No. You concede that what the sets have in common is the claim of being elements of the set of all sets that have no elements in common. — apokrisis
All elements are really just sets of elements. — apokrisis
But there is then your implied promise of being able to cash out the "elemental" at some ground zero level. And that becomes logical atomism. We already know that to be a busted flush. — apokrisis
You already concede the principle of indifference as your basis for trying to contest it. — apokrisis
It comes down to a judgement that works, not a judgement that is based on some objective "fact of the matter". — apokrisis
Sure, but the issue is to answer this question of whether or not it is. If something appears to us as disordered, this does not mean that it necessarily is disordered, because it may be the case that we just haven't developed the means for figuring out the order. — Metaphysician Undercover
No. I said the opposite. I said that sets A = {1, 2, 3} and B = {4, 5, 6} do not have "belongs to some other set" in common. Rather, it is your sets, let us call them sets X = {1, 2, 3, belongs to some other set} and Y = {1, 2, 3, belongs to some other set}, that have this element in common — Magnus Anderson
Your claim is that if we are not aware of some portion of reality that whatever portion of reality we are aware of is not reality itself. That's nonsense. — Magnus Anderson
You are trying to oversimplify this process by reducing it to "it's all about what works". — Magnus Anderson
That's true. Similarly, if we have no evidence that God exists that does not mean that God does not exist. Nonetheless, in the absence of evidence that God exists, we have no choice, if we have some intellectual integrity, but to act as if God does not exist. — Magnus Anderson
But what criteria is used to determine that one definition is more correct than the other? I answer that the criteria is the concept, which is the same in all of us. Of course I agree that triangle-ness has the property of "three angles", but as I stated earlier, this is a secondary property which can be deduced from the first property of "three straight lines", and so it is redundant. Similarly, we could add the secondary property that "the sum of all angles equates to 180°", which is also deduced from first properties.We already discovered that my concept of triangle is not the same as yours. Mine included "three angles", yours did not. We discover these differences, and attempt to correct them through discussion, communication. — Metaphysician Undercover
You are wrong twice. You did not refute my argument that if all words can have different meanings for each individual, then we get infinite regress because all definitions are made of words. It is like speaking completely different languages. My meaning of "yes" could be your meaning of "no", my "flat" could be your "round", etc. Then an agreement could not be attained if there is no common ground or criteria that is shared among all individuals. Therefore, not only could we not communicate, but even if we could, it could not serve to attain an agreement on meanings.[...] you claim that we could not communicate unless our concepts are the same. See, you have things backward. It is through communication that we establish consistency, and sameness between our concepts, the sameness doesn't exist prior to communication as a prerequisite for communication, it is produced from communication. — Metaphysician Undercover
This does not prove that individuals necessarily have different concepts. It could be that some definitions are less correct than others, that is, some definitions less accurately point to the one concept. Do you not agree that if I said my definition of the concept of triangle was "four angles", then it would be incorrect? It is pretty much in the name, that "triangles" have "three angles". And an incorrect definition implies that there exists a correct definition.Consider Plato's Symposium. [...] — Metaphysician Undercover
Your entire argument depends on the premise that meanings are always different for every individual.The problem is, that definitions do not coincide. We already determined this with our definitions of "triangle", yours is different from mine. [...] — Metaphysician Undercover
Hilarious. If you are going to invoke set theory formalism, then you have to stick to its rules, not just make up any old shit. — apokrisis
So you describe the naive realist position and then accuse me of oversimplifying. — apokrisis
But what criteria is used to determine that one definition is more correct than the other? I answer that the criteria is the concept, which is the same in all of us. — Samuel Lacrampe
You did not refute my argument that if all words can have different meanings for each individual, then we get infinite regress because all definitions are made of words. — Samuel Lacrampe
This does not prove that individuals necessarily have different concepts. — Samuel Lacrampe
Do you not agree that if I said my definition of the concept of triangle was "four angles", then it would be incorrect? It is pretty much in the name, that "triangles" have "three angles". And an incorrect definition implies that there exists a correct definition. — Samuel Lacrampe
Your entire argument depends on the premise that meanings are always different for every individual.
For the sake of argument, let's suppose that our definitions are different to start with. As you said yourself here, "we discover these differences, and attempt to correct them through discussion, communication", thereby making it possible to agree on one definition or meaning for words. Once this is achieved, then concepts become one and the same, by the same law of identity. — Samuel Lacrampe
I have one definition of "triangle", and you have another. — Metaphysician Undercover
What Plato gave us is a clear, ostensive, demonstration that different individuals have different concepts for the same word. — Metaphysician Undercover
Now I gotta add 'phantasms' as part of the terms to understand, on top of 'forms', 'concepts', 'matter', 'mind', 'intellect', and 'nous'. It's times like these I want to go back to simpler theories in which reality is made of 'stuff' out of a mould, and call it a day. — Samuel Lacrampe
Simply not true. You might express it one way, and I another, but there is no room for difference. You’ve been arguing this useless distinction for hundreds of posts. — Wayfarer
Where? Plato was hardly concerned with individuation. — Wayfarer
Actually, Samuel and I compared our definitions of "triangle", and they were obviously different. S — Metaphysician Undercover
You are obfuscating the meaning of "the same" appealing to "similar" as if it were "the same", in order to put forth an unsound argument as if it were sound. That's why I accused you of sophistry. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why are you obfuscating the matter with your unsound sophistry? — apokrisis
Where is the difficulty in recognising that "the same" is the idealised limit to "the similar"? — apokrisis
Why are you obfuscating the matter with your unsound sophistry? — apokrisis
If things are 100% similar, are they the same? And if things are 99% similar, are they nearly the same? — apokrisis
Your entire (wasted) effort in this thread has been about a completely different subject, namely, the principle of individuation. — Wayfarer
One excludes difference while the other includes difference, so the two are logically dichotomous. — Metaphysician Undercover
I really do not know what you mean by "100% similar". Similar implies that there is difference, and same dictates that there is no difference. Therefore whatever you mean by 100% similar, it cannot mean "the same", without contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
So you are presuming that dichotomies are dualities and not in fact dichotomies? I see where you are going wrong.
