Shawn

I'm basically asking if you can describe n dimensions in n-1 dimensions. Does this apply from going from n to n-k dimensions also or is 1 to 1 corresp...

So, information is not lost when going to a lower dimension? But, then how can "time" exist in 3-dimensions?

What do you mean? Trying to figure out what...

I think, the solution is "curiosity" or nurturing that flame inside one's self. You can't really live as a solipsist even if you try.

But, but, I want it now!

Please start one. I haven't let my CPU enough time to process through that insight.

I tend to think of myself as an absolute introvert. By "absolute" I mean, I can't even role play an extrovert. Some people have the ability to "become...

I got stuck. I'll be back soon to play catch up, with what we're covering. @"Banno", what page are we on?

If Wikipedia were a living entity, it would tell you that philosophy is very important. And the time-quantifier "today" means nothing. See: https://th...

Here's more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy

The paradox is REAL!

Well, I think it is interesting. Thoughts?

Yeah, they just are. Hence, I don't see your argument as legitimate, unless treating their descriptive content as necessary a posteriori to establishi...

This is false, because the rigid designator is the same across all possible worlds where Hesperus and Phosphorus denote the same entity. If what you m...

But, the seventh proposition of the Tractatus can be interpreted as self-referential to all the previous propositions. Hence, the principle of bipolar...

Here are some of the responses I got from Stack Exchange: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/58946/when-are-accessibility-relations-satisf...

Yes, I am. What are your thoughts about that?

Here I go repeating myself; but, that can only depend on one world from within a stipulation of another possible world can be made. So, yeah, I agree ...

Sorry to pester you; but, you have established a frame of reference where an accessibility relation obtains. If I didn't win the lotto then I didn't i...

Thanks. I'm just confused because what is necessarily true in one world may not be accountable in another possible world. One world constrains the oth...

Yes, if we talk about an accessibility relation of me winning the lottery in a possible world where I played the lotto, then where is the quantificati...

My question was in regards to counterfactuals and their existential dependency, as you call it. Is it not important that the world we can stipulate is...

I don't understand. What's the point being made about this? It is a fact that H2O is water and that it is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Yes?

You may not call them that; but, that is what they are called in analytic philosophy to the best of my knowledge. I don't understand this, please expa...

I see. So, the simplest atomic constituent is self-evident? Isn't this logical atomism or Leibnizian monadology rehashed?

What are elemental constituents? Yes, via accessibility.

So, it's logical atomism again.

I will refrain from posting about accessibility since, if I correctly recall, you're still the leader of this reading group, Banno. There are these tw...

You're being obstinate for no good reason. Accessibility is what enables one to stipulate. Yes, they aren't the same, I agree.

It does because quantification of modality is a thorny issue in logic. Don't you think? The SEP entry on it would illustrate that. I've already tried ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4290/principle-of-bipolarity

But, you can't stipulate (quantify) without referring back to our own world (instantiation, I think). Can you satisfy accessibility without adherence ...

Although it seems to me, very circular, to say that accessibility is granted through stipulation. Thoughts?

To parrot your style although I think there's much more that can be said here than what I am able to, stipulation.

This seems relevant to the discussion we're having:

So, to answer my own question @"creativesoul", quantification of counterfactuals actually is a large and growing body of science or philosophy. What a...

This is relevant. Quine was opposed to quantification of modal relations. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#QuaModLog

This is relevant. Quine was opposed to quantification of modal relations. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#QuaModLog

Then we can only "measure" counterfactuals by an accessibility relation to own own world. Therefore how can we assert something as necessarily true in...

But what your saying is tantamount to asserting the existential onus on a form of Platonic essentialism or "forms"? Yes?

They are existentially dependent on our own world, I think. They have accessibility relation to our world. Yes?

No.

Wallowing ensues and intensifies.

How so?

So, counterfactuals have existential dependency?

What else do you propose when talking about simples (atomic facts, logical simples, monads?)?

Liebniz monadology or logical atomism? They are equivalent in my view.

Well the entire scope of dimensionality is the same wrt. to God. It's up-down not bottom-up.

@"Banno" or someone care to help me out?

What do you want me to expand on?