Comments

  • Infinity
    We can then say that am,n=m10n+⌊log10(m)⌋��,�=�0�+⌊log10(�)⌋?Michael

    The series m/(10^(m+log(10,m))) converges to a power of 1/10 as m goes to infinity and n is any given number, and to 0 as n goes to infinity and m is any given number, and the diagonal also converges to 0. The two conditions that converge to 0 seem fine, as we are multiplying by a power of 1/10. But for the condition that converges to powers of 1/10 I am not sure.
    So as you go down the column 1, it should converge to 1/10 and in column 3 to 1/1000. Is that what you were looking for? I am not sure if that is what is represented by your matrix.
    Disclaimer: Not a mathematician.

    But urgently, how do you write matrices and footnotes and equations here?
  • Proof that infinity does not come in different sizes
    All of them are here:

    godisallthatmatters.com
    Philosopher19

    Ok, so you are saying that your beliefs are not incomplete or contradictory in any way. That is not philosophy, that is religion, aka delusion.
  • Infinity
    Now I don't know if he is a mathematician, but at least he totally understands that philosophy is part of mathematics.ssu

    I am not a professional mathematician, but my area does use lots and lots of mathematics inherently, my interest in the foundations of mathematics are coincidental.

    I think jgill is one though.
  • Proof that infinity does not come in different sizes
    I see no paradoxes or contradictions or foundational incompleteness in the beliefs that I uphold (mathematical or otherwise).Philosopher19

    Which are?
  • Infinity
    That's actually a philosophical view in mathematics.ssu

    And it is a view that I hold, as a "methological physicalist" (as 180 proof puts it), I don't subscribe to abstract objects, so I could not be a platonist about mathematics :razz:

    I will likely make a thread about the Grundlagenkrise in the coming weeks.

    with an axiom of 0=1.

    :gasp:

    A: 0 = 1
    B: 0 = S(0) (follows from definition)
    C: The set of natural numbers only has the element 0 (follows from B)
    C contradicts B. Proof of the contradiction? :smirk:
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world
    The fabrication of the mind is the world. No? I am sure when one dies, his world dies too, because he can no longer fabricate anything anymore.Corvus

    Sure, we know that at least a world exists, the world being our mind. But we do not know whether there is an outside world (brain in a vat), that is usually what people talk about when we say the world exists or not.

    It would be a form of totemism in disguise for science. Seeing an eclipse, and saying that must a God annoyed at something. A similar logic.Corvus

    Sorry I can't understand, I think this sentence has some words missing.
  • How Do You Think You’re Perceived on TPF?
    This here is something you don't get to say and be awarded the interpretation that it is joke. I avoid using this word when I'm joking.L'éléphant

    That is fine because that was a false accusation. I do not recall calling other TPF members idiots, I recognise that there are quite a few people (much) more educated than me in philosophy, mathematics and logic.
    What he is likely misremembering is the few times I stated that there are crazy people in this site. And we all know that there is.
    But I am sorry that me saying other adult men are not sweet stirred emotions. Saying people are not sweet is not the same as that they are not polite — which is something I think is generally practiced by members here.
    I just wanted to praise Vera Mont for her kind spirit and put a little joke in there, end of conversation for me.
  • Infinity
    Wee, another thread on infinity.
    Yes, that follows from the axioms of "standard mathematics". You can build any sort of mathematics (if you wanna call it that) depending on what axioms you choose, the matter is whether it is useful to do so and whether it matches at least something in reality.
    There is a retired Australian professor of mathematics called Norman Wildberger, whose project is to build mathematics without mention of infinity — within the doctrine of finitism. I would not really recommend looking into it however if you are not deeply knowledgeable in mathematics.
  • Nothing to something is logically impossible
    P1) Time is needed for change
    P2) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing (HP)
    P3) There is no time in nothing
    C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P1 and P3)
    C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P2 and C1)
    MoK

    The argument seems valid. The issue is that many premises are doubtable. Is it even possible — or rational — to talk nothingness about and what properties it has? "There is no time in nothing" seems to mean absolutely nothing without further elaboration.
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world
    So the physicalist has to claim that in a mindless -sorry!- brainless universe, facts still exist.RogueAI

    If by fact you mean what ideas it represents, facts would only exists within brains (as ideas exist in brains), so no brains no facts; if by facts an objective state of affairs, facts would still exist in a brainless universe.

    but the physicalist can say that an old Encyclopedia Brittanica book still contains facts, even if all the brains in the universe suddenly ceased to existRogueAI

    No, the physicalist would not say that, as you explained in your hypothetical scenario.

