That is not an insult but "ignorant and confused" is? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I am not sure what planet you live, and say that. But it is an insult, and definitely needless thing to say to your interlocutors without valid reasons.

If someone came on, and replied to your post starting "You are ignorant and confused ... intellectually incompetent" without any evidence or ground, then I am sure you wouldn't feel pleasant.

But we are at the point where further discussion is without purpose. Again, you have shown that there is no value in discourse with you. — Banno

You havn't posted anything of philosophical merit for page after page; just bitchin'.

Here's the link that proves it. — Banno

Your posts are biased and full of distortion of the facts as usual. I don't see a point in philosophical discourse with you either. You claim that you care for philosophy, but in reality you distort the truths with your bias, prejudice and false judgement.

First, you lied that earlier I began with ad hominems. — TonesInDeepFreeze

At least, I presented the logic that I have never lied. And I have now the evidence of your post quote, you starting your post with ad hominem insults to the other interlocutors.

You, have no logic, no evidence, no ground for your claims. But just make up false statements and claims on the others.

Now I am only asking you to stop your nonsense, and let us get on with the philosophical discussions with the basic manners, respects and rationality.

No, I don't speak on his behalf. I speak on my own behalf to say that it is a plain fact that Banno did not exaggerate by saying 'hundreds' but that you exaggerated by saying that he did say 'hundreds'.

Again it's in the plain record of the posts. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, he made his post sounding like that. Do you still not understand any simile or metaphor expressions in English?

Hey look, if you don't have any meaningful philosophy to write down, please remain silent. We want to discuss philosophy here.

I posted the links. That's the evidence. The logic is pretty much inferring that what is posted at the links says just what it says. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That is not logic. Logic must have premises and conclusions. The premises must be backed up by the evidence. You don't seem to know even what Logic means.

As I told you before, because I have carefully studied all of these things in my mind for five years full-time I really can address and possible objection that anyone (including Quine) can possibly have. {cats} means the unique concept of the living animal and has an associated 128-bit GUID integer. Any other usage has its own different 12-bit GUID integer. "cats" may or may not be associated with {cats}. — PL Olcott

What can the system tell us about the cat next door? The grey coloured cat keeps coming into our garden looking for something often.

I have not made many claims quoting hundreds of philosophers. That is just another distortion of the truth with exaggeration.
— Corvus

The quote above, written to Banno, is exaggeration thus distortion.

Banno didn't say that you have made claims by quoting hundreds of philosophers.. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Still speaking on behalf of Banno? Look I am not interested in your ad hominem posts begging for attention.  I am here to read and discuss philosophy.  

That is false, since you didn't say that you lied but you did lie.

The plain record of the posts in this thread prove that you lied, as I explicitly linked to the posts. But you skip that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You don't present any logic in your claims and statements. You just imagine that I didn't say something, and that is the only ground for your false claim. Where is your logic and evidence for your claim?

The crank is ignorant and confused about identity theory and the axiom of extensionality, so this at least is reference for how they actually work in set theory: — TonesInDeepFreeze

See your ad hominem attacks on other interlocutors from the beginning of your posts? That is not a good manner at all. Please just discuss the philosophy. Have some respect. Don't throw insults to the other interlocutors.

This is exactly how you have started in this thread on many of your previous posts. If you track back your posts, you will see them clearly unless you have edited them out. My statements on the point is proven to be true here.

I don't now actually recall what your point was. It wasn't very clear to start with, and is now buried in the clamour of your protest. — Banno

See? That was what I meant. You don't even understand the point, but rubbish it as wrong. How absurd is that. By the way, you are still in deep illusion. I was not protesting on anything. I was just pointing out problems in your inaccurate posts.

You have made claims about the ideas espoused by various philosophers, but when challenged you have not produced citations or produced citations that do not support your claims.

You are not playing the game right. — Banno

I have not made many claims quoting hundreds of philosophers. That is just another distortion of the truth with exaggeration. My point was simple, and I quoted one philosopher, from which was the Wittgenstein's writing, and mentioned 2-3 others. If you still cannot understand the point, you can look them up yourself, and find out. No one has to spoon feed you.

You are not playing the game right.

And that is worth pointing out. — Banno

I said this before, but will say again. Your problem is that you blindly say that others' points are wrong before presenting your arguments with evidence supporting your claims. That appears to be your trademark modus operandi of philosophy.

