It is the case that X. — wonderer1
Your point sound confused in the methodology. Hypothesises are the methods for the scientific enquiries. Metaphysics and Logic do not adopt hypothesis as their methodology. — Corvus
As Banno pointed out, your argument does not follow. — Lionino
My point of contention is this... — Lionino
Well, Metaphysical enquiry would say, sorry mate, you cannot destroy non-physical existence in physical way — Corvus
I’m not saying that they’d be destroyed in a physical way. If they’re spirits then they’d be destroyed in a spiritual way. If they’re magic then they’d be destroyed in a magical way. Either way they’d be destroyed leaving nothing left. — Michael
It would still say "Well prove how spirits could be destroyed in a spiritual way." or "By its nature, spirits have no capability or property for destroying." Therefore nothing is destroyed. — Corvus
Right, I was expecting someone to point that out, and I'm hardly surprised that it was Banno. — wonderer1
Keep working on it. You are 'finding' problems that aren't there, and you didn't recognize the problem that was there. — wonderer1
It depends on what "destroying" means. In physical perspective, it is possible to destroy any physical entities. But non-physical entities cannot be destroyed in physical sense. And non-physical entities have no capability destroying anything in physical sense.So you’re saying it’s metaphysically impossible for something to be destroyed? — Michael
In this case we are talking about an object X(not a world), and it is possible for X to become non-existence through time T metaphysically. (X must not be Metaphysics itself)Are you saying that if some object X exists then it is metaphysically impossible that at some future time T object X no longer exists (unless some new object Y takes its place)? — Michael
In this case we are talking about an object X(not a world), and it is possible for X to become non-existence through time T. — Corvus
A world where nothing exists (not even Metaphysics) is impossible Metaphysically, because without Metaphysics, Metaphysics is impossible. — Corvus
hmmm was not thinking about Platonism as such.You’re saying that the existence of metaphysics is a metaphysical necessity?
I don’t even know what this means. Are you arguing for Platonism? — Michael
The moment that you uttered the statement "X is impossible metaphysically" is doing metaphysics. — Corvus
The word "metaphysically" originated from metaphysics. Therefore the fact that you used the word necessitates its existence. It is a logical truth. :)So because intelligent life with an appropriately expressive language is required to “do” metaphysics then the existence of intelligent life with an appropriately expressive language is a metaphysical necessity?
I disagree. — Michael
The word "metaphysically" originated from metaphysics, and therefore the fact that you used the word necessitates its existence. It is a logical truth. :) — Corvus
Non-existence is possible in a possible world where nothing exists.Firstly, you claimed before that non-existence is logically possible but metaphysically impossible. Now you seem to be saying that it’s logically impossible. — Michael
Something which is true in a world, can be not true in another world.Secondly, that something is true isn’t that it is necessarily true. P ⊨ □P is invalid. — Michael
You must be a modal realist to accept the points. We are using English for the discussion, so surely the semantic will affect the logic of the arguments. This is called "Use-Condition" of arguments. Nothing to do with English is a metaphysical necessity.You might as well argue that because the word “metaphysical” is an English word then the existence of the English language is a metaphysical (and logical) necessity. This is very obviously wrong. — Michael
It is metaphysically possible for intelligent life to not exist. — Michael
If the person can't comprehend what has been said clearly (i.e. supported by the context), then that person certainly can't understand its justification.Please justify this so far unsupported affirmation to someone who can't comprehend it. — javra
Same as the concept "infinite person". Finally, we agree. :up:Sure, but in different respects. Hence, they are not logically contradictory.
and the exact metaphysical status of possibility — Pantagruel
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.