    But if the materialist claims that my erosion example is not a fact, what about an erosion pattern in this universe that says Pi = 3.14...?RogueAI

    For us it is a fact because we interpret it as such. But for someone from Old Chinese kingdoms, pi=3.14 would not be a fact, it would a weird pattern on a rock. In a brainless physicalist universe, there would still be facts about the world, but these facts would not be represented anywhere because there is no conscious being to decipher what any symbol means.

    but how is that different than the erosion pattern?RogueAI

    It means something to someone. The facts exist within our minds (or brain); the ink on the paper is not a fact, but it is a physical part of the world, what OP asked.

    But I don't see how any of that relates to Corvus' original question. The question was whether a fact is a part of the physical world, and I gave the purported answer according to several different worldviews and different definitions of the word 'fact'. The token is a physical fact of the world for sure, the type depends on the worldview, while what objective state of affairs the type represents is a physical fact of the world (but not if one is an idealist).
  • How Do You Think You’re Perceived on TPF?
    And you like to throw around these blanket insults too: sometimes it's that most people on TPF are idiots, now it's that they're not nice.Jamal

    You simply misinterpret what I say — a joke — because you have a personal dislike towards me. I think I have learned my lesson of not interacting socially here. But I will say that your view of me does not say anything about my character more than it does about yours.

    and the strong possibility that you're a returning banned member who hated the place so much he couldn't get enough of itJamal

    I am not.

    And I haven't even mentioned your bizarre fixation on Latin vs FrenchJamal

    Oh, so that is where the personal dislike comes from. Well, I already knew, it is always the same with you folks. If someone comes here to claim Berkeley was a dualist, multiple times, would you not correct them each time? You would.
    You are British or Unitedstatian, right? The fixation is not mine, the fixation is from others to state something that is patently incorrect despite being thoroughly debunked each time. Your innate Francophobia comes out each time I correctly point out that French is English's mom.

    Sometimes it's an advantage not knowing too much about other posters.Vera Mont

    No skeletons in my closet, only clothes.
  • Proof that infinity does not come in different sizes
    By Being. Existence just Is. It just is the case that triangles are triangular or that Existence is Infinite or that 1 plus 1 = 2Philosopher19

    So for you, the nature of existence accounts for the awareness that Euclidian triangles sum up 180º degrees. That is what you said in your two comments.
    You have not specific what the nature of existence is besides a brute fact. If so, how do brute facts account for our knowledge of something that is not verified empirically — Euclidian triangles?
    You said here:
    The angles in a true triangle add up to 180 degrees because that is the nature of Existence
    But you did not say how.
  • In defence of the Mediterranean products and farmers
    Why? Because in the Climate Change you posted a picture with data by Iberdrola.javi2541997

    Good deduction, I imagined this inference would be made, however one of the images I also posted in that post is in French, which you can't see anymore because the startpage link got corrupted, but it was this one:

    1KI2Q6.jpg?rev=1.2

    I avoid sourcing things from English as much as possible, hence the different languages.

    When I posted this I thought you would be interested among Alkis (who is from Greece), so I nailed it again.javi2541997

    Well, isn't that the hottest topic right now? At least in Europe and the Med.

    Well, France always did this against the south.javi2541997

    France does that against many nations. Their veiled protectionism does not align with the country's international agreements.
    Also, the farmers are literally dumping crap onto government buildings, I wonder what they are hoping to achieve.
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world
    A couple of days ago in one of the new thread here, the OP was claiming that he witnessed the actual wave of gravity with telescope, and it must be the physical existence of spacetime.Corvus

    Well, you can see gravitational waves insofar as you observe them by checking the spatial distortion that they cause. Maybe that is what they were getting at but I did not see that thread. Not sure what the connection is with what I said though.

    We are not denying the existence of physicals or substances, but they themselves are not facts or minds.Corvus

    For someone who defends physicalism, they are.