But because you keep on doing it firstly and unfairly to others, the other party will quite rightly try to argue against your wrong points and the style of your absurd claims dissecting the faults in your modus operandi. It is a vicious circle in your philosophy.

Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works. Hoping to capture common sense knowledge, Cyc focuses on implicit knowledge that other AI platforms may take for granted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc — PL Olcott

Not sure how the AI could know anything about the world, if they are locked up in the analytic cave. Doesn't sound very convincing in the system operandi.

An axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html — PL Olcott

Isn't it exactly the point Quine disagrees with? Some self-evident knowledge without proof can be also self-deceiving too.

An axiomatic model of the world is the only way that an AI mind can be created that is the functional equivalent to a human mind. It must be told that {cats} <are> {animals}. — PL Olcott

What if {cats} was someone's nick name, or name of a rock band? They are also cats too, no? In that case , the AI would fail to tell the truth, wouldn't it?

Being 'moral' or 'immoral' is a property of something that is good, not vice-versa. The properties of 'being moral' and 'being immoral' are extensions of 'being good' or 'being bad'. — Bob Ross

I wonder if it is simple as that. Who judges what is moral or immoral? If someone with power and authority comes along, and says to you cutting grass in the winter is bad moral, therefore you are morally bad, then is the authority morally good, and are you morally bad?

Goodness and pleasantness are synonymous, so the weather is good today, so it is pleasant. Does it mean that morally good means morally pleasant? Morally bad means morally unpleasant?

I outlined this in the OP: what did you disagree with? Actual perfection isn't 'goodness for someone', it is perfection as it is in-itself. — Bob Ross

I didn't say that I disagreed with the OP. I was wondering if goodness is an absolute concept. I mean is there such a thing as absolute goodness?

Goodness seems to be a relative concept. It is good only from one's point of view. Something can be good for you, but it can be bad for others. Do you recall an old song lyric "One man's ceiling is the other man's floor."? But I am wondering if there is goodness from all the people in the world. If there were, what could they be?

Goodness is also a property of objects, actions, and situations, but it is dependent on a lot of factors and conditions on the objects, actions and situations. You cannot just say there is moral goodness which is perfect and morally good, and no one really knows what the goodness is without the considerations.

So, I am still baffled why you challenged me to cite a textbook when your own favorite book on set theory, which you claim to have read, is one of many many textbooks that give the definition you challenged me to show that it is in a textbook. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I was just telling you about Pinter's book to say that even classic Set theory books admit the historical controversies with the concept of infinity. I wasn't meaning to say the book is denying, accepting or defining on the infinity as per my view.

If you still don't understand what the point is, then you need to read a book called "The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic" Edited by Shapiro. Again in that book, there are various different articles with different views on the topic. But one that you must read about is "Quine".

You lied about me when you said I started with insults. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If I really lied, then I would have told you that I lied, which is true. But you claim that I lied, which is false, and a lie.

I didn't lie, but you claim that I lied. Clearly and obviously you are telling a lie.
Therefore in whatever the case, you are the one who lied.

My posts are based on the philosophy of mathematics (Putnam)
— Corvus

Hilary Putnam?

How do your views square with indispensability? — TonesInDeepFreeze

Putnam edited a book called Philosophy of Mathematics Selected readings. He put in there various articles by different people. It is not a book solely written by Putnam. You obviously have no idea about the book, or what the Edited book means.

The problem is that both you and Corvus badly misrepresent Wittgenstein in an attempt to subjugate his name to your psycoceramics.

So far neither of you have been able to cite anything like an endorsement of either your eccentric and unsound view of equity nor Corvus' confusing finite and infinite. Nor will you. — Banno

Under your thinking, anyone not thinking the same as you is misattributing everything. That is just nonsense. Under your eyes, people shouldn't be thinking differently from you.

Anyone thinking differently from you are downright wrong, and misattributing. What is the point of your philosophy? Forcing others to think the same as you do? That is not right.

Many would believe that your posts should be under proactive moderation for the low quality posts you have been spewing out with the meaningless quibblings stemming from your misunderstandings, and forcing people to believe and think exactly the same as yourself.

