The practical mechanism by which I have come to know that there is at least one blue does not need to be specified for this conditional to be true. It is true even when left unspecified. — Michael
But in the scenario there is no magic, no one knows their eye colour and yet you think everyone can logically deduce their own eye colour without anyone saying anything. — unenlightened
It seems to me that if (1) is true then everyone knows that (1) is true and everyone knows that everyone knows that (1) is true, etc. So you get your recursion. — Michael
We already know that no-one will. Our waiting those first 98/99 days is purely performative, not informative, — Michael
2. If I see 99 people with blue eyes then I can deduce whether or not I have blue eyes even if no-one says "there is at least one person with blue eyes"
You seem to think that because (1) is true then (2) is false? I don't think that follows at all. — Michael
Your insistence that if my reasoning works for 100 then it must work for 1, and so that if it doesn't work for 1 then it doesn't work for 100, is false. — Michael
I didn't say if it works for 100, it must work for 1. I said if it works for 100, it works for 99. If it doesn't work for 99, it can't work for 100. — flannel jesus
sure it follows — flannel jesus
if I don't agree with your conclusion we can't continue. Yeah okay buddy. I don't know why you want to talk to anybody lol. This is a philosophy forum. We can disagree with you, don't be weird about it. — flannel jesus
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.