I'm not making it personal. I'm calling apples apples. In this thread we are debating on Ukraine and some do so from their personal beliefs and fancies (idealism), and I'll happily argue why that is wrong and what the implications of it are. — Tzeentch

We all discuss from our POV, you included. This is unavoidable. You too have beliefs and ideas. If you don't, I'm sorry for you.

Contrary to popular belief, posters here don't get to take decisions about how long the war will go on. It is absurd to try and make it personal.

A negotiated settlement with concessions on both sides would not require any more people to die. Why would you not want that? — Isaac

Talk about wishful thinking...

Unfortunately, and as Putin himself remarked recently, "It is impossible, as they say, to pass off wishful thinking". Cuts both ways though, ie Putin too is a potential wishful thinker.

Not really any end in sight. :/ I wonder what to make of it. Has there been unknown pressure in Moscow? ...? Will Belarus get drawn in? One can just speculate, even a couple of weeks later. — jorndoe

I still think the Ukrainians will win, and resoundingly so. They are free men fighting an army of slaves, and the weapon imbalance is progressively evening up.

it is quite possible that our assumption that the past is immutable speaks to nothing more than our own prejudice. — Janus

In his History of Russia and its Empire, Michel Heller states that "Nothing changes faster than the past". He was speaking of historiography: of the way the past is told, of the stories that politicians feed to the people. And in Russia, this national pseudo history changes every decade, to fit today's ideology. So the past changes all the time over there.

I think all truths are not currently known. Then in the future some truths will be unknowable, they will be lost truths. — Winner568

Something like that, yes. If you make a funny face now, and no one sees you, and you don't even see yourself in the mirror or film yourself, the face you made will be lost to the world (tragically :razz: ). A temporary, transient signal that nobody picked up.

Seen this way, billions of things happen that are never picked up or recorded. What did young George Washington ate for breakfast on February 5, 1742? And the next day, etc.

But are these technically "truths"? It was said by someone here, wiser than me, that truth is a property of statements. Certain statements affirm that x or y is the case, and these statements can be true if indeed x or y is the case, that is, if the statement accurately describes something real, and false if it doesn't.

In the absence of a statement such as: "George Washington ate eggs for breakfast on the morning of February 5, 1742", there would be no truth about it. In the absence of a sentient being questioning what happened, there's no statement being made, no description that can be true or not in comparison to reality. There's only reality. A state of affairs. Things take certain shapes, stuff happen a certain way. A face is made, a young lad eats a breakfast.

This is what is lost: not really truth, technically, but information.

But you can never come to know the truth that "there is chicken in the fridge and no-one knows there is". That's unknowable. The philosophical point is that Fitch's proof undermines antirealist theories that define truth in terms of knowability. — Andrew M

The way I see it, Fitch is a joke of a paradox, and it debunks absolutely nothing. Just like the idea that one cannot eat an uneaten chicken is a joke, and debunks absolutely nothing. So to me, you guys are getting all hung up on a joke.

Have fun. :-)

It isn't possible to know that p is true and that p is not known to be true, even though there is some p that is true and not known to be true. Therefore, some truths are unknowable. — Michael

Likewise, it isn't possible to eat a chicken and to have it remain uneaten, even though there are some chicken that remain uneaten. Therefore, some chicken cannot be eaten.

I mean the second interpretation of course, in both cases. They are both equally trivial, equivalent to: you can't have your cake and eat it too. That's hardly a philosophical scoop.

That doesn't address what I was saying about your argument. — Michael

It does, it's the exact same logic. The original version says one cannot know an unknown truth. The chicken version of Fitch says one cannot eat an uneaten chicken. There's no fundamental difference between the two ideas. They are both equally ridiculous.

Watch me:

∀x(Px → ◊Kx)
For all things, if that thing is a proposition then it is possible to know that thing.

∃x(Px → ¬Kx)
There is at least one thing that is a proposition and hasn't been known.

Fitch's paradox, however, uses the correct symbols. — Michael

The exact same critique can be made about Fitch, but for some reason you fail to see it.

