okay. "It will be day time if the Sun is to rise above Earth" looks like a statement to me. You're saying it's not a statement, it's "a logic". I don't know what you mean by that, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of other posters here also would not know what you mean by that. What is "a logic" and how is it different from a statement?

I don't know what you're saying "no" to

when you say "logic" do you mean "statement"? Because "It will be day time if the Sun is to rise above Earth" looks just like a normal statement to me.

And as a statement, sure, we know this statement is true for empirical reasons - we observe it regularly, we live in a world where other people observe it regularly.

fair enough

don't you think naming schools after rich benefactors serves as a useful incentive to get them to donate? If their vanity is the only reason they donate, why not pander to their vanity and help all those students at the same time?

Which of those attempts at formalization resonate with you most?

are you already aware of any attempts by other thinkers to formalize or semi formalize these ideas?

That itself is a seismic thought because it means thay we could be existing in a reality completely separate from 99.99999% of all possible realities. A bubble. — Benj96

Yes, I think it's an idea worth entertaining that this universe we find ourselves in is a bubble, in a sea of other unique non interacting bubbles.

Unfortunately, it's almost entirely speculative and unprovable (and probably unfalsifiable), but perhaps there's value in it anyway.

the different possibilities don't necessarily have to interact with each other, do they?

It's like running two simulations on the same computer "simultaneously". Even though they're both running, they both have their own independent facts about their own simulations, that are distinct and not affecting the other simulations. One simulation can be simulating thousands of interactions a second, and the other one could take an hour to simulate just one tiny interaction - they don't have to interact or have the same processing rate or speed or anything.

what are empirical logics?

it's another non paradox. Some people seem really eager to call any thought experiment a "paradox".

How might such a universe look? — Benj96

Well, given that THIS universe is possible, then there must be at least some part of THAT universe which looks exactly like this one.

So... at least for a brief moment... such a universe would look like this.

All agents who call for suicidal measures are at fault.
The left called for suicidal measures [to be effected in Iran in the last days of the Shah].
Therefore the left is at fault, — Jedothek

If this is truly the argument given, then I don't see an undistributed middle. Are you sure you got this part right?

[edit] after having watched the clip from about a minute before your suggested timestamp to the point where he says it, I don't think that it's obvious at all that the logic you laid out here is the thing he's calling an undistributed middle. That being said, I'm not entirely sure what he is calling that.

I don't even know what you're talking about, judgey and bullying. You've been judging and bullying me for the last page. I just wanted to offer a link that's on topic in a straight forward way and you took that as an invitation to judge and bully me.

point out something clever? No... I tried to contribute something straight forward to the thread, a data point of interest. I thought people interested in this thread would be interested in an actual case study. It's not particular clever, but it's hopefully interesting.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/899246

Does it look like I'm trying to be clever?

I honestly just want you to accept that, in a thread where the title is about trusting your own mind, it's on topic for me to link to a Reddit post about a guy who doesn't trust his own mind.

You're writing paragraphs and paragraphs and how is "political", but it's really simple: it's on topic in literally the most straight forward possible way. The dude doesn't trust his own mind.

I don't need to you explain philosophy to me. If you want to talk to me, what I need you to attempt to make clear is your own thoughts - you didn't do that. You took a post I made that literally had 0 political content, started ranting about how it's "political", and didn't make any effort to make clear how it's political - and then you decided to start being cruel to me when I said I don't know what you're on about.

If you don't have any desire to make clear what you think, I don't know what point there is for you to use language at all. What point is there to it, if not to make your thoughts clear?

yes.

If you perceived me saying some post of yours read like a non sequitur to me as rude, just know, the point of me saying that is not rudeness or cruelty but to express that I don't understand how your reply to me makes sense given what I was saying. The correct response to that isn't for you to decide to start being cruel to me, the correct response is to either spell out why your reply does make sense, or to just disengage.

I was not actively trying to be cruel or rude to you, you were making posts directed at me that didn't make sense to me so I expressed that. There's nothing malicious in that.

If you believe I was cruel to you first, please show me where

This is a thread about trusting your own mind. I linked to a Reddit thread about a dude who was having trouble figuring out how to trust his own mind. This, bizarrely, has led you to start talking to me very cruelly, and I don't think it makes a lick of sense. You don't have any reason to direct your cruelty at me.

you have decided, for god knows what reason, to just start saying rude things to me. I don't understand what the context is for you to be speaking to me like this, it feels really bizarre and kinda crazy. You aren't explaining yourself, you're just continuing with this weird cruelty. Is that the point of this? Is this some sort of weird conversational gaslighting for the purpose of cruelty?

why are you doing this? If you want to reply to me, then please tell me what the hell you're even talking about. If you don't want to make it clear, please don't reply to me again.

