On point!

Do you understand Gödel's argument? If you do, kindly sum it for me. If you don't where do you get stuck so to speak?

You read me mind mon ami! I haven't been able to formulate as clear an understanding of understanding.

What do you make of the following?

Wir müssen wissen - Wir werden wissen (We must know - we will know). — David Hilbert (German mathematician)

Amazing! I havta read up on the topic! Wikipedia should have an article or two on it.

So you're suggesting that some people block out stuff that may be critical to his/her grasp of a subject under discussion (this being involuntary). Yep, that's correct!

What of a broader/different perspective on defense mechanisms? Any ideas?

Ok. Arigato gozaimus.

Defense mechanisms - heard of those, quite a long time ago though. Are they still legitimate ideas in psychology? Could you please give me an example. Danke.

The blind spot,inter alia, is a classic case of poor design, wouldn't you agree mon ami? There are, I feel, some inconsistencies, here & there, but it's not in my place to, you know, point fingers.

Understanding, what is it? I recall giving me opinion on the subject a long time ago, but I have Alzheimer's (self-diagnosed). So yeah!

Oh! I remember now, Schrödinger's cat was Schrödinger's gibe at QM as it was probably being interpreted during his day. Not, it seems, to reveal profundity, but rather to expose stupidity.

The Everett Solution to Paradoxes

Hugh Everett is the guy who proposed the Many Worlds Interpretation. Basically, Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive but in 2 different universes. The Schrödinger's cat scenario is no longer a contradiction.

Paradoxes: True contradictions (p & ~p). Visit Wikipedia for more.

The Everett Solution to Paradoxes: If a contradiction (p & ~p) arises, it follows that the universe splits into two, one in which p and the other in which ~p.

A penny for your pensées ... — Agent Smith

It all boils down to the 3^rd law of thought (the law of noncontradiction/the LNC). If A and not A are both true, we need at least 2 worlds/universes.

Juat because we haven't found reasons doesn't imply that there are no reasons (moral realism is true). This is, to me, a perennial problem in epistemology.

Question: Can we construct a Gettier case without it being possible to rephrase any aspect of it in terms of a mistake/unknown?

In the cow in the field case, the person mistakes the cloth in the wind to be a cow. In the original Gettier case, that Smith himself had 10 coins in his pocket was an unknown.

how is 2 constructed from 3 — hypericin

$\frac{3}{3} + \frac{3}{3} = 2$

You're right, but only on a technical point and it's reassuring to see people like yourself with experience in philosophy around here.

As to the topic at hand, I was in search of a finite number N_max such that no physical calculation ever exceeds N_max.

Nonetheless, it seems you're on the mark, $\aleph_1$ (the reals?) is the only level of $\infty$ required for our universe.

Which group if either do you believe are most likely to try to "break free". — Benj96

Well, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that both groups will wanna break free, but for different reasons (duh!) and at different times. However, coincidences of the kind that give people goosebumps can occur with a frequency that may ultimately deaden our senses to them.

Welcome back, buddy. Nice photograph. — jgill

Why, thank you! Good to see you too.

Again with the cryptics! What guy? — Vera Mont

Apologies. Try reframing the topic (of discussion) temporally.

Norms are useful or not useful for some purpose; they are not truth-claims in any sense. A moral statement like "torture is wrong" is, to my way of thinking, only a shorthand for some custom or norm (i.e. mores) — 180 Proof

Logic agrees with you mon ami, but the problem, for me at least, is in what sense are norms meaningful if not by being "true"?

Once again, familiarize yourself with the relevant literature - something I should have done a while ago. And I don't know why you are here either, Smith — ToothyMaw

Sound advice. Danke!

Well, truth is norms like "we should/shouldn't torture" can be true/false, but not in the same sense as say the statement "snow is white".

Magnifique!

Who would've, even in his wildest imaginings, thought things so small as atoms would require us to posit things so large as multiverses?

@180 Proof is on target but que saise-je?

Your honor, Mr. Brown's fingerprints were all over the house - on the door knob, on the knife, on the faucet, on the TV remote. However, there were two cigarette butts in the ashtray and a glass of half-finished Whiskey on the kitchen table. Neither Mr. Brown nor the deceased who was stabbed 22 times smoked or drank.