You haven't explained the logic behind your "chicken paradox". And as I mentioned here your symbols were wrong anyway. — Michael

My "chicken paradox" follows the exact same structure as the "Fitch paradox" and should thus rightly be called the "chicken transposition of the Fitch paradox".

If there is a flaw in my chicken paradox -- as I strongly suspect is the case :razz: --, then the exact same thing is wrong with Fitch.

You pointed yourself to that flaw here, as I and many others have done before you, about the non-chicken version of Fitch.

Let me walk you through this. You pointed out:

It is possible for us to later eat something that is currently uneaten, or for something that we have eaten to have before that time been uneaten. It isn't possible for us to eat something and for it to remain uneaten. — Michael

Transposing your point to Fitch (eat --> know)

It is possible for us to later know something that is currently unknown, or for something that we know to have before that time been unknown. It isn't possible for us to know something and for it to remain unknown.

Note the flagrant similarity with this point of mine, about Fitch:

If in the formalism of Fitch you introduce the idea that knowledge changes over time, you may arrive at something that in English means: he now knows what he knew not before. That is an unproblematic statement about learning something new. But erase time from Fitch (or from that bold sentence), and you get: he knows what he knows not, ie a contradiction. — Olivier5

the sentence "p is an unknown truth" is true today; and, if all truths are knowable, it should be possible one day to learn that "p was an unknown truth" up untill that day. — Olivier5

To be clear, the difference with that to the knowability paradox is that "p & ~p" is a contradiction - it can never be true. Whereas "p & ~Kp" is not a contradiction. It can be true, but never known to be true. — Andrew M

Yes, but for the exact same reason than you can't eat an uneaten chicken. Fitch says that one cannot know an unknown truth, because as soon as one knows it, it cease to be an unknown truth. Likewise the Olivier5 chicken paradox states that one cannot eat an uneaten chicken, because as soon as one eats it it ceases to be an uneaten chicken.

Like in Fitch, one of two things follows from the Olivier5 chicken paradox: either not all chicken can be eaten, or all chicken have already been eaten (omnigallinavorousism).

I lean toward the former: not all chicken can be eaten.

This ain't the down, it's the upbeat, make it complete
So what's the story, guaranteed accuracy, enhanced CD
Latest technology, darts at treble twenty
Huge non-recoupable advance, majors be vigilant
I excel in both content and deliverance
So let's put on our classics and we'll have a little dance, shall we?
No sales pitch, no media hype
No hydro, it's nice and ripe
I speak in communications in bold type
This ain't your archetypal street sound
Scan for ultrasound
North, South, East, West and all round
And then to the Underground

You say that everything sounds the same
And then you go buy them
There's no excuses, my friend
Let's push things forward

As we progress to the check point
I wholeheartedly agree with your viewpoint
But this ain't your typical garage joint
I make points which hold significance
That ain't a bag it's a shipment
This ain't a track, it's a movement, I got the settlement
My frequencies are transient and resonate your eardrums
I make bangers not anthems, leave that to the Artful Dodger
The broad shouldered fifty-one percent shareholder
You won't find us on Alta Vista
Cult classic not bestseller, you're gonna need more power
Plug in the free phase and the generator, crank it up to gigawatts
Critics, ready with your pot shots, the plot thickens
Put on your mittens for these sub zero conditions
But remember I'm just spitting, remember I'm just spitting
Once bitten, forever smitten

You say that everything sounds the same...

Spit jewels like Eastern riches, junkie fixes
Around here we say 'birds', not bitches
As London Bridge burns down Brixton's burning up
Turns out you're in luck, I knows this dodgy fuck in the Duck
So it's just another show flick for your local city poet
In case you geezers don't know it, let's push things forward
It's a tall order but we're taller, calling all maulers
Back street brawlers, corner shop crawlers, victory's flawless
Love us or hates us but don't slate us
Don't conform to formulas, pop genres and such
Sharp darts, double dutch, parked cars troubles you much
With more bud - let's - push - things - forward

You say that everything sounds the same... Etc.

My understanding (misunderstanding?) of Tolstoy is that he would say that the ultimate causes of these events are beyond mankind's comprehension - and that they are inevitable. But what do I know. — EricH

Interesting. That would be a version of historical determinism, ie what Popper called historicism. The idea that men don't do history.