I have no idea how any of these words relate, at all, to anything I said in this thread. This whole conversation seems beyond absurd. What in the world did I say that has you two replying to me like this? I don't get it.

I have no idea what you're talking about at this point.

I think he was referencing your position that we may be permitted stupidity if — ENOAH

I don't recall saying anything like this. Can you clarify what you think my position along these lines is?

throwing in random jabs at me does not make you look mature, rational, or calm headed.

I just think you've interpreted a bunch of stuff into it that isn't in there. The guy is saying something very straight forward and there's nothing political about it, and you've managed to invent an entire universe into his words, a universe a stuff he didn't say

yeah that just sounds like nonsense to me.

much of what you're saying here just comes across like a complete non sequitur to me. I have no idea how a guy saying he doesn't trust his own reasoning could be interpreted as "political", I have no idea how you're thrusting that interpretation upon those words. I feel we're just speaking entirely different languages at this point.

And so it is not that he doesn’t trust his (own) ability to reason, but he (secretly?) doubts the (all of our) ability to rationally be certain about our knowledge through science at all. — Antony Nickles

If he doubts his own ability to reason, and his own ability to reason leads him to think he should trust science, then OF COURSE he's going to doubt if he should trust science. Just read his words. He spells it out, I'm not speculating. He literally says he doesnt trust his own reasoning abilities.

I really don't know what you're on about anymore. This thread is about trusting your own mind, trusting your own judgment, trusting your own ability to reason - the thread I linked is about a guy who says he can't trust his own ability to reason. It's entirely on point.

this guy's post is also an epistemological problem. "Why should I accept any scientific conclusions?" it's a question of epistemology. If you, yourself, accept any scientific facts that you yourself haven't verified, you have epistemological reasons for doing so.

But that is not a case of distrusting ourselves, but of not trusting science, specifically our ability to tell good science from bad — Antony Nickles

That's... 100% a matter of trusting himself. He literally spells it out in his own words in the post and/or comments.

that essentially mean I have no ability to discern good science and conclusions from bad

"I have no ability"

Basically ive proven i can believe things with bad reasons and spin the story in my head.

My worry is that ill just keep reading things that confirm my current set of beliefs and keep taking them in as true or at least likely true and end up with a warped sense of reality

His talking about *himself* and his own ability to reason first and foremost.

There's an interesting case study here in trusting / mistrusting your own mind

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/18lbtt9/how_do_i_as_a_layman_know_evolution_is_correct/

The guy who made the thread, somehow, came to distrust his own ability to reason and discern fact from fiction. I think many of the responses he gets are illuminating and contain at least some tidbits of wisdom.

But there is not a cause for the Sun to provide us with light every day. — javi2541997

Why do you think that?

do you think there are any brute facts? Things that just *are true*, with no cause or reason for them being true?

Causality itself implies things are caused, so I would assume causality has a cause — Barkon

I think it might make more sense to say "causality has a *reason*" rathern than causality has a cause. Things that are true have a *reason* for being true. "Cause" implies a time relationship, like something came first and then another thing, while "reason" doesn't have that limitation.

But even reasons have an inevitable stopping point. If there's some reason why anything that's true is true, then... what about the reason why things have reasons? Does that have a reason? Eventually, you dig deep enough and you hit a brute fact, I think.

My friend says, "My grandpa just died."

I say, "Yeah well he was a flat earther so..."

I think it's a really strange thing that some peoples first inclination on hearing about the death of someone is to try to discredit them or list all the things you disagree with them about.

At some point in time, William Lane Craig is going to die - he's a well known philosopher who I couldn't disagree with more, but when he dies, I'm... probably not going to say anything in the thread titled "RIP William Craig", but if I do say something, it's certainly not going to be "let's all focus on all the things he was wrong about". Even though I think he was wrong about a lot, it's... just a weird place.

Now maybe if someone said "William Lane Craig died, the dude who was right about everything", I might say "I don't think he was right about everything", but... that's not what happened here.

I can't tell if that's a "yes" or more of a "I don't know"