That the second premise isn't supported. — Michael
Logically conceivability entails logical possibility. — Chany
I ask because obviously if our background domain includes "physicalism is true" for example, then p-zombies aren't logically possible in that domain. — Terrapin Station
Logical possibility means that there exists a possible world in which p-zombies exist. — Chany
Is this by definition? — Marchesk
then it wouldn't be logically possible relative to a set of statements that includes "physicalism is true." — Terrapin Station
Sure, but "physicalism is true" is what's in question, so that would be assuming the conclusion. — Marchesk
Hence why I'm asking what we're saying it's logically possible with respect to. — Terrapin Station
we can ask whether it's logically possible for there to be a duplicate physical world lacking some X from our world. — Marchesk
We're not simply asking whether "p-zombies are possible" isn't contradictory to itself, are we? That wouldn't tell us much. — Terrapin Station
We're asking whether physicalism can logically account for all Xs. — Marchesk
What does it mean to "logically account" for something empirical? Sounds fancy, but I think it doesn't actually mean anything. — Terrapin Station
Physicalism isn't empirical. It's a metaphysical doctrine. — Marchesk
The bulk of metaphysics is ontology, no? — Terrapin Station
Ontology and empiricism are two different concerns. — Marchesk
So ontology doesn't deal with empirical things in your view? Time isn't empirical for example? "Everything is water" isn't an empirical claim? — Terrapin Station
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.