Amalac

Hmm, ok. I meant that you may need the excluded middle (as it applies to mathematical statements) to show that the Gödel sentence was not meaningless ...

You only need these tools: knowledge about Gödel numbering, knowledge about formal systems, and the law of the excluded middle. Did you even bother re...

The Gödel statement is not a set, it's a statement. It references itself, but unlike other statements that can be classified as meaningless, like the ...

Do you know about Gödel numbering? If so, you should be able to understand why the Gödel statement is a mathematical statement.

Wrong, here's what Russell actually did say about the barber paradox: The source is “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism”.

In your OP you mention 2 possibilities: 1.x, y and z not being members of themselves. 2. x, y and z being members of themselves. Then you say: if 1 is...

What “tripped up” Frege was Russell's paradox, not the barber paradox.

If I may interrupt for a second, Bertrand Russell did not approve of re-stating his paradox as the barber paradox:

I'm not sure about that, it seems that if one accepts that the problem of induction also applies to psychology, Hume has no right to say things like t...

At the risk of making you lose your patience again... isn’t this relation between the sight of an apple and the expectation of a certain kind of taste...

Here you say they are members of themselves. If they are members of themselves, then x can be contained in x, right? So if set y and set z are members...

Is the series of negative integers, ordered from smallest to biggest (ascendingly), complete? Yes, in the sense that it ends with its last element -1....

That's what Russell is saying would be the case if Hume was right (if I understood him correctly).

It's not just that we may be wrong about how future apples will taste, but also that we have no reason to expect that in the future we will even expec...

That’s not what Russell is saying, he’s saying that my expectation that when I see an apple in the future, it will taste like how apples usually taste...

Do you disagree with any of that? By the way, I said “the law of habit” not “habit”, they are not quite the same thing.

If y and z are members of x, then you actually can write it (if a set can be a member of itself). (I'm refering to the part where you say x is a membe...

What do you make of the rest of what Russell says then?: Here Russell elaborates further on his view (the format here got a little messed up when I co...

All that would prove is that Hume was inconsistent and could not follow his scepticism to the end. If that's your point, then I think you are right. B...

What you say here reminds me of David Hume's view (as Bertrand Russell interprets him) that we percieve relations of time and place, although we do no...

Isn't an infinite number of years an infinite amount of time? I don't see how that distinction is important. Surely, this doesn't answer the question:...

As it's commonly used, “passed” or “elapsed” implies a beginning and an end. This sort of definition is the one I have in mind: That definition doesn'...

“X amount of time passed” by definition implies that it passed since some point in the timeline to some other point in the timeline. So if you say an ...

Then since when? I thought earlier you said the question wasn't even legitimate. But anyway, just tell me how you define the term “passed” (what I ask...

That doesn't answer my question. “5 years have elapsed since 2016 to today” has a clear meaning for me, but “infinitely many years have passed since «...

Time elapses “since” some moment in time (not necessarily an absolute beginning in time of the universe) “to” some other moment in time. If not, then ...

...since when?

There are rigurous proofs of the irrationality of ?, so yes, that's logically impossible. Following that example: We can never begin recting all the n...

Well to go back to Kant, when he's speaking about time passing he means that time has “elapsed”. Surely, it wouldn't make sense to say that space “ela...

What is the boundary of the world then? I guess you mean something like the CMB? But just because we cannot see beyond the CMB, that doesn't mean that...

It seems that the flaws of the argument in the OP are somewhat similar (I say this being very charitable of course) to those explained in this more in...

There's nothing contradictory about it (though the way Meinong expressed his ideas is peculiar). But since it seems like that's not what you are talki...

So you are saying that an infinite amount of time “passed” in that infinite past universe, but not since any particular moment in time. What do you me...

So, perhaps you are hinting at Alexius Meinong's distinction between existence and being (I'm going to charitably assume that), in that case I'd say a...

Oh dear, just answer the question: Assuming the universe was infinite towards the past, and that an infinite amount of time passed all the way to the ...

Obviously yes, but I don't see how you go from that to «therefore God exists», since you say your argument is not like Anselm’s, or Descartes’s, or Le...

That’s quite the jump there, if you are trying to argue that God’s existence is analytic, that could only happen if God was a being whose essence invo...

Well, here's Kant's argument from my copy of the Critique of Pure Reason: It's perhaps not quite the same as Popper's interpretation, if taken literal...

No, the point is that it's challenging the idea that it is better to exist than not to exist, since we naturally think that such a devil would be wors...

There is also the devil corollary:

I'd say we should follow Kant's view on this matter:

The most effective refutation of such kinds of ontological arguments that I know of is the one invented by Kant: existence is not a predicate, or if y...

Ok, so according to this distinction the universe is never experienced as a phenomenon, unlike the world, right? You say that we've witnessed the worl...

If there is no beginning in time, then yes. If 1 is true, then yes. That does follow if 1 and 2 are true. If the past is infinite, then the infinite p...

If you are not using the words “world” and “universe” as synonyms, then what's the difference between the two? Right, but that would mean that we coul...

Ok, but you said before that it was a tautology, which seems untrue: the universe is not by definition finite towards the past, which would be the cas...

But when someone says an infinite amount of time “passes”, if they don't mean that it passes from some moment in time to some other moment in time (wh...

What about the series of negative integers? It has no first term of course, but it ends in -1, so that it is “completed” in that sense. Why can't the ...

If you have to look for evidence in support of that proposition, then it's no longer a tautology. It may be logically necessary given the laws of phys...

Seems to me like that would only be true if the universe were finite towards the past, which doesn’t seem tautologically true, since if it were, no ph...