If so, what is it? — 180 Proof

The world we know, is the medium. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's less inconsistent and more parsimonious, it seems to me, to conceive of "physical" and "mental" as two properties – ways of describing / modeling – substance than positing them as "two substances" (which do not share a medium by which to interact with one another). Property dualism, for example, does not have "substance dualism's" interaction problem. — 180 Proof

My point was not about the truthful perception of a thing, but about differences in general. A thing can never be perceived absolutely; there are no 1:1 real-time representations. — DasGegenmittel

Correct, but I would add that both sameness and difference are equally important to emphasize the definitional core of the matter. There is no delimitation without differentiation. — DasGegenmittel

Biden’s final “fuck you” to the world was the crossing of “red-lines” and the possibility (50% possibility, according to US intelligence) of all out nuclear war. — NOS4A2

I can only speak for myself, but my own paranoia is the compression of space, that distant events and people can influence local and regional affairs. — NOS4A2

His installing as prime minister is the swan song of globalism — NOS4A2

Then I want to say that when we know what the sign means, what we know is how to use it. That means not only understanding the conceptual structure that gives is meaning, but what it requires us to do (and not to do). — Ludwig V

I don’t think so. “2 + 2 = 4” isn’t a statement about reality as such, but about a perceptual pattern abstracted by the mind. Numbers aren’t part of the world in the same way as, say, rocks or trees. They’re tools—mental instruments that help us structure and process sensory input. They emerge after perception, not before it. — DasGegenmittel

Perception introduces difference. Without difference, there’s no concept of “two.” Numbers are thus not touchable objects, but operational categories—modalities of cognition. — DasGegenmittel

As for the broken clock case:

To say, “S cannot believe that a broken clock is working,” misrepresents the belief. “Broken clock” is an external diagnosis, not necessarily part of S’s belief content.

If S looks at the clock at 2:00 p.m., and the clock (stuck at 2:00) shows 2:00, S forms the belief “It’s 2:00.” That belief is justified (the clock appears fine), true (it is 2:00), and believed. The Gettier problem arises here. — DasGegenmittel

This particular act wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment meltdown of the mentally ill, as usually is the case, but the use of a mask and duct tape suggest some level of planning, so the owner guesses it was probably a neighbor or someone who followed him home. — NOS4A2

Well, what you say is not wrong, of course. But I would have put it differently. That I prefer to say that "2+2=4" is a statement in what grammarians call the timeless present just shows that I'm uncomfortable with metaphysics. So let that pass. When I said it signified nothing, I was taking advantage of an ambiguity in the meaning of "signified". The traditional structure of signifier and signified articulates the two terms as inherently relational - two objects in a relationship. I don't think it necessarily is. For example, does a road sign saying "Road closed" stand in any necessary relation to anything that you would want to call an object, in the sense that the sign itself is an object. I don't think so. But the sign has a clear meaning, nonetheless. — Ludwig V

We can say that, but we do well to pause for a moment and work out the meaning of what we just said. If we post the meaning (significance) of a term as an object and think things through, we may realize that no object could possibly do the things that we require meaning to do. So we have to park that idea and think more carefully about what we actually mean by meaning. — Ludwig V

And it has turned out that—if true—everything it has removed... — NOS4A2

Yes, but representing and corresponding are not the only ways to mean something. If we can calculate and apply our equations to the world, we know what they mean even if the signify nothing. — Ludwig V

Musk's right wing ideology is something he recently grew into. He was a hero of the left right up until he chose to think for himself and observe the censorship and complete ineptitude of the administration in power which was largely the liberal democrat bureaucracy. — philosch

At the same time, his daughter Vivian came out as transgender and changed her name, declaring that she no longer wanted to “be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form”.

Musk himself has cited Vivian as a reason for his political shift, telling the pop psychologist Jordan Peterson that he had “lost [his] son [sic], essentially”, and concluding that his son “is dead, killed by the woke mind virus”.

