I doubt there's such a thing as a noncontroversial metaphysics. Do you say you've got a hold of one?Incorrect. Reincarnation is metaphysically-implied. There's an uncontroversial metaphysics that implies reincarnation. — Michael Ossipoff
What do you mean "a reason why you're in a life"? Is this reason supposed to generate the implication you've singled out?If there's a reason why you're in a life (something that I've discussed here), and if that reason still obtains at the end of this life, then what does that suggest? — Michael Ossipoff
If an "if-then" proposition, an implication-proposition, might not be true, then it can't be called a fact. It's only a proposition.
And what is it that determines whether or not any proposition is true?
So then a fact can be defined as a true proposition, and so a true if-then proposition can reasonably be called an if-then fact.
A fact has also been defined as a state of affairs, or a state of affairs that obtains.
This is where your conflation lies. 'Fact' has two senses; a semantic sense, or the sense in which a fact is considered to be a true proposition, and a substantive sense, a sense in which substantive facts make propositional facts true. Only the latter kinds of facts are equivalent to states of affairs. The former kinds of facts are propositional descriptions of states of affairs.
"Paris is the capital of France' is not a state of affairs, it is a statement. Paris being the capital of France is a state of affairs.
This distinction is the first thing you need to get clear. There is no such thing as an "if-then fact". Propositions, not facts, are in the form of 'if-then'. Tautologies don't count as facts either. You are distorting sensible usage in sophistical ways.
.
Consider Tarski's formulation: " 'Snow is white' is true iff snow is white"
; 'Snow is white' is a propositional
or semantic fact if it is a substantive fact that snow is white. For every propositional or semantic fact there is a corresponding substantive fact. Which is to say that for every (propositional) truth there is an actuality.
Paris being the capital of France is a state of affairs.
Consider this question: In all the time that you have been posting on forums have you found even one person who agrees with your 'argument'?
…there is also the apparent lack of any cogent argument to support your "system".
Why not lay out your argument (if you have one) in a clear, concise form showing your major premise(s) and your conclusion, then you should be able to determine once and for all whether it is even a valid argument let alone a sound one.
Incorrect. Reincarnation is metaphysically-implied. There's an uncontroversial metaphysics that implies reincarnation.
I doubt there's such a thing as a noncontroversial metaphysics. Do you say you've got a hold of one? — Cabbage Farmer
If there's a reason why you're in a life (something that I've discussed here), and if that reason still obtains at the end of this life, then what does that suggest?
What do you mean "a reason why you're in a life"?
Is this reason supposed to generate the implication you've singled out?
Nothing other than what you surely must interpret it to mean.What do you mean by the phrase "in a life"?
One reason I'm alive is that I was born. One reason I was born is that I was conceived. Is this the sort of reason you have in mind?
I do need to wheen myself of making a fool of you — MetaphysicsNow
Really? You are reduced to counting spelling mistakes? — jkg20
I've been away a while and just skim read through the various posts. Aren't we still waiting for your explicit statement of premises, one by one, giving us a valid argument that takes us from those premises to the conclusion that reincarnation happens?
I asked you for that right at the beginning of this thread and you've waffled on quite a lot it seems, but logically valid arguments seem impossible to dig out of your words.
Eh? This sounds like you're using the word "metaphysics" in a New Age sense, rather than a philosophical sense — gurugeorge
Calm down, I didn't say that "wheen" meant what "wean" means. There is a word used in Scotland "wheen" which means "small amount of something" - I think, I stand to be corrected on its meaning, but its existence as a word I'm sure of. I thought maybe MN's being acquainted with that word accounted for his mispelling. Anyway, MetaphysicsNow's own explanation for the spelling mistake makes more sense - he meant wean but wrote "wheen" because he cannot get an author out of his head.And no, at least in Merriam Webster, "Wheen" isn't listed as meaning "Wean" in any language. Merriam-Webster lists it with an adjective meaning and a noun meaning.
No, I asked you for premises and a sound argument (and all sound arguments are logically valid ones by the way), and you said you would provide at least the premises of the argument:No. Janus asked me to state, in regards to my argument for my metaphysics, a premise, conclusion, and to tell how the premise implies the conclusion.
Presumably the idea is that there is a sound argument with metaphysical premises (i.e. premises which concern existence) which are acceptable to all and that has as for its conclusion that reincarnation happens. — jkg20
Yes, well said. That's what I mean.
So, Michael Ossipoff, over to you to lay out the premises one by one so we can subject them to scrutiny.
Will do.
Michael Ossipoff — michael ossipoff
Consider this question: In all the time that you have been posting on forums have you found even one person who agrees with your 'argument'? — Janus
I think the point is that nobody can really tell what your premises are. I suppose one of them must beNow then, do you disagree with one or both of my premises?
Now then, do you disagree with one or both of my premises?
I think the point is that nobody can really tell what your premises are. I suppose one of them must be
"There are if-then facts".
Yes. And, because some didn't like the term "if-then" facts, I invited Janus to substitute some other term for an instance of one proposition implying another.
Then i suggested substituting "implication" for "if-then fact".
Or, if you think that an implication is a proposition then substitute "true implication".
We've been all over that topic, and I've amply answered that terminology-objection.
— jkg20
But when you give examples of what these if-then facts are supposed to be, you just give tautologies
, and then refuse to engage in a discussion about the distinction between logical truth and substantive truth that risks being conflated when identifying tautologies as a kind of fact.
Well, I don't want to turn this into a thread about mathematical logic, but Peano arithmetic is one of the standard ways of defining the natural numbers, so I'd have to challenge you to provide a more "usually used, stated or cited" system of axioms for doing that.In answer to your question, the system of axioms that I'm using is the one that is usually used, stated and cited.
without already having defined multiplication (recursively) over the natural numbers, which means that the natural numbers need already to have been defined within your system, which is what the Peano axioms do. Perhaps you have some non-standard set of axioms to capture what a natural number is supposed to be? But in any case, you will not be able to infer 2+2=4 without all those axioms. MetaphysicsNow is right about that and you are wrong.Let "1" mean the multiplicative identity.
Now we are getting somewhere. Idealists and anti-realists more generally can (and have) made the distinction between substantive truth and logical truth, so no, one does not need to be a materialist in order for the distinction to make sense. You seem to be a fan of online philosophy encyclopedias - look up "logical truth" and see how complex a notion it is and how various philosophers have tried to distinguish it from substantive truth. As far as I can tell, every example of if-then fact that you introduce is an example of a logical truth, but substantive truths are the ones that concern the empirical world (whether that world be independent of our coming to know it or not). Since we, as sentient beings, are in the empirical world, it is substantive truth that will have a bearing on whether or not we can be reincarnated, not logical truth.By "substantive truth", do you mean an alleged objective, fundamental, concrete "existence" for our physical world and its things and its stuff?
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.