litewave

I don't think there is any difference between logical consistency and existence, so logic describes the whole reality. Physics describes the part of r...

What is the difference between property and concept? Isn't it the same general/universal entity? Why would "being" not be a property? "Being", or "exi...

Existence seems to be a property of entities that exist and as a property it can be defined by its instances, that is, by entities that exist. What is...

Maybe that's because such descriptions are incomplete and even if they were complete they might be infinitely long or they might involve objects or re...

I think this is a good point. Every object can be defined with its relations to all other objects. We can arbitrarily take some objects as "primitive"...

You can have different experiences simultaneously, like hearing a sound, seeing something, experiencing a memory and an anticipation, and having the f...

Maybe not. The conscious and subconscious experiences may be simultaneous, the subconscious in the background. Transition from moment to moment may be...

I don't have our experience of passing time figured out, honestly it seems like a major mindfuck. I imagine myself as being extended not only in space...

But such a choice is never made because the apple and the banana are part of the identity of each world and the identity of an object can never be dif...

I think you can put it that way. Another possibility might be that there were two worlds with two sentiences where everything was the same up to a mom...

There can be two sentiences - one experiencing the world with an apple and one experiencing the world with a banana. After all, a sentience is just an...

I don't know what sentience has to do with this. This is about logical consistency: each world is identical to itself. Each world is what it is and is...

Then there are two logically consistent worlds - one in which an apple spawns and one in which a banana spawns. Both worlds exist because they are log...

Because such a world would be logically inconsistent, with respect to the laws that characterize its structure. So I state again: all logically consis...

In mathematics all logically consistent objects exist simultaneously and there is no contradiction. So what? There is nothing logically inconsistent a...

For what it's worth, like a mathematician, I see no difference between existence and logical consistency and so I regard both these concepts as one an...

So you pick out the lion without having a good reason and then you pass your lucky genes to your offspring. Or you don't pick out the lion and your ge...

At heart my ontology is trivial: every possible concrete thing either has no parts (and thus has the structure of the empty set) or has parts (and thu...

But things do happen, and this particular thing (survival) then tended to repeat itself and become more prevalent, simply because that is what survivi...

Well, I also suggested a solution to the problem of qualia, which is the hard problem.

For organisms evolved by random mutations and natural selection, many goals seem to be derived from the primary goal of survival and replication. This...

Intentionality? That seems like an easy problem, not the hard one: a machine following a goal. For example a self-driving car is "intending" to get to...

Maybe what makes consciousness so elusive is that we only regard elementary particles as real things. There aren't really any atoms, neurons or brains...

But a square circle is not really something. It is nothing. In mathematics it is the content of empty set. It's a consistent proposition. You suggest ...

There can't be such things. If there were, there wouldn't be. Right, but sometimes it would be. It is not a violation of the laws of logic for a circl...

Come to think of it, we also don't know what mass or electrical charge is. We just know that it is something that behaves in a certain way, for exampl...

But even an omnipotent being can't create a logically inconsistent object because such an object cannot exist, for example a square circle. Reality mu...

Ok, I'll play God's advocate: God created this world because he couldn't have done differently. Not creating this world would be logically inconsisten...

If a set X exists in a collection (model) which exists in a collection (multiverse), I see no problem in saying that the set X exists. Set theory is a...

Really, where did you get that? I said that such a set exists in a ~CH world and does not exist in a CH world. Well, whether you call the multiverse a...

Then the multiverse is a model of what? Or what is it?

"Clump"? Is that supposed to be another technical term? A multiverse is a collection of universes or worlds, that's all. Then there are "CH worlds" an...

He combines the world of ZFC+CH with the world of ZFC+~CH into a multiverse. And since a set with cardinality between naturals and reals exists in the...

I suppose that you also think that a union of ZFC+CH and ZFC+~CH theories is an inconsistent theory. Yet according to Hamkins the worlds defined by th...

I mentioned ZFC just as an example of axiomatized set theory.

The union of all consistent axiomatized set theories does. Hamkins regards the world defined by ZFC+~CH as equally real as the world defined by ZFC+CH...

on page 2: "In this article, I shall argue for a contrary position, the multiverse view, which holds that there are diverse distinct concepts of set, ...

Well, Wikipedia article on naive set theory just mentions the general concept of a set as a collection of objects, and related general concepts like s...

I think I can clarify a lot by addressing this part of your post: As I said, by "set theory" I mean set theory in the most general sense. I supposed t...

But the actual world is still necessarily identical to itself and therefore cannot be something different than it is. My actions in a merely possible ...

Yes, seemingly. Quantum-mechanical indeterminacy could do that. But a world with a different outcome of a quantum measurement would be a different wor...

Does Kripke believe that it is possible for us to act differently than we actually act? It seems he doesn't, because our actions are parts of spacetim...

Right, and our spacetime is necessarily what it is and could not have been different. Bye bye free will?

I mean "set theory" in the most general sense, also known as naive set theory. It just says that a set is a collection of objects. This general concep...

Why would there be less to do in a merely possible world? Some worlds may be simple and others more complex, whether they are merely possible or real.

And what is the difference between a logically possible world and a real world?

Thoughts may actually be concrete objects (parts of a brain) and abstract objects in the sense of universals, like numbers, may actually be similarity...

What question do you mean?

I may stumble upon a good book review and then the information from the review together with my intent to learn about subject X create in me the inten...

Yes, you could say that the agent is his ingrained predispositions (as well as his experiences in the course of his life). So the agent has free will ...