Lastly colonizing Mars is a next logical step in our development and is critical to the long term survival of human kind. That's simply a scientific fact. — philosch

These two descriptions describe the same thing. — Banno

it is waffle because it tries to mix two different types of language games - the physical and the intentional. — Banno

There go my pig videos — Shawn

No, but that's not something in the world. It's something about things in the world. All the things that could represent that equation wont stay the same. — AmadeusD

A notable feature of resource-conscious logics is how they naturally have "quantum-like" properties, due to the fact their semantic models are state spaces of decisions that are generally irreversible, thereby prohibiting the reuse of resources; indeed, the assumption that resources can be reused, is generally a cause of erroneous counterfactual reasoning, such as when arguing that a moving object must have a position because it might have been stopped. — sime

I don't think that's a solution - especially as I'm not clear what the problem is. We have two different ways of describing the world. End of story. — Ludwig V

Unsound argument means the premise was false, and also invalid reasoning was applied for the conclusion. — Corvus

Here reasoning seems valid, but the premise was false, which led to the false conclusion. Hence the argument is invalid. — Corvus

Your notion of "change" is untenable. I'm reminded of Heraclites' river.

Change is irrelevant to JTB. At time t1(insert well-grounded true claim here) and viola! — creativesoul

Wrong assumptions lead to invalid conclusions. — Corvus

An obvious wrong assumption? — Corvus

But it does puzzle us still. Because if you think that we know everything about mathematical infinity, then I guess there should be an answer to the Continuum Hypothesis. — ssu

Is this a "misuse" in mathematics? We are talking about mathematics.

Pick two real numbers, and it can be shown that there are real numbers between them. Pick even two rational numbers, and you have rational numbers between them.

You would wander to the illogical, if you would to start to argue that it isn't so, that it's misuse or something. — ssu

Can you show me a physics text that does not use time? — Banno

Here I would side with Moliere. It is a logical problem. Or basically that the measurement problem is a logical problem, hence you cannot just suppose there to be "an adequate way of measurement". — ssu

The problem is infinity itself. And that is a logical problem for us. — ssu

We're limited in terms of measuring -- but I want to say that Zeno's paradoxes are not problems of measurement at all. They are logical problems (which is why they evoke the difference between physics and logic and math, as the OP stated already) — Moliere

A "non- physical" measurement of a physical quantity... what would be your non-physical units for the fuel left in the tank - not litres, since they are physical. — Banno

What I'm asking is more about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which as he interpreted it meant that reality itself doesn't allow for a precision of both, but rather demands aprecision, or position,* of any one particle. But due to cuz that's how nature works, not cuz how we measure it. — Moliere

Timestamps, while not sufficient, are nevertheless necessary for any attempt to articulate change. The shift from being to becoming cannot be described adequately through a chain of static states. As Aristotle argued, change is not captured by a succession of positions; rather, it exists between them. It’s a different kind of phenomenon—continuous, processual, and epistemically elusive. Yet without temporal markers, we would lack the coordinates needed to locate, compare, or even recognize shifts in state. Timestamps provide the necessary structure within which the insufficiency of static snapshots becomes visible. They do not capture becoming, but they allow us to trace its outline. — DasGegenmittel

In this context, DK is not a lack of certainty, but an ideal in its own right. Knowledge is modeled as a limit process: not something one has, but something one approaches. The limit in the DKa and DKh formulas represents the asymptotic approach to ideal knowledge in dynamic contexts. It shows that knowledge evolves step by step, reducing uncertainty over time, but never fully reaches absolute certainty: see as well bayesian epistemology as complementary approach. It models the continuous refinement of justified beliefs under changing conditions. I distinguish two complementary dimensions: — DasGegenmittel