    Could the facts one knows about the world he faces, and lives in, be the ultimate reason to believe in the existence of the world?Corvus

    I would say no because those facts could be a fabrication of the mind.
  • How Do You Think You’re Perceived on TPF?
    it could give one dyspepsia.Vera Mont

    Fair. I also dislike pepsi.
  • What Are You Watching Right Now?
    I just watched Gerald's Game. I mean come on, another movie with ped*philia scenes? Does anyone disbelieve at this point that Stephen King has a few TB on his hardrive? It is like when Tarantino writes pointless scenes where actresses put their feet in someone's mouth and casts himself into the role, but more terrible.
  • Sound great but they are wrong!!!
    Basically any Mark Twain quote.
  • In defence of the Mediterranean products and farmers
    I have not been keeping up with the news surrounding that, since the French chimp out every 6 months, but it seems that this time it may in fact affect me. I do buy wine and olives from the local Greek shop, for one. If I could I would buy a summer house in the Mediterranean to give myself at least a few weeks of happiness in the year, I would and it would be a heartfelt investment.
  • How Do You Think You’re Perceived on TPF?
    I will say you are perhaps the sweetest person I have interacted in this forum so far. Of course, the bar is not high — okay the bar is low —, but you do come across as kind.
  • A list of Constitutional Crises
    This should go to the lounge tbh
  • Proof that infinity does not come in different sizes
    To me, the nature of Existence/Infinity accounts for this awareness.Philosopher19

    How?
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world

    When it comes to propositions, the ink down on the paper is, but the propositional content represented by it is not. But a physicalist will say that there is only the ink down on the paper, and that any content represented by it exists as chemical reactions in our mind. Obviously, if the state of affairs that that fact talks about is about the physical world (and for physicalists that is the only state of affairs there is), the fact would be physical too.
    So for physicalists, facts are physical or there are no facts; otherwise it would depend on whether you are talking about the type or the token, or whether the guy you are asking is an idealist, or what the fact is talking about.
  • The Dynamics of Persuasion
    The French contributions to English vocabulary didn't change English grammar.BC

    That is a common talking point. However, it is wrong, and French did impact English's grammar in several indirect ways, and quite a few direct ways.

    There is nothing persuasive about your argument.BC

    That is fine, persuasion is subjective, evidence is objective, my argument is that English words don't come from Latin, that is what I proved.

    It's a GermanicBC

    Eh.
  • The philosophy of humor
    Fair enough. We need not care about much :DAmadeusD

    Well I did listen to some of it and skipped to the next topic once the discussion became stifled. It did not have the effect I expected. Bart said what I expected him to say. Both debated well though Bart seemed to have the upper hand. History is harder to debate than philosophy, linguistics, or any science.

    See also : The Cambridge Companion to Jesus by Tuckett. Historians generally agree it occurred (Our friend Bart, here too).AmadeusD

    Those quotes are a whole nest of cats. I can say from the get go's that Paul Johnson's quote is obviously ideological and, if this guy is not actually a Christian, we must live in a parallel world. Robert van Voorst is a Christian theologist. James D Gunn is the same.
    I mean, is it really far-fetched that Christians manipulate these pages to make so that reality seem other than it really is? It is always the same claims of a historical consensus that doesn't actually exist. Where is the survey where historians are asked whether Jesus exists? There is not any. This consensus is fabricated. There are scholars that believe it is mythical, so it is not a consensus like it is a consensus in biology that the Tapanuli orantugans are monophyletic and that gorillas are polyphyletic while it is not a consensus that humans are either poly or mono.

    There is even, funnily, a quote by Ehrmann in that very page:
    The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time.

    Who doubts that there was a rabbi or preacher called Yeshu (Hebrew for Josh) during 1st century Judaea? Nobody, because it is common sense, Yeshu was a common name back then and Judaea was filled to the brim with (apocalyptic) preachers at the time. Now, that there was a Jesus, that was the son of two Galileans Jews, chased out of Egypt, that discussed with the rabbis at a young age, who had 12 apostles among many followers, who was condemned by the pharisees and whose execution was begrudgingly carried out by Romans? That is who we are talking about when we question whether Jesus existed, not some guy called Josh that preached a little bit. Even if you take out all the supernatural elements from the Bible, there is still no evidence to believe those stories happened. And that there was a Jesus that eventually became the figure that Christians worship? Well, that depends on whether that Josh guy from the beginning of the paragraph has some link to the New Testament, and we know of someone who does, Yeshu ben Ananias.

