Michael

I agree. This is the issue with the very meaning of the terms "direct" and "indirect". Each often seems to be defined as the inverse of the other, whi...

Well, I think any reasonable philosophy needs to take into account the facts as we best understand them. According to General Relativity time is the f...

Nothing really. "Tell me the truth" just means "don't lie". What does "Sherlock Holmes exists as an idea" mean? Does it mean "the idea of Sherlock Hol...

If "ghosts" referred to something that exists then ipso facto ghosts exist. Ghosts don't exist. Therefore, "ghosts" doesn't refer to something that ex...

Ghosts don't exist. Therefore the word "ghosts" in the sentence "ghosts don't exist" doesn't refer to something that exists.

Did you see the next sentence of my comment (I can't remember if I edited it in after)? "Ghost" is a noun. The existence of the noun "ghost" doesn't d...

Just because a word satisfies the grammatical role of being a noun isn't that it corresponds to some object that exists in the universe. "Ghost" is a ...

No. We just use the word "true" to describe a sentence that we understand as describing some feature of the world. There's no reason to treat "truth" ...

Yes, that's how the sentence "this sentence is not true" is translated into symbolic logic.

Do they? I think this is where you're over-interpreting physicalism. Physicalism, as I understand it, is the position that everything that exists is a...

I actually deleted that comment because I recognise that mountain height isn’t the best example. I think my previous comment about property is more pe...

Why? Is the below a big problem for materialism? At T1 the ball is someone's property. At T2 everybody dies. Nothing physical has changed about the ba...

At T1 the ball is someone's property. At T2 everybody dies. Nothing physical has changed about the ball but it is no longer someone's property. At T1 ...

Well let's imagine a hypothetical physicalist: 1. In a brainless universe there are no true sentences; books simply contain ink printed on paper 2. Ev...

My initial guess was that they would rule that a criminal conviction for insurrection would be required, but then I read that a criminal conviction ha...

Right, I'm getting court cases mixed up. There's another one starting tomorrow about whether or not Trump can be removed from the ballot.

Maybe they would, but they don't have to. Or maybe they use the word "fact" to refer to both true sentences and the things that true sentences describ...

They can say that a science textbook is full of true sentences that refer to facts.

Is that what the physicalist means by "fact"? Or do they mean the thing that a true sentence describes?

It's full of true sentences about mountains. It's not full of mountains. What do you mean by "fact"? Do you mean "true sentence" or do you mean the th...

Does physics describe what the above even means?

I think there's an element of ambiguity here. For some, the word "fact" means "true sentence". For others the word "fact" refers to the aspect of the ...

My guess is that they delay it long enough that they can then declare it moot, allowing Trump to be a candidate, but not issuing an actual judgement o...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfduUFF_i1A

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis Helvering v. Davis

You seem to misunderstand what is happening here. Take the English language sentence "this sentence is English". To better examine this we decide to t...

That's not Hilbert's paradox. There's no "magically doubling into 2 rooms" or anything like that. It's simply that whoever is in room 1 moves into roo...

These are two different sentences that you seem to be confusing: 1. X ? (X ? Y) 2. X ? (X ? Y) In ordinary language, these mean: 1. "X" means "if X is...

What is this supposed to mean?

So all you're saying is that in Euclidean geometry the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. And they do so because of the axioms of Euclidean g...

What do you mean by an "imperfect" triangle?

You should see non-Euclidean geometry where the angles in a triangle can be more or less than 180 degrees.

Actually yes

Wayfarer will be back by tomorrow.

I'm guessing it's an age thing.

The sentence isn't truth apt, but "married bachelor" is a contradiction. But neither "if this sentence is true then I am 30 years old" nor "if this se...

The first line is a definition, not a premise, and so not truth apt. It is simply saying this: Let "A" mean "if A is true then B is true".

It doesn't. This is your misunderstanding. Russell's paradox only shows that the axiom schema of unrestricted comprehension leads to a contradiction, ...

It’s not that the definition is bad, it’s that when we apply the normal rules of logic to some self-referential sentences then we lead to a contradict...

Consider these sentences: 1. if this sentence is true then Germany borders China 2. if (2) is true then Germany borders China Do you accept that (1) a...

Yes. I'm not interested in teaching you mathematics. I am simply explaining to you that Russell proved that the axioms of naive set theory are inconsi...

See Dunning–Kruger effect.

If you were a mathematician then you would know that this is false. You're just in no position to argue against Cantor.

Yes, we can establish set X as being "bigger" than set Y without counting the number of items in X and Y. We can establish this by using Cantor's diag...

The axioms of naive set theory entail (1). Therefore, the axioms of naive set theory are inconsistent. This is all Russell's paradox shows. Again, you...

It is an answer. You just don't understand it because you're not a mathematician.

Two statements are materially equivalent if either both are true or both are false: 1. A if and only if B If (1) is true then "A" and "B" are material...

Cantor's diagonal argument.

It doesn't. If you were a mathematician then you would understand it. Your question simply shows your ignorance of mathematics. You're really in no po...

This is where you show that you don't understand the problem. Naive set theory accepts both the axiom of extensionality and the axiom schema of unrest...