JTC mirrors the structure of JTB—justification, truth, and belief remain essential—but reinterprets them dynamically. Truth is no longer static but contextualized within time. Justification adapts, and belief becomes a crisis-aware assertion. Together, these preserve the functional core of JTB while enabling knowledge to operate under uncertainty. JTC is not a rejection but a temporal simulation of JTB—an epistemic snapshot in motion, like Zeno’s arrow suspended mid-flight. — DasGegenmittel

Personally, I find no issue between JTB and change. That's what proper indexing/timestamps are for. — creativesoul

You pointed out the tension between Parmenides’ being and Heraclitus’ becoming, referencing Aristotle, who saw these opposites as irreconcilable. Your proposed solution is a dualism that separates both aspects. This is precisely where my distinction between Static Knowledge and Dynamic Knowledge comes in:
• SK refers to timeless, secure knowledge (e.g., mathematics).
• DK is tied to changing conditions (e.g., the fastest route to work today). — DasGegenmittel

Immutable and timeless elements (see deduction) are often conflated with mutable and temporal ones (see induction), as is the case in many Gettier examples. The expectation that knowledge should work the same way in inductive contexts as it does in deductive reasoning is, as you imply, unfounded. The epistemic monism currently dominant in the field is therefore deeply problematic. That’s why I wrote my paper Justified True Crisis—because this issue often goes unrecognized. It’s reassuring to know there are people out there who think along similar lines. — DasGegenmittel

In relation to Plato’s Theaetetus, you argue that knowledge cannot be understood as “Justified True Belief” (JTB) because we can never completely rule out the possibility of falsehood. Therefore, “truth” cannot serve as a sufficient criterion, and JTB itself cannot be equated with knowledge. This interpretation reflects a typical post-Gettier skepticism, namely that the concept of truth itself remains “inaccessible.”

In my model, this doesn’t mean we discard truth altogether. Rather, the discussion around Gettier cases (e.g., the stopped clock) highlights the need to distinguish between static and dynamic knowledge. We still need “truth” as a goal and standard for knowledge, but we must accept that in DK-domains, our beliefs are constantly subject to revision, and we can never claim absolute certainty in changing environments. — DasGegenmittel

The primary characteristic that makes the waking state feel real is its continuity (not in the strict mathematical sense; unless stated otherwise, the broader sense is to be understood) with preceding waking states. — Deep Kumar Trivedi

This characteristic is generally absent among dreaming states. Dreams are typically disconnected from one another. A dream begins abruptly, while a waking state always has a definable starting point. Even when a dream incorporates elements from the preceding waking state, it lacks full continuity.
For instance, suppose I am waiting for a friend. While waiting, I nap and dream that my friend arrives, and we share memories from the past. In this case, the dream exhibits a partial succession of events from the prior waking state. However, it remains a dream because the continuity of succession is incomplete. Upon waking, my friend would not recognize or verify the conversation we had in the dream.
Here, an interesting analogy can be drawn between the continuity of waking states and the mathematical concept of removable discontinuity (in its strict sense). In mathematics, a removable discontinuity occurs at an
x-value in a function where the two one-sided limits exist, are finite, and equal, but the function is not defined at that point. — Deep Kumar Trivedi

Similarly, a dreaming state is like a point of discontinuity where the function (representing waking experience) is not defined, as the waking experience is not accessible to the dreamer. The preceding and succeeding waking states resemble the left-hand and right-hand limits, respectively. Both limits approach the same event, ensuring continuity. — Deep Kumar Trivedi

there are numbers that cannot be counted... — Banno

confusing the physical and abstract. — 180 Proof

ep. It is also connected and complete; it has a topological structure. Of course, not all the issues are ironed out and answered. If you want more you will need to talk to a mathematician. — Banno

Anyway — Please let him just continue. It almost always guarantees a laugh whenever I check. — Mikie

Do you guys fire-bomb Ladas to get back at Putin? — NOS4A2

They don't. The continuum is not just a set of points. — Banno

Treat it as points, or as a continuum, but not both. — Banno