Dichotomies describe complementary limits on being. Thus they talk about the being that lies in-between two opposing limits of the possible.
You are then treating the limits on the possible as the actuality which has the being. Rookie error. — apokrisis
So back to the 100% similar. Why are you so reluctant to admit that this is no different than any claim about "the same". A complete lack of difference could only be a complete presence of the same. — apokrisis
But you must avoid admitting this otherwise your sophic house of cards collapses. — apokrisis
No, A dichotomy is a separation between two things. — Metaphysician Undercover
Anyway, it's likely the word can be used in different ways, but this is all irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I said, what is relevant is that "same" expresses an exclusion of difference while "similar" expresses necessarily, difference. They are categorically different and cannot be "complementary limits" of the same thing, that would be contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is impossible that similarity lacks difference, by way of contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
Simply put, if I know something as contradictory I will not accept it. — Metaphysician Undercover
Through a socratic dialogue, either with yourself or with others, which serves as a falsification method. Much like the correctness of a scientific theory is tested through particular experiments, we can test the correctness of a definition through particular examples. Say your first attempt to define triangle-ness is "a plane with three angles". I falsify this by pointing out that this shape is a plane with three angles but is not a triangle. So we must add to the definition that the sides must be straight. Then, I might add the property "red" to the definition, and you falsify this by pointing out that some triangles which are not red remain triangles. So we remove "red" from the definition, and the result is "a plane with three angles and straight sides." If it cannot be falsified any more, then we have obtained the perfect definition.How do I access the concept within me, such that I can determine which changes need to be made? — Metaphysician Undercover
This sounds more like a method to learn a new language than to obtain a concept; but for the sake of argument, let's suppose you are correct. Well, you and I did not go through this process of physical demonstration before having a discussion; and so according to you, it is possible that, despite using the same language, my words have significantly different meanings than yours. So why would to decide to have a discussion with strangers if there is a possibility that none of the words used have the same meaning?We can get the meaning of words from physical demonstration. — Metaphysician Undercover
Actually, inasmuch as a 'better' implies a 'best'; and a 80% mark implies a 100% mark, then a 'more correct' implies a 'fully correct' or 'ideal'. This is necessary. If the ideal does not exist, then neither does the 'more correct' in any objective sense. As such, if you believe that no ideal definition for triangle-ness exist, then it follows that the definition "three angles" is no more correct than "four angles", which is absurd.We determine that a particular definition is "incorrect", based on the assumption that there is an ideal definition. The ideal is the best, the most perfect, and need not be something existent, it is simply the assumption of a goal, strive for the best.[...] — Metaphysician Undercover
This claim sounds ad hoc. Can you back it up? If I obtained a 100% mark on a math exam, then my answers have reached the ideal, and I cannot better myself on that exam.I think that the ideal is never achieved, and this is what inspires us to always better ourselves in our understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
The same" implies one thing, the same thing, that's the point of the law of identity, to ensure that we are talking about the one and only same thing, the very same thing, when we designate something as "the same" — Metaphysician Undercover
Where is the difficulty in recognising that "the same" is the idealised limit to "the similar"? Why are you obfuscating the matter with your unsound sophistry? — apokrisis
"The same" implies one thing, the same thing, that's the point of the law of identity, to ensure that we are talking about the one and only same thing, the very same thing, when we designate something as "the same". — Metaphysician Undercover
As I told you, I really did not know what you meant by "100% similar". "Similar" implies necessarily, some degree of difference. Therefore 100% similar implies some difference. You only contradict yourself now, when you say that "100% similar" means a complete lack of difference. It is impossible that similarity lacks difference, by way of contradiction. As I suspected, what you mean by 100% similar is nothing but contradictory nonsense. That's why I couldn't answer that question, I was afraid that what you meant was some such contradictory nonsense. Now my fears have been confirmed, what you mean is contradictory nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover
Defined in this way, you would be right to say that 100% similar = the same. — Magnus Anderson
Still, it makes no sense to say that "the same" is the idealized limit to "the similar". The concept of limit, as defined in mathematical analysis, refers to a value that is approached but never reached. Sameness isn't something that is only approached. — Magnus Anderson
I dunno. Why not check out actual set theory concepts like measure theory, almost surely and negligible sets. You might find out that this is in fact exactly how it works. — apokrisis
Sameness isn't something that can only be approached. It is something that is regularly attained. — Magnus Anderson
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.