Ok Drake, I'll do that.

Thanks ↪fdrake! You're an excellent forum moderator, one of the best I've ever seen!

(Edited because I removed a music video) — Arcane Sandwich

Drake I updated my comment.

But they're amazing to think about. There's not enough matter in the Universe to write them, even with pen and paper.

Drake, can I share an article with you, here? It's an article from a magazine called Popular Mechanics. The title is "Wrap Your Head Around the Enormity of the Number TREE(3)".

I'd be interesting in known your opinion about these gargantuan numbers. Or, scratch that, can I please ask you what you think about them? Forget the article. What do you think of Graham's Number, for example?

Yes, it's a very smart observation, the one that you're making. And it's also good advice. I'm not sure that I agree with the following part, though:

I'm not even sure you can do anything about it anyway, it's just something to be mindful of. — fdrake

That sounds a bit defeatist to my ear.

You really need to work on your quatrains, dude. Omar Khayyam is way better than you.

As I said, Mr. F. Drake, you're an excellent forum moderator. One of the best I've ever seen.

That's a good point, I never thought about it that way. You're right.

Ok. I will comply with your request. I promise that I will try to be a better forum member.

You're an excellent forum moderator as well, Moliere. One of the best I've ever seen.

Ok. I apologize.

Thank you once again for all of your excellent work and your equally excellent contributions.

↪Arcane Sandwich
But first I should ask myself: who am I to moderate you? — javi2541997

Well, I'd say that you're my friend, if there's such a thing as Internet friendships. So, I have already given you the right to moderate me, informally at least.

I admit that I lose my control often — javi2541997

Well, everyone does. That's why everyone self-moderates, informally.

and I am biased on explicit topics. — javi2541997

So is everyone, arguably.

For example: I can't see myself as a good mod in Gaza thread because I root for Palestinian people, and I am not very fond of Israel. — javi2541997

Not every moderator has to moderate every single topic of discussion. Maybe your talents and knowledge are better suited to moderate topics in Philosophy of Art, for example. You don't have to moderate political topics if you don't want to.

A mod should act as we expect from judges: objectively. — javi2541997

Yes, indeed. I agree.

That we can explain their actions from a real politik perspective doesn't make it morally right. — Benkei

Well said.

Deleuze, Foucault, Heidegger and Derrida are among those who continued to follow Nietzsche’s thinking on this well past their post-pubescent stage. — Joshs

I'd say that Heidegger interpreted Nietzsche correctly, for the most part, and that Derrida interpreted Heidegger correctly, for the most part.

Then there's the question of who has interpreted Derrida correctly, at least for the most part. Maybe it's you, Joshs. Why not?

Yeah but wasn't he crazy?

Did you write those quatrains yourself, or did an A.I. write them? Omar Khayyam wrote his own quatrains, he didn't use A.I.

Damn, how do cells divide again? — DifferentiatingEgg

Well, maybe you know more about cell division than we do. Your forum name here is "DifferentiatingEgg", after all.

Well, you could moderate the poetry section, if you wanted to, and if you formally made that request, I would imagine. Customarily, forum administrators don't ask users if they want to be mods or admins. I'm not saying that it can't happen, or that it never happened, I'm sure it has happened in other forums. It's just not customary to proceed like that. Usually, whoever wishes to do unpaid, volunteer work as a mod (because that is indeed what it is), has to make the request. But, like I said, maybe things are different in The Philosophy Forum, I don't know. : )

Pardon. I hope you don't mind if I quote Kant's CoPR, just to have it here as a useful reference for further discussion.

In the Preface to the Second Edition (1787), Kant says:

At the same time, it must be carefully borne in mind that, while we surrender the power of cognizing, we still reserve the power of thinking objects, as things in themselves.¹ For, otherwise, we should require to affirm the existence of an appearance, without something that appears — which would be absurd.

¹ In order to cognize an object, I must be able to prove its possibility, either from its reality as attested by experience, or a priori, by means of reason. But I can think what I please, provided only I do not contradict myself; that is, provided my conception is a possible thought, though I may be unable to answer for the existence of a corresponding object in the sum of possibilities. But something more is required before I can attribute to such a conception objective validity, that is real possibility — the other possibility being merely logical. We are not, however, confined to theoretical sources of cognition for the means of satisfying this additional requirement, but may derive them from practical sources. — Kant

Very interesting, thank you for providing sufficient reasons for how AE1 can be denied.

I was never asked to be a mod, and I am lucky because I think I will not be up to the required standards. — javi2541997

You have to volunteer if you want to be a mod, generally speaking. Maybe it's different in The Philosophy Forum, I don't know.

Here's something to consider: Who was the first Christian? It has to be Jesus Christ, right?

And here's another question to consider: who was the first atheist?

It's strange (weird) to use letters for writing about numbers. It's better to use numerals for that purpose. Because A, B, C are not the same thing as 1, 2, 3.

But there are certain concepts in mathematics that can accurately be described as conceptually colossal. One such number is TREE(3), but there are others, such as Graham's Number, for example.



https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a28725/number-tree3/

Well, if I'm still allowed to play the part of the skeptic here, that just begs the question:

Don't be silly. — tim wood

Is this a request or an order?

How do I know it's not snake oil? I just have to take your word for it?

Likely given a taste, you'll read more. — tim wood

I don't know if I want to read it, then. It sounds like a drug.

Well, if that's the case, then allow me to play the part of the skeptic, please.

What are your APs? What are mine? Which ones would be common to you and me?

(The Sea in which we See) — PoeticUniverse

appeal to authority — Banno


Citing sources in support of argument is perfectly legitimate. — Wayfarer

Interesting argument.

Do you happen to be familiar with the terms "absolute presupposition" aka "hinge propositions" (although not quite the same thing)? — tim wood

I've heard about them, especially the latter, but I don't know much about them. What are they about?