Many mathematicians? — Michael

Not sure on Mathematicians, but if they are logical, I would presume they would.

nfinite sets have a use in mathematics. That's all that matters. Reading more into them is a mistake. — Michael

Maybe. I don't see much practical point apart from filling in and adding more pages of the textbooks making them heavier.

It was controversial when they didn't know better. It's not controversial now because they know better. Those opposed to set theory now are, for the most part, non-mathematicians who don't know better but think they do. — Michael

Many still believe it is controversial, and I do too. No one is saying it is illegal to use it, but just pointing out the existence of the controversy and also reservation on the theory. No one can deny that.

In real life infinite set doesn't exist. I start putting something in a box forming a set, soon the box gets full or the object runs out. It doesn't go on filling the box forever.

Please quote any passage in that article that you think claims that Wittgenstein said that in mathematics 'infinite' means 'finite'.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
It is his metaphor
— Corvus

Asking a second time, what quote in the article do you claim supports your claim that Wittgenstein said that mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean 'finite'? — TonesInDeepFreeze

It is a metaphor from my point of view. It is obvious, and I have kindly explained it to you above.
It a way of expression saying, when something is so bad, one could say "Well it's f***ing great." Anyone can see and use it to describe the situation with cynicism. If you have problem understanding it, I cannot help you.

If you are asking in which article he said it, I recall it was from a book I don't own. But I saw it in the internet somewhere. I will try to find it, and update on the book title and page. I don't have the information off hand. I couldn't have made the quote from my own imagination. To me, it sounded a genius in the expression at the time of reading it.

degraded the discussion into a comedy
— Corvus

The ridiculousness is courtesy of you. Maybe not comedy, but still risible is the claim that set theory takes 'infinite' to mean 'finite'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You start your post with throwing insults to others before even going into the points under discussion. What courtesy are you talking about?

A poster who starts out in a thread by declaring "end of story" does not bode well.

I am getting a good laugh though at that poster challenging me to show a book that gives the very definition that is in the book he says he "bases" his posting on! — TonesInDeepFreeze

You obviously have problem understanding metaphors and ordinary use of English language. You seem to bite into a little words in the expressions, and as if one has to stick to the every word and comma in the sentence in the legal contract. I tend to write with metaphorical and simile expressions and idioms a lot just like other ordinary English users. You can't seem to understand that.

And the book is, as any ordinary textbook in set theory, chock full of use of infinite sets and infinite sets of different cardinalities from one another. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Of course it is a book of Set Theory. However, it explains the historical background of the concept of infinity how controversial the concept was in detail. You only picked out the usage of the infinity in the book for insisting your point in this thread. I read it from the start to the end.

Please quote any passage in that article that you think claims that Wittgenstein said that in mathematics 'infinite' means 'finite'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It is his metaphor, meaning that even if you claim it is "infinite", it is actually "finite". It is a type of cynicism. He uses aphorism a lot in his writings. Please don't take it literally. Obviously you have not read Wittgenstein at all.

But the point is not about the word games. The critical point is that "infinity" doesn't exist. When you say "infinite", it actually means "finite" in real life. Even if you keep on counting something infinitely, you must stop counting at some point. You cannot keep going on till the eternity. You stopped counting, and what you have is a finite number.

My point was just to point out that if you use the concept for nonexistence as real existence, and use it in your premises, then you will arrive at contradiction misleading yourself and others who believe you are correct.

Sad that the "clique" with which you are in disagreement is that of the mathematicians. Hm.

Anyway, time to move on. Long ago. — Banno

If you trace back Tone's posts, he starts with ad hominem before getting into philosophy. And you blindly take his side condoning his absurd and incorrect points, as if they are the only truths on the earth. How petty and juvenile. That's too visible, even a 10 year old would sense it. That is not Philosophy. That is a blatant clequism.

This article in SEP outlines and supports my point in this thread. I can drag out all my other books on Philosophy of Math, and Set theories, but it would be too cumbersome. If you wanted, I can do that, but it doesn't seem necessary. You would still keep saying I will double down. No. You are wrong. See how your whole focus of your posts are "You" "Me" "Him", leaving out the matter under discussion in the deep freeze?

I agree with Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Math. I disagree with all those who take Infinity as real entity, and the Infinite Set theorists, whether mathematicians or not.

