Isn't that why we're in the mess we're in? — TheMadFool

You're in some "mess", for sure, but leave me out of it. I'm moving on because you've made a fetish of 'inconsistent reality' for which you've not provided a single example. Well, good luck with that, Fool. Btw, Democritus & Heraclitus only propose descriptions of 'conceptions of reality' (not experimental models) which are not reality itself. Again, your fetish makes you incorrigible with respect to this description-described (map-territory) distinction. :victory:

You're in some "mess", for sure, but leave me out of it. I'm moving on because you've made a fetish of 'inconsistent reality' for which you've not provided a single example. Well, good luck with that, Fool. Btw, Democritus & Heraclitus only propose descriptions of 'conceptions of reality' (not experimental models) which are not reality it. Again, your fetish makes you incorrigible with respect to this description-described (map-territory) distinction. :victory: — 180 Proof

:lol: It seems you've reached the end of your rope with me. My humble apologies if you found our conversation not as stimulating as you might've wished.

At this point, I suggest we disengage as our discussion is not going anywhere mutually acceptable. If I can think of anything that might end the deadlock and push the matter forward I'll let you know IF you're in the mood of course. Thank you! Have a good day.

Have a good one, my friend. :up:

It's a fact that it is afternoon here. Soon it will be evening. It will no longer be a fact that it is afternoon, but it will be a fact that it is evening. — Banno

Doesn’t this mean nature is inconsistent? Consistent means “same,” or something close to that, correct? If the thing you’re talking about changes, then it is no longer the same. Therefore it’s inconsistent; sometimes one thing, sometimes another.

The Bishop example is a neat case in point, and there are plenty of others. Maths provides ample. — Banno

I don’t understand the Bishop example. Someone most certainly can be wrong about where the Bishop belongs. Regarding math, can’t you doubt whether or not you added, multiplied, etc. correctly? We are fallible, so the possibility of making mistakes abounds.

Yes. The validity of any sensory perception is open to doubt.

ALL experience (be it pain, love, heat, or dreamed) is necessarily open to questioning. That is why it is ‘experience’.

You may well ask ifI question this point ... of course. Strangely enough it isn’t self-refuting; it’s just a way to explore human experience and view the roughly shod concepts we use to communicate.

Yes. The validity of any sensory perception is open to doubt. — I like sushi

I don’t want to interrupt your conversation, but I think this passage here might help in clarifying your discussion with Banno:

Some forms of Scepticism which, in our own day, are advocated by men who are by no means wholly sceptical, had not occurred to the Sceptics of antiquity. They did not doubt phenomena, or question propositions which, in their opinion, only expressed what we know directly concerning phenomena. Most of Timon's work is lost, but two surviving fragments will illustrate this point. One says "The phenomenon is always valid." The other says: "That honey is sweet I refuse to assert; that it appears sweet, I fully grant." A modern Sceptic would point out that the phenomenon merely occurs, and is not either valid or invalid; what is valid or invalid must be a statement, and no statement can be so closely linked to the phenomenon as to be incapable of falsehood. For the same reason, he would say that the statement "honey appears sweet" is only highly probable, not absolutely certain. — Bertrand Russell