So what's you point, in that comment, specifically? I don't get it.

I'm at that level of simplicity. — tim wood

Are there any further levels of simplicity, in that sense? Honest question.

It goes back to establishing some precision in language. Working scientists presuppose willy-nilly what they need to in order to do their work, but we as aspiring metaphysicians, to do our work, have got to try to be as clear as we can about what we presuppose and whether particular presuppositions matter, to see if we're misled or well-led by them. — tim wood

Well, that's why we use logical symbols, like propositional letters, for example, in the context of propositional logic. Symbols such as "p", "q", "r", "s", etc. They don't mean anything, they're just propositional letters.

A more sophisticated logic is first-order predicate logic. Now you have individual constants and individual variables. The latter are of two types: free variables and bound variables. And now you have predicate letters as well, and you also have two quantifiers: the "for-all" sign, and the "for-some" sign, also known as the "universal quantifier" and the "existential quantifier".

So it goes. The next step in complexity is second-order logic. Now you can quantify over predicates, you can use the universal quantifier as well as the existential quantifier to range over predicates. It's just set theory in sheep's clothing, as Quine said. And it's incomplete in a way that first-order predicate logic is not. So, I just don't use second-order logic, I don't like it. If it's set theory in sheep's clothing, then I'd rather use set theory.

But I don't have much use for set theory, to be honest. I just get by with first-order predicate logic and propositional logic, that's all I need for my modest aims. I'm open to the idea that I might be wrong about this, though.

(1) There are appearances (phenomena).
(2) So, there is something that appears (noumeon).
Kant seems to think that if (1) is true, then (2) must be true a well. — Arcane Sandwich


I'm betting sure that Kant never said that any noumenon "appears." But as an education is a valuable thing worth having, I'll gladly pay off.... Now I'll attempt to channel Mww, probably a mistake on my part. But I think he would point out that what appears is the phenomenon, that is, a creation of mind. The noumenon is no creation of mind, and being itself thereby not a phenomenon, never appears. Here, I'll ping Mww and maybe he'll clean up any misstep of mine. — tim wood

Ok, sure, why not?

(some parts have been edited)

Don't do drugs. At least if you can avoid it. Saying "Just one fix" is not a good promise. Saying "I could quit if I wanted to" only begs the question: do you want to quit?

Lyrics
Roll another blunt
Yeah (ooh-ooh-ooh)
(La-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra)
(La, ta, ta
(La-la-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-la-la)
I was gonna clean my room until I got high (ooh)
I was gonna get up and find the broom, but then I got high (la-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra)
My room is still messed up, and I know why (why? Man)
'Cause I got high, because I got high, because I got high (la-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra)
I was gonna go to class before I got high (come on y'all, check it out)
I coulda cheated and I coulda passed, but I got high (la-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra)
I'm taking it next semester and I know why (why? Man)
'Cause I got high, because I got high, because I got high (got to the next one, got to the next one)
I was gonna go to court before I got high (ooh-ooh-ooh)
I was gonna pay my child support, but then I got high (no, you wouldn't, yeah)
They took my whole paycheck and I know why (why? Man)
'Cause I got high, because I got high, because I got high (la-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra)
I wasn't gonna run from the cops, but I was high (uh, I'm serious man)
I was gonna pull right over and stop, but I was high (la-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra)
Now I am a paraplegic and I know why (why? Man)
'Cause I got high, because I got high, because I got high (la-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra)
I was gonna make love to you, but then I got high (oh, I'm serious)
I was gonna eat yo' pussy too, but then I got high (oh)
Now I'm jacking off, and I know why (turn this shit up)
'Cause I got high, because I got high, because I got high (la-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra)
I messed up my entire life because I got high (ooh-ooh-ooh)
I lost my kids and wife because I got high (la-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra)
Now I'm sleeping on the sidewalk and I know why (why? Man)
'Cause I got high, because I got high, because I got high (la-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra)
I'm gonna stop singing this song because I'm high (baby, oh)
I'm singing this whole thing wrong because I'm high (yeah, bring it back, bring it back)
And if I don't sell one copy, I know why (why? Man)
'Cause I'm high, 'cause I'm high, 'cause I'm high (la-la-ta, ta-ta-ra-ra) — Afroman

EDIT: On the other hand...

I believe that in this topic the central criticism has been made of empiricism a la Berkeley, which is empiricism taken to its last true consequences (the criticism of primary qualities). In that sense the critique is absolutely right — JuanZu

You're right, but you're also far too kind towards me. My critique of bishop Berkeley could be wrong.

Please — tim wood

Well, since you said the magic word, I guess I have no choice. And by that, I mean that I have to stop being a dick towards everyone, including myself.

tell how a science about unperceivables works — tim wood

I'll try. I can't promise anything in that sense.

keep in mind the qualification that nothing can be observed/perceived. — tim wood

What a strange qualification.

Anyways, here goes. Take the following with a grain of salt.

Kant made a distinction between phenomenon and noumenon. We can speak of phenomena, but it would be somewhat strange to speak of noumena, in the plural, since we don't know anything about them. What we do know, however (this is a famous footnote to the Critique of Pure Reason) is that there is a noumenon, because otherwise there would be appearances (phenomena) without something that appears (noumenon).

For example, it's as if Kant is saying the following:

(1) There are appearances (phenomena).
(2) So, there is something that appears (noumeon).

Kant seems to think that if (1) is true, then (2) must be true a well.

How are we doing so far? Any objections to the preceding?

On the less bright side, discussing the thread and its bright and dull sides is entirely off topic, as is most of the discussion that goes on in the thread. but since we can't beat them... — unenlightened

The less bright side?

Don't take my word for it, though.