You realize I'm pulling your leg, right?

I am using the accepted rules of inference, not the unaccepted ones.

Chicken-edibility principle
∀c(c → ◊Ec)
(if a chicken exists, it can be eaten)

Non-omnigallinavorous principle
∃c(c ∧ ¬Ec)
(there exist chicken that are not eaten)

We then apply the accepted rules of inference to derive the conclusion:

∀c(Ec → Ec → ¬◊Ec) ∧ ∀c(¬Ec → ¬◊Ec)
(all eaten chicken have already been eaten and can't be eaten anymore, and all uneaten chicken cannot be eaten either, otherwise they wouldn't be uneaten chicken)

Logic says that we're all vegetarians now... — Andrew M

Specifically, it says that an uneaten chicken cannot be eaten without ceasing to be an uneaten chicken, so we cannot logically speaking eat an uneaten chicken.

Note that we also cannot eat a chicken that has already been eaten. And since a chicken is either eaten or not eaten, it follows that logically speaking, we cannot eat any chicken.

Another way to think of this is in terms of Ryle's achievement verbs. We can believe or claim that it is raining and be mistaken but we can't know that it is raining and be mistaken, since to know that it is raining is to be correct and for good reason (e.g., we looked out the window). — Andrew M

Similarly, it can be shown that, contrary to popular belief, not all chicken can be eaten. Take a live, not yet eaten chicken. Can one eat it one day? Yes but then it would immediately cease to be an uneaten chicken. So an uneaten chicken cannot be eaten.

I don't think so but then, what do I know?

we don't say that people used to know that the Sun orbited the Earth. We say that people used to believe that the Sun orbited the Earth, but they were mistaken (since we now know that the Earth orbits the Sun). — Andrew M

But back then, they wouldn't say "we believe that the sun orbits the earth". They would rather have said: "we know that the sun orbits the earth". And there was plenty of evidence for it, mind you, though we now understand that this evidence was interpreted incorrectly.

Knowledge is far more complex a process than the letter K, even more complex than the letters Kp....

I don't live anywhere near Russia — Tzeentch

I'm sorry, I confused you with another poster.

so I must be a Kremlin propagandist? — Tzeentch

No, you are not, but you live within the sphere of influence of the Kremlin and as such, you may not be at liberty to criticize them much.

That's just not true.

The people you've called liars in this thread, actually didn't lie. — Benkei

Oh really? You have an example?

I call liars people who lie frequently, not people who disagree with me. You can disagree with me, that's a-okay, but don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Can't know what isn't so. — Andrew M

Since we don't have access to the registry of things that are, how is one to ascertain that "P is known", as opposed to "persons A, B and C believe that P is true, while person D may disagree"?

In other word, the concept of knowledge is mistreated here, cheapened, overly simplified when made an absolute. Knowledge is not something that exists objectively out there. It's something that people do.

That sounds like what Streetlight was saying, right before TPF pulled his plug... So keep insulting other posters; eventually it'll get you banned and the rest of us will be better off for it. :-)

I'll take that as a "don't know / won't tell" answer. It's still an answer -- it says a lot about you.

It means to know that something is true, e.g., that it is raining (say, as a consequence of looking out the window). — Andrew M

What if one person knows the proposition as true and another knows it as false? Is it 'known' then?

But the knowability principle is false not because we don't know some things, but because we can't know some things (i.e., propositions of the form "p & ~Kp"). — Andrew M

Fitch is easily solved by noting that knowledge evolves over time. Lamest paradox ever.

But yes, there are many things we cannot know, such as the things in themselves, as Kant explained, or whether it rained on a given site 36,785,477 years, 278 days and 4 hours ago, or what your wife thinks.

And what is the response to the question of what sort of evidence you would accept of Russia's territorial ambitions?

Four civilian deaths in Russian territory in the hardest bombardment there since the beginning of the conflict
The city center of Belgorod, near the Ukrainian border, was struck for the first time, causing the destruction of dozens of buildings and houses.

