I think what makes a rule a rule, is to be explicitly stated.
— Metaphysician Undercover
There is no rule (used my way) for the use of "rule".
— Metaphysician Undercover
Which is it, MU? — Luke
It sounds profound to talk of the Law of Identity; we need to keep in mind that what we are talking about is just a=a. — Banno
As it stands it is impossible to confirm its validity, let alone that it is cogent. It mixes terms - mind, necessity, dependency - that need considerable work to be understood. — Banno
It is also clear that a=a is a relationship, contrary to what you claim; all you have done is stipulate that relationships are between different individuals. — Banno
What makes a rule a rule is to be explicitly stated (my opinion, notice "I think"). But there is no rule which states that "rule" must be used in this way. — Metaphysician Undercover
I know that the validity of the law of identity cannot be proven... — Metaphysician Undercover
No, I'm not talking about a=a. What I'm talking about is the law of identity, which states that a thing is the same as itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's right, you can use "rule" however you please. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, there is always more reading to do. — Fooloso4
Yeah. The products of those minds that have read neither widely nor deeply are unfortunately easily found hereabouts. — Banno
we can imagine the concept of empty space, but we cannot imagine the concept of there being no space. — RussellA
I have a clear idea of what dimensions are; and I understand what zero-dimensional space would be. like. Saying I can't imagine it - so what? — Banno
Yep. And this is where I walk away. — Banno
You can believe that or you can believe that a rule must be explicitly stated. You can't have both. — Luke
"Must" is normative here — Metaphysician Undercover
So I see no problem with believing that you use "rule" differently from me, and also believing that a rule must be explicitly stated to qualify as being a "rule". — Metaphysician Undercover
Kantian epistemology — Mww
Kant — Banno
Prima facie, this is at odds with General Relativity. But that's not what is of import here...As Kant wrote in Critique of Pure Reason, "Space and time are merely the forms of our sensible intuition of objects. They are not beings that exist independently of our intuition (things in themselves), nor are they properties of, nor relations among, such beings". (A26, A33) — RussellA
It's just that our understanding of space has moved on considerably since Kant. — Banno
Yep. And this is where I walk away.
— Banno
Wise move. — Metaphysician Undercover
I can imagine zero dimension, but not no dimensions — RussellA
It is your belief or opinion that a rule must be explicitly stated. What's normative about that? — Luke
The problem, as I have pointed out, is that you contradict yourself with your pair of beliefs that "you can use "rule" however you please", and that "you use "rule" in an incoherent way." — Luke
Either I can use "rule" however I please or I cannot. Which is it? — Luke
The obvious implication here is that if you want to use the word "rule" in a coherent way, then you cannot use the word "rule" however you please. — Luke
I can imagine zero dimension, but not no dimensions
I can imagine a cube of 1cm sides. I can imagine a cube of 1mm sides. I can imagine a cube having sides of zero dimension. But I can only imagine this cube of zero dimensions within my ordinary everyday space of tables, chairs, etc. For the mind to be able to imagine no space would be as if the mind could imagine not existing, as the concept of space is a fundamental building block from which the mind is constructed. — RussellA
It's my opinion and belief. It's my opinion that if it hasn't been stated in some form it cannot be a rule, and I believe this. This "must" in your statement, "must be explicitly stated" is normative, because it's a standard of behaviour that I believe in. — Metaphysician Undercover
I've told you many times, you are free to use that word however you want. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no such "standard"; it is merely your own personal opinion. You don't set the standards or norms all on your own. — Luke
Otherwise, where can I find this standard of behaviour? Where is it written? By your own reckoning, a rule cannot exist unless it is explicitly stated, so where is it explicitly stated that a rule must be explicitly stated? — Luke
You cannot use that word however you want if you want to be coherent. Your argument is analogous to saying: I can move any chess piece to wherever I like on the board because it's physically possible, therefore chess has no rules. But you can't move the pieces just anywhere if you want to play the game, or if you want to make moves in the game that are permissible/coherent/understood. You seem to think you're making an interesting point about the freedom to make any moves whatsoever, but all we're really interested in are possible moves within the game. This is where the line is drawn between coherent and incoherent. But this line cannot be drawn by you alone. Who told you that? — Luke
So standards are things which you hold on your own, as opinions, — Metaphysician Undercover
You are just providing evidence here that the "game" analogy fails. — Metaphysician Undercover
These are different "standards" to those in the context of norms and normativity. — Luke
How does the analogy fail? Moving pieces wherever you want, irrespective of the rules of the game, is not playing the game. — Luke
Prima facie, this is at odds with General Relativity. But that's not what is of import here... — Banno
It's just that our understanding of space has moved on considerably since Kant. — Banno
the reality of language, as a fundamentally free and lawless activity — Metaphysician Undercover
Right, in playing a game we must adhere to the rules with all moves. But in language we see competing rules which makes such a thing impossible, so we ought to drop the analogy right there. — Metaphysician Undercover
However, a closer look at language use would reveal that it is shaped not by rules, but by freely chosen activities of free willing beings. — Metaphysician Undercover
and the mind itself is prior to spatial existence — Metaphysician Undercover
One cannot imagine eleven-dimensional space, but one can do the maths. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.