    Then I don't think you've paid cursory attention to the topic.AmadeusD

    I did not find any historical evidence of the crucifixion there.

    That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.

    This quote by a theologian John Cross is particularly dishonest. This guy is no historian. As sure as any historical fact can ever be? Stratospheric, astronomical, gigametric and transdimensional bollocks. There are countless historical facts that are much more sure than that. Josephus obviously has Christian interpolations, and even if there is not, that is even worse, as he would be reporting what Christian believed in, not what he believed in, since as a Jew he would never call Jesus the Christ or say he came back from the dead. The same is the case for Tacitus.

    That whole article is a can of worms, as expected from perhaps the most damaging website in the history of the internet, subject to several cabals.
    Besides, most of those quotes regarding "X passage is not a forgery" comes from theologians and Christian "historians", against the word of secular historians that raise the possibility it is — once again fabricating consensus despite literally saying in the sentence before that there are professional historians that disagree.

    it is, though. So im unsure why you'd wade into this pretending it isn't. It is squarely theology, and perhaps this is what you've missed. The historicity of Jesus is a study theological in nature, and at the very, very least "biblical scholarship" can't be left off the description. But, in any case, this is actually pretty much settled history.AmadeusD

    It is about history; whether you think theology overlaps with history is another matter.
  • Nothing to something is logically impossible
    A convention is just that, a convention.

    But, in the absence of further clarification, I Understand ↪MoK to be making the claim that time is necessary and sufficient for change, hence T ≡ C.Banno

    I thought you were making the point that T → C when replying to Bob. But nevermind.

    Logic does not allow us to derive anything that is not in the assumptions, and hence logic alone cannot deduce the existence of god or of a first cause or of something never coming from nothing.Banno

    Exactly. The good old defining something into existence.
  • The philosophy of humor
    I do not agree. But i am not a theologian.AmadeusD

    It is not about theology. I could not find immediately a good link on the topic, I am afraid. The blog brings up other points I do not know about, but I think it is sufficient, though incomplete, for the point I brought up.

    He takes elements that are externally supported, in some way as historical, in light of the external supportAmadeusD

    I don't see how the crufixion of Jesus is externally supported.

    I would highly, hgihly recommend watching this before respondingAmadeusD

    Sorry but 1 hour about a topic that is not horribly important to me seems a bit much. Perhaps I will listen to it while I cook tomorrow or go jog — hopefully I will overcome that the two debaters somewhat sound the same.
  • The philosophy of humor
    Are there conservative elements in his thinking? Yes, but they are intertwined with ideas whose political implications are far removed from both conservativism and liberalism.Joshs

    Just like everybody else. No famous philosopher of the past centuries would be a conservative in the sense that we, in 2024, bizarrely different even from 2004, understand it, as the concepts of non-binary or intersectionality or colonial reparations would be alien to them; yet it seems to me you are jumping through hoops to validate your own political prejudices. Aristotle's view on women and other races, Kant's on blacks, and Nietzsche's on the race mixed would come as a shock I imagine — or you would just dismiss them as ignorants of the past, but not ignorant enough to not be fundamentally studied to this day. Russell was really the pioneer of the modern politically correct, government-approved philosopher.
  • The philosophy of humor
    Im unsure that's true. Bart Erhmann is a prime example of someone who would rather Jesus didn't exist as it would be a smoking gun for his career succeeding.AmadeusD

    You have heard of Bart Erhmann because of Christians who bring him up, am I right?
    Bart is a guy who takes the Bible to be historical evidence, that much is silly. The fact that the Gospel of Mark mirrors so strongly Jewish Antiquities by Josephus (ironically used by Christians as well) tells you that the new testament is fabricated. He is a public figure, and one should look into his biography, especially his early life.
  • The Dynamics of Persuasion
    You have made this objection before. I don't understand why you think a word that entered English from Old French doesn't itself have roots in Latin. There would be no Old French without Latin.BC

    I make the correction everytime I see the mistake. I know that Old French enspirer comes from Ancient Latin inspirare (skipping a few steps in the evolution), because French is Latin. What you say however is a fallacy that I have addressed here and here.


