a priori then we can dismiss the possibility of heat death...
Because we ought reason as if we are randomly selected from the set of all possible observers with experiences like ours, and the set of all possible ...
You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I don't believe that I am a Boltzmann brain or that I am most likely a Boltzmann brain. I am simply explai...
It's an analogy to explain to you the mistake you're making. a. 1 + 1 is identical to 3 - 1. Under an intensional reading (a) is false because adding ...
That's not how it works. With Boltzmann brains there are a finite number of brains, with more of them having incorrect scientific theories than correc...
Well, I can't explaining the mistake you're making in any simpler terms, so if you don't understand that then I can't help you further. You really rea...
You're conflating an extensional and intensional reading. To hopefully make the distinction clear, consider the below: 1. The President of the United ...
Operations don't have a value. Operations return a value. The value returned by the operation of adding 1 to 1 is identical to the value returned by t...
But moving on from Boltzmann brains, although slightly related, there is perhaps something else to consider. If there is an infinite multiverse and if...
If time is a dimension of spacetime then it makes no sense to talk about "before" the singularity. It is simply the case that an initial singularity o...
The Big Bang is the rapid expansion from an initial singularity; that singularity being something like an infinitely compressed spacetime. Although if...
What's the alternative? An infinite past? That has its own problems. If the past is infinite then as of now an infinite period of time has completed, ...
The value represented by the symbol "A" is identical to the value represented by the symbol "B". They are of identical value. Given that 1 + 1 = 3 - 1...
I'm not denying that there are scientific models that avoid the Boltzmann brain problem. I'm simply explaining that, as per the words of cosmologists ...
You're begging the question. The Boltzmann brain problem is that given that our scientific theories entail the eventual formation of an exceptionally ...
If we are Boltzmann brains then our scientific theories are almost certainly incorrect. Yes, I see the problem. But still, as I said: If our scientifi...
Sorry, it was special relativity, not general relativity: For example, see the conventionality of simultaneity. Well, yes. I think it self-evident tha...
I'm not ignoring it because I've never disputed it. If we are Boltzmann brains then our scientific models are almost certainly incorrect. This doesn't...
1. Our scientific models tell us that we are most likely Boltzmann brains. 2. If what our scientific models tell us is true then we are most likely Bo...
I'm not saying that it is rational to believe that we are Boltzmann brains. I am simply explaining that our best scientific models seem to entail that...
I'm simply presenting an alternative view, I'm not trying to argue against your view. Yes, and this is apparently in conflict with general relativity ...
Well, I would say that the traditional view is that physical objects supervene on and move through static space(time). I’m just pushing this up a leve...
The idea is that consciousness is something that supervenes on the physical, much like any traditional dualism, and so is not separable from it. The 4...
My random idea is that the physical host is something like a tunnel and consciousness the occupant. The tunnel is fixed in time and space with conscio...
As you follow Sean Carroll, see here: So, it seems to be exactly what I said above. The best evidence supports (1)-(4), and (7) follows. And his argum...
Just spit balling but how about: Physical objects are 4D objects extended in space and time as per eternalism. Consciousness is a non-physical 0D "obj...
In the context of maths, when we say that A = B we are saying that the value of A is equal to the value of B. The value of A is equal to the value of ...
Was that early or also late Wittgenstein? Because I suspect late Wittgenstein wouldn't have read any metaphysics into set theory. It's just a useful l...
Yes, that's precisely right, and is why your talk of axioms being "false" is nonsense. Axioms aren't truth-apt; they're just either useful for their p...
You're not just saying that. If (1)-(4) are true then (7) is true. You're saying that (7) is false. Therefore you're saying that (1), (2), (3), and/or...
And yet there's the argument here. You're claiming that the "absurdity" of (7) is sufficient justification to reject the evidence that suggests that (...
You're putting the cart before the horse. It's not that we use maths and then retroactively describe what the symbols mean and infer the axioms; it's ...
Comments