What I make, I will call "banana bread", and what you make, you will call "banana bread". But what I make, and what you make are not both the same thing, they are similar. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, ordinary probability is fine. So if I roll a 7 with a pair of dice, does it make a difference if I roll a 4 and a 3 instead of a 2 and a 5?
Sometimes differences don’t make a difference. And that is determined by the context. — apokrisis
And so you agree that there are differences that don't make a difference! — apokrisis
Where is the problem? — apokrisis
Checked, no problem here. Must be at the other end. ;-) (not *your* end...) — Wayfarer
All real things are never absolutely the same, nor absolutely different. They are just relatively alike or relatively unalike. — apokrisis
Two objects are said to be completely different if they have nothing in common. Are you saying there is no such a thing as two objects that have nothing in common? — Magnus Anderson
Sometimes differences don’t make a difference. And that is determined by the context. — apokrisis
This is supported by the various fundamental physical laws that science has arrived at.
A merely logical argument against my position doesn’t hold water here. — apokrisis
Your claim is a tautology and thus unproductive. Now, either a thing is red, that is, it participates in the form of redness, prior to us calling it "red", or it is not.I made no mention of causation, that's your interpretation. What I said is that without the word "red" there is no such thing as what the word red refers to. Do you not recognize that the word "red" is an essential part of "what the word red refers to"? And so there is no such thing as what the word red refers to without the word "red". — Metaphysician Undercover
"Man" is not defined merely as an animal, but "plane" is defined merely as "a flat surface". Then you have it backwards: If I defined "plane" as a "plane", then it would be circular. But to define "plane" as "flat surface" is not; precisely because I may know what "flat surface" means and not know what "plane" means. Then the definition of "plane" as a "flat surface" proves that they have the same meaning. If 2+2=4, then it proves that they are logically the same. I.e., having 2 apples and another 2 apples is logically identical to having 4 apples. Thus if "plane" = "flat surface", then they are logically identical.The defining term is not the same as the term defined. In Aristotelian logic the defining concept is within the concept defined, as an essential feature. So "man" is defined by "animal", as the concept of animal is within the concept of man as an essential property but animal is not the same as man. Likewise, you define "plane" with "flat surface". One is not the same as the other. The defining term is the more general. If defining terms had the same meaning as the words being defined, then we would never get anywhere in our attempts to understand meaning. It would all be circular. "Flat surface" would mean the exact same thing as "plane", and it would be pointless to define one with the other because it would not help you to understand anything. It is the very fact that "flat surface" means something other to you than "plane" does, that it can be used to help you to understand what "plane" means. — Metaphysician Undercover
Alright. Although I don't agree, I appreciate the consistency in the whole system.That is exactly what is at issue here, and why there is so much misunderstanding and disagreement about what universal forms are. Apokrisis, following Peirce argues that there is vagueness, and violation of the law of non-contradiction which is an inherent aspect of all universals, it is essential to universals. — Metaphysician Undercover
Discussion or dialogue is adequate, as is the case for finding the essence of the concept for triangle-ness. I gave another argument before: the fact that if concepts could possibly be different in individuals, then all attempts for communication would be hopeless. Consequently, we must have faith that concepts are, if not identical, then at least exact duplicates in everyone's mind. Finally, if concepts are different in individuals, then most of Plato's dialogue are pointless, because Socrates and his peers, attempting to find forms through arguments, all assume that the form they are looking for is the same for everyone.How do you propose that we ought to determine, and compare, the properties of the concepts within each others minds, other than by discussion? — Metaphysician Undercover
You contradict yourself with the earlier claim that you believed in concepts being universal forms. If universals, then these forms or concepts cannot have accidentals.But these accidental differences are still there, and this disallows us, according to the law of identity, from saying that it is the same concept in your mind, as in my mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
when the head of a construction company decides to build a building that information is physical. I — MountainDwarf
Your claim is a tautology and thus unproductive. — Samuel Lacrampe
Now, either a thing is red, that is, it participates in the form of redness, prior to us calling it "red", or it is not. — Samuel Lacrampe
"Man" is not defined merely as an animal, but "plane" is defined merely as "a flat surface". — Samuel Lacrampe
I gave another argument before: the fact that if concepts could possibly be different in individuals, then all attempts for communication would be hopeless. — Samuel Lacrampe
Finally, if concepts are different in individuals, then most of Plato's dialogue are pointless, because Socrates and his peers, attempting to find forms through arguments, all assume that the form they are looking for is the same for everyone. — Samuel Lacrampe
You contradict yourself with the earlier claim that you believed in concepts being universal forms. If universals, then these forms or concepts cannot have accidentals. — Samuel Lacrampe
Sure, information has potential to be physical as I said. — MountainDwarf
The information gets transformed into work, and work is physical. — MountainDwarf
However, in any case, he would miss the point because he would be comparing portions of reality that we are not interested in. — Magnus Anderson
Ambiguity is never removed in an absolute way. — Metaphysician Undercover
The principle of indifference is a fundamental constraint on actuality in that view. It explains why we get the “weird” statistics of quantum entangled states and the quantum indistinguishability of particles among other things.
So sure. Reality appears composed of concrete particulars. But the emphasis is on appears. It isn’t really. — apokrisis
See, your principle of indifference doesn't allow that this difference is real. What I claim is fundamental to reality, particulars, with differences, you are saying is just an illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover
your ontology of vagueness — Metaphysician Undercover
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.