Glad you finally got an appropriate avatar. Lol. — TiredThinker

Gracias. You're too kind. I'm plugged in, again.

Good points! However, apart from AI, which is still a fantasy, technology ain't the guy!

What "argument"? — 180 Proof

My bad, science is always trying to disprove itself and still its detractors are having such a tough time. How sad is that? You (antiscience brigade) can't even kill a guy (science) who's trying to perform hara kiri :lol:

They are norms or rules not propositions, so what do you propose any such "true moral claims" would even be like? :chin: — 180 Proof

I believe you're correct. The notion norm is self-explanatory as far as I can tell. The heart of the matter is but the question "What the f**k am I doing here?"

Very easy: aleph-1 — ssu

So is ssu right?

:chin: I'll have to think about that (when I can).

For the moment I'd say we're pretty much in a reallydark spot despite the valiant efforts of many, misguided though they may be. There seems to be an issue we're not giving the required amount of attention. I suppose it really doesn't count in the long run but que sais-je? We're on a wonderful journey out in the open ocean. Will we find what we're looking for? Sabrà Mandrake!

This is a superb question and I thank you for it. @Wayfarer's posts, if you're interested enough to search for them, should point you in the right direction.

@Ludwig V

There's a rationale to miracles and interpretations thereof and it involves, inter alia, what truth (really) is.

Nice definition. Luck, to me, is, sensu latissimo, a conjunction of favorable (good luck) or unfavorable (bad luck) elements that have both short-term and long-term impact on one's life.

Ex mea (humble) sententia, let the facts speak for themselves. It can't be denied that when one is (sensu amplissimo) thinking, there's electrical activity in the brain.

Very easy: aleph-1. The the infinite cardinal of the real numbers

Because I think there's still something for us to understand with infinity, it isn't so easy that to use finite logic. And more interestingly, bigger infinities seem not to be usefull for example in physics, computing, etc. — ssu

What's $\aleph_1$?

Are we talkin' about the reals?

You've picked up the scent mon ami but que sais-je.

Right, you're talking about some sort of "occult" energy loss, universeness is trying to claim that scientific experiments have proven that all energy is conserved, and Banno is rambling some nonsense about instantaneous velocity. It's no wonder I haven't the faintest idea what you guys are talking about.

Maybe one of you could step forward and at least try to say something reasonable for a change? — Metaphysician Undercover

:rofl:

As gentle as a lion can be, eh?

We wouldn't need to say anytging more but maybe "thank you" to you if and when you deign to cite some scientific experiments which corrobrate your assertion that in modern physics "conservation laws are false". — 180 Proof

Isn't this argument circular?

Is there a phrase "pure experience"? What does it mean?

Anyway, you, I suppose, put it in a way closer to the truth with "ultra-linguistic" - the flaw is not with us but with ....

Mysticism, ex mea sententia, is the low hanging fruit - go for it by all means.

Logical positivism is, I'm told, self-refuting as it can't be verified. It puts verification first and foremost and subscribes to an obvious theory of truth based on matching an element in one set with that of another.

B = The cat is black

How do you determine the truth value of B? By checking (if the cat is in fact black). If the cat is black, B is true and if the cat isn't black, B is false. It couldn't get simpler or more profound than that in me humble opinion mes amies.

Did you have something in mind?

The OP lists a few possible uses for the word, but we now seem to be dealing with the supposed ineffability of private first person experiences - what ever they are. — Banno

Does all this have anything to do with Wittgenstein's private language "argument"?

Ineffable means that which can't be put into words and I suspect this is meant to expose a language barrier impossible to break.

Are we conflating ineffability with something else?

@Hanover

It all boils down to whether people have the time & skills to argue and argue well. To make matters worse arguments, no matter how well-crafted, may not be enough to convince people of the truth.

Objection sustained!

Seems to me the obvious response, should you want to keep bivalence, is the block universe. It is true, or it is false, that “I shall be in Warsaw at noon on 21 December of next year,” but we don't know which. — Banno

What do you make of the statement, spoken by Brown to Jones, "I'll call you tomorrow at 9:00 AM" when

1. Jones does get a call from Brown at 9:00 AM (tomorrow)
2. Jones' phone doesn't ring at all from 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM (tomorrow)

?