Thanks for further showing that "round" is just a linguistic concept dependent on other equally non-materially based linguistic concepts as itself. So, use whatever words you want when you chat about the moon. All you'll be doing is using words, not accurately describing the moon itself. — Thanatos Sand
Well I'm not trying to be exhaustively accurate with error-free certainty, just chatting about the Moon.
If you'd written "the Moon is a regular tetrahedron", then you might need new glasses or a new encyclopedia or something. :)
As mentioned, I'm not chatting about English, but about the Moon.
Not about the word "Moon" either, but about the Moon.
As an aside, I just noticed the Wikipedia page has a list of characteristics, mean/equatorial/polar radius, flattening, circumference, surface area, volume, ...
I guess you could register and fix the page? — jorndoe
All you have done is describe the moon after observation.
Now, describe it before observation. — Rich
Maybe I should ask you to describe my colleague.
If you're conflating ontology and epistemology, then you'll conclude there's no such colleague.
And maybe there isn't for all you know. — jorndoe
Thanks for further showing that "round" is just a linguistic concept dependent on other equally non-materially based linguistic concepts as itself. So, use whatever words you want when you chat about the moon. All you'll be doing is using words, not accurately describing the moon itself. — Thanatos Sand
Thanks for further showing that "round" is just a linguistic concept dependent on other equally non-materially based linguistic concepts as itself. So, use whatever words you want when you chat about the moon. All you'll be doing is using words, not accurately describing the moon itself.
— Thanatos Sand
Well I'm not trying to be exhaustively accurate with error-free certainty, just chatting about the Moon.
If you'd written "the Moon is a regular tetrahedron", then you might need new glasses or a new encyclopedia or something. :)
As mentioned, I'm not chatting about English, but about the Moon.
Not about the word "Moon" either, but about the Moon.
As an aside, I just noticed the Wikipedia page has a list of characteristics, mean/equatorial/polar radius, flattening, circumference, surface area, volume, ...
I guess you could register and fix the page?
Possibly. Since you've done many posts I haven't seen, and you didn't list which one with which I agreed.Seems you are agreeing with me.
See if we agree on this. There are some facts that cannot be represented away.
If the keys are locked in the car, they will be locked in the car regardless of how you present or represent them.
They don't all work that way, and I'm new to this forum. But I checked back and, no, I don't agree with you.It's how threads work. — Banno
If the keys are locked in the car, they will be locked in the car regardless of how you present or represent them. — Banno
No, — Thanatos Sand
they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. — Thanatos Sand
they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. — Thanatos Sand
I'd like to try to understand what you are claiming here.
they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state.
— Thanatos Sand
Do you mean that there may be a language, other than English, in which the keys are not locked in the car?
No, they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car.
And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car.
This was my whole, and very clear quote. If you took that from it, you didn't read it very well:
No, they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car. — Thanatos Sand
All I did was look at one side of the conjunction. Here's the other side:
And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car.
It would be simple to add a time - "the keys are locked in the car now". I'm not at all sure what it would mean to add degrees of locked-ness....
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.