    You don’t think the word “inspire” can be traced back to the Latin word “inspirare”?NOS4A2

    I know that it comes from French. The statement that an English word comes from Latin is in most cases comedic, as English has nothing to do with Latin. How could it?
  • The philosophy of humor
    Being trained in philosophy does not make one a philosopher. Aquinas was much more trained in philosophy than Marx, yet Russell's criticism.

    there are many points of contact with modern philosophical debates throughout his writings

    Dawkins', Dostoyevski's, Tolstoi's writings also have many points of contact with philosophical debate. Yet, we don't call them philosophers. Granted, Marx engages with philosophy and/or in a philosophical manner more than those three do — historical materialism being obviously inspired by Hegel.

    “The Manuscripts provide a critique of classical political economy grounded in the philosophies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach.”Joshs

    You could say he was a political philosopher, yes. But how is it different in practice from political science anyhow?

    And I didn't mean to post my comment so soon. I edited it.
  • The philosophy of humor
    Do you think that Marx is a philosopher?Joshs

    Αs far as I know, he was never a professional philosopher. Other than that, I stand behind what the SEP says; he is better described as a sociologist (pseudo-science) and activist rather than philosopher.
    In a sense, couldn't we call Richard Dawkins a philosopher? Yet he is much better described as a biologist.

    I don’t consider Heidegger a conservative.Joshs

    I will argue that at a political and ideological level Heidegger's work can be seen to bear a close relationship to the so-called Conservative Revolution, an intellectual movement that rejected both bourgeois liberalism and communism, and called for an authoritarian nationalism and a spiritual renewal of Germany.Mark Cameron

    There is also Roger Scruton. And Schopenhauer could be aptly described as conservative.
  • The Dynamics of Persuasion
    I know, that confirms exactly what I am saying: it comes from French, not from Latin.
  • The Dynamics of Persuasion
    “Inspire”, for example, can be traced back to the Latin inspirareNOS4A2

    Nuh uh, like every other word you see in an English text, it comes from Old French inspirer.
  • Nothing to something is logically impossible
    P1) Time is needed for change
    P2) There is no change when there is no time (From P1) (HP)
    P3) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing (HP)
    P4) There is no time in nothing
    C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P2 and P4)
    C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P3 and C1)
    MoK

    Nothing to something is F, change is C, nothing is n, time is t.
    P1) ∀x(C(x) → t)
    P2 is a repetition of P1.
    P3)
    P4) n → ¬t
    C1)
    C2) ¬∃x(F(x))

    This the best that I managed after a few tries, but I can't write change in nothing.

    The idea of 'nothing', especially in regard to 'something' is complicated because it combines the mathematical with the linguistic. At its basis, the mathematics of nothing is zero; but how it comes into play linguistically conceptually may be more complex.Jack Cummins

    :up:
  • Proof that infinity does not come in different sizes
    The angles in a true triangle add up to 180 degrees because that is the nature of ExistencePhilosopher19

    But Euclidian triangles don't exist in nature.
  • Nothing to something is logically impossible
    P1: T ↔ CBob Ross

    I suspect it's an implication - "if there is a change then there is a passage of time" or some such.Banno

    Though OP says time is needed for change, he does not say it is sufficient. Time is needed for change, so where there is change there is time, always. However, it is not always that where there is time there is change.

    We are looking for this, where X is the result.
    tZo0aEm.png
    So it would be instead that T ← C.

    https://www.ncl.ac.uk/webtemplate/ask-assets/external/maths-resources/economics/sets-and-logic/necessity-and-sufficiency.html
    https://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga/math-proof/truth-tables/truth-tables.html
  • Proof that infinity does not come in different sizes
    1 add 1 equals 2Philosopher19

    In binary, 1 + 1 equals 10. In mod1 arithmetics, 1+1 equals 0.
  • Is Universal Form a good tool?
    Everybody knows things such as thought and emotion and planning happen in the brain. I don't see any use.