Meta

Stoned Jesus is here fuck yeah!

Im fucking drunk. Go fuck the fuck out of fuck.

I don't know if your model is merely mathematical or physical. If it is mathematical then fractal-like objects like an infinite "regress" of chess boa...

My struggling with English makes it harder to express my thoughts. So again. My problems with your claim are that 1) Senses don't perceive every bit o...

"For example, we could divide a chess square into ten pieces, a.k.a. ten different sensors, each measuring whether its fraction of the square is compl...

Infinite divisibility and having infinite segments can be interpreted in the abstract set theoretic universe. Its your subjective opinion that you don...

I dont see your point. You say using induction in an example from mechanics is just plain wrong yet your argument in your first post is based on the a...

My "idea" in the first place was to provide an example of why "even in an infinite universe we will never reach the end of an infinite sequence of num...

All this divisibility thing depends on the definition of time and space (in my opinion). As you can see I prefer the theoretic over the applied or obs...

Yes we can say that induction is bad, mathematics is bad, we know nothing about the real world, or that the world doesnt even exist. We can disagree i...

Zeno's paradox was needed to show we can't state for sure that an infinite chain of events is impossible. In fact the only solution I know to Zeno's p...

Zeno's paradox "shows" that an infinite number of events can happen in finite time. Edit: No this wont turn into a ZP discussion but you seem to be st...

You can't be so sure. Zeno's paradox shows that for example.

Every finite sequence of heads will occur with probability 1. However this is not true for the infinite case.

I think the answer depends on how you formalize the question. It also depends on the model of universe you use.

In fact if you want to define S without having a truth value then you have to give up the X <-> X & (A or not A) tautology. Because lets say A <-> X i...

It is not real freedom just an illusion of freedom. As Bitter Crank said: "You are free insofar as you obey." You are free to do what the government o...

It is "freedom" not freedom. The devil is in the details.

I totally agree with you. Modern society rewards socipathic behaviour. I think this will lead to ugly consequences. We can become feminists or sjws or...

I was a bit sloppy there. When I said A <-> not A I meant that the equivalence is the defining equivalence of A and in order to be a valid definition ...

Sticking with naive logic. You say that the statement in the OP cant be false because of the liar paradox. The liar paradox says that the statement A ...

I think a better expression instead of self- referential would be self-containing maybe? Like the symbol of the meta language denoting a sentence can ...

It's not me it's reality.

I don't care about your opinion. The creepy thing is the so called culture of the US.

Well I don't want to explain I think it is not too hard to see the point.

I don't have any studies to back this up. I think this is what they teach at the medicore universities in my shitty country. (In Evolutionary psycholo...

I am shocked that my post have been deleted. I will try to form my thoughts in a different way so nobody gets offended. We know that females are evolu...

I know that it is raining. I also know that if it is raining then Bill is not on the beach. So I know that Bill is not on the beach. In this case epis...

I get it now, thanks!

I don't see why (1. or 2. or 3.) have to be almost certainly true. Can you explain it in a few words?

We use the expression self-reference differently. When I say self-reference I mean (as I have explained earlier) that the definiens can not contain th...

This argument fails when applied to a natural language, because there is no precise definition for <is a well-formed formula>. Only our intuition can ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n-ojOnrfYk From the essay: "Although Ziegler has a credible explanation for everything that's happened--Harford's har...

If we have a first order language L we can define a relation symbol (with one variable) R by saying: R(x) <-> Phi(x) Where Phi(x) is a formula of L. R...

Problem is that preachers of the Bible are among the most greedy people on Earth.

Let me clarify what I want to say. Let's take the Berry paradox. In the paradox there is a definition D which is talking about every (arithmetical) de...

I have to correct myself. Can't speak about all statements in a definition of a statement. edit: But.... If we think about statements more naively and...

Maybe you are right but I don't think that Kubrick would make a movie without deep social critique. I see your point though.

"Why?" Because Your arguments can not be formalized. You can't speak about "all statements" formally. Nvm I like your idea. I just don't see why we sh...

My claim is independent if these events "really" happened in the fictional universe. My claim is that Kubrick indirectly (through fictional events) te...

I don't really know what is going on in the political scene of the US. I am not into politics very much to be honest. I don't know if there are any (s...

I agree with you in what you said. I don't mind if there are classes of society. But the point of the movie is that the highest class can get people k...

I think the point could be to show that if we want to define a predicate P(x) in a formal language that means x exists then our only option is to make...

The last part is necessary for the formula to be well-formed. And yes, it is a tautology, but it expresses existence. Any other tautologies would be s...

Existence can be modelled syntactically: P(x) iff ?x(x=x) P(x) is true if and only if x exists. (x exists iff it equals with itself) Semantical existe...

University logic says you did not prove anything. Your statements are meaningless. You're welcome. edit: Who are the "most logicians and philosophers"...

In formal logic directly self referential statements like the one you showed do not exist and can not be defined. So your problem is a problem of naiv...

So what is your conclusion?

You argument itself is valid in sentential logic. So you have proven the existence of God. But wait! I can also prove the existence of God: 1. axiom: ...

I can imagine God riding a pink unicorn. This is greater than not riding one. Therefore God rides a pink unicorn. If one accepts your argument then he...