By Benoît Vitkine (Moscow correspondent, Le Monde)
Posted yesterday at 11:03 a.m.

At 3 a.m. on the night of July 2 to 3, the inhabitants of the Russian region of Belgorod saw and heard on their soil what strongly resembled the effects of a war, and not of a simple "special operation" carried out on the territory of the neighboring country. Since February 24, this region of southern Russia bordering that of Kharkiv, Ukraine, has already been the target of bombardments – military objectives, refineries and, sometimes, isolated houses hit.

Nothing comparable with this night of July 3, at the end of which the governor counted, in the heart of the city of Belgorod, eleven residential buildings and thirty-nine houses damaged. Four people were killed: a Russian citizen and three members of a Ukrainian family from Kharkiv, who had taken refuge with relatives since the start of the conflict.

According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the city of 370,000 inhabitants was “knowingly” targeted by three Tochka-U type missiles carrying cluster munitions. These missiles were reportedly shot down by Russian anti-aircraft defenses. "After the destruction of the Ukrainian missiles, the remains of one of them fell on a house in the city ," said military spokesman Igor Konashenkov.

On videos published in the early morning by local media, however, one can see at least one strong explosion, the magnitude of which does not correspond to the simple fall of debris. The Russian side also claims to have shot down two Ukrainian TU-143 drones "laden with explosives" heading towards the city of Kursk, also close to the Ukrainian border.

As usual, the Ukrainian army did not comment on these accusations, but military experts in Kyiv questioned this version, citing missiles sent from Russia and shot down by Russia's own anti-aircraft defense. In support of this explanation, they report explosions heard in the Kharkiv region immediately after those of Belgorod.

Analysts from the Conflict Intelligence Team, an organization founded by independent Russian investigators, rather evoke Ukrainian strikes targeting military objectives and which Russian defense systems would have diverted from their trajectory.

In any case, the event is embarrassing and does not fit with the idea of ​​a "special military operation" which, more than four months after its launch, "is going according to plan" , as repeated Vladimir Putin last week. In Moscow, officials brandished the usual threats of reprisals or "revenge" , but without really dwelling on them. A more surprising reaction was that of the Bishop of Belgorod, who called for prayers to end “the bloodbath taking place in Ukraine”.

The media showed restraint, the RIA-Novosti agency headlining for example, several hours after the events: “A series of explosions damages 39 houses in Belgorod” . The televisions, for their part, preferred to focus on the capture of the Ukrainian city of Lysytchansk from the “neo-Nazis” , which allows Moscow to control the entire Luhansk region.

Could the Belgorod episode mark an evolution in the conduct of the Russian "special operation" in Ukraine? It is difficult to imagine an intensification of the fighting, despite the threats of officials to abandon the "restraint" supposed to have been observed so far, but it should be noted that the announcement of this bombardment coincides with the deposition in the Duma of a bill providing for "special measures" to put the economy at the service of the army. This text, which incorporates certain elements of martial law, makes it possible to order companies to work on behalf of defence.

Has someone explained what they mean by "knowing a proposition" yet? Does it mean just being aware of the proposition, or knowing it to be true?

If the latter, please note that in practice it is often extremely hard to prove that some proposition is true, beyond any doubt. We almost never 'know X to be positively true'. What we do instead is eliminate theories that are proven false.

So from a pure epistemic view point, the knowability principle is false because contradicted by day-to-day experience, and by our knowledge that we know very little. That'd be why most examples given on this thread are mathematical, as the only domain of knowledge where certainty applies.

What would according to you @Benkei and @Tzeentch constitute evidence of territorial ambition?

If the Russians were to advance all the way to Paris, you would still wonder if it was not provoked.

Taking care of the Russian threat for a generation is well worth the price.

If the United States wanted peace with Russia they could have it tomorrow. If they guarantee Ukraine will remain a neutral state and will not join NATO or the EU this war would be over. — Tzeentch

Why would they do that?

The United States will need to apply a great deal more, if not all, of its power if it wishes to contain China. — Tzeentch

Says who? All this talk about future threats is nice but there is a very immediate threat right now in Russia...