If infinity was real, then Zeno's Achilles would be still chasing the tortoise in the race track at this very moment. But is he? It is a paradox. You know that.

Set theory's infinity is a tongue in cheek theory taking nonexistent infinity as if it does exist, hence a vacuous theory, which only seems to be making sense in the textbooks. Fine so be it. But if you used it for solving real world problems, you would end up in a deep ditch.

Way back, I wrote of Corvus:
But you will double down, again.
— Banno
Even I was not expecting such recalcitrance. That was 24 hours and three pages ago. Those three pages are replete with Corvus' squirming and flailing.

There are interesting and controversial ideas in Wittgenstein's anti-platonism, which could make an excellent thread. But an attempt at any such conversation in these fora would quickly be derailed by those who cannot grasp equality and those who misattribute and fabricate willy-nilly.

That's a limitation on @Jamal's otherwise excellent forums. A more proactive moderation might improve the philosophy being done hereabouts. But so many of the better posts are, as ↪TonesInDeepFreeze and ↪Michael have shown in this thread, responses to ineptitude.

And so it goes. — Banno

Your problem is that you make out as if what you and your cliques say are the only truth, and the rest of the world are false. Many would believe that your posts should be under the moderations for the extremely biased and misunderstood posts and Clequism you have been trying to pursue in this forum.

Trace back all your posts and Tone's in this thread, and you will see who started throwing unfounded posts and ad hominem posts before me, and degraded the discussion into a comedy. All your posts have no grounds for your claims. My posts are based on the philosophy of mathematics (Putnam) and set theories (C. C. Pinter), and various published academic articles.

You argue by mere assertion. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Ok whatever. Have a good day. cheers.

You've not shown that I've distorted any fact. Meanwhile, you've been distorting all over the place, as I have shown. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Most of your own posts are filled with distortions. See that's what I meant. You don't recall you have been writing in your own posts.

and now trying to speak for me
— Corvus

I haven't presumed to speak for you. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I am only replying to your posts, the way they are. But you two Laurel and Hardy are not worth the time. All the best.

You're lying again. I committed no action that constitutes speaking for Banno. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Stop distorting the facts, and be your own man and honest to yourself.

I haven't presumed to speak for Banno.

You're lying again. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It sounds like you are a little string controlled doll in Banno's pocket.

I explicitly said I do not speak for Banno. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Your sayings and actions are totally different. You don't even know what you have been saying, but denying it. That is truly incorrigible.

I don't speak for Banno, but I have said that there is no set named with the noun 'infinity', but rather there is the adjective 'is infinite' defined:

x is infinite iff x is not finite — TonesInDeepFreeze

You do. But of course you won't admit it.
The concept of infinity is for description of motions, actions and operations.
The use of infinity in the set theory is ambiguity.

Even if the other party were in error (which is not the case here anyway), if you are also in error, then you could admit it.

Actually, it seems you can't.

You compound your errors now by claiming that you've not been in error, when its overwhelmingly clear that you have been, and in so many ways. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You speak for Banno, and now trying to speak for me?
It seems obvious your whole purpose of coming into the forum is forcing people to admit errors when the error is on your side.

"Incorrigible" would be more accurate.
— Banno

Amazing in the forms of incorrigibility. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Pure nonsense from the pair. You two have been degrading the whole discussions into a comedy.

And that's all just recent posting by you, not mentioning all the other garbage you've posted in this thread and at least another. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You don't seem to even know who said what, and what was whose points, and just get into ad hominem all the time. Would you say your postings are high standard? Read them yourself. They are full of disrespects to the others. You don't even know what Wittgenstein was up to. If you thought he had little to do with math, then it tells you where you are in the discussions.

it was clear that W. had rejected the concept of infinity
— Corvus

That doesn't entail that in mathematics 'infinite' means 'finite'. What in all creation is wrong with you? — TonesInDeepFreeze

You better ask Wittgenstein what he meant by that. I have my own point. What with you?

I haven't made any claims about him, other than that, at least at face value, "discussions are finite" does not mean that mathematics regards 'infinite' as meaning 'finite'.

He was also a student of Russell too, and both were deeply into mathematics and logic.
— Corvus

So what? — TonesInDeepFreeze

You sounded as if Wittgenstein was irrelevant in math. That sounded not intelligent or read in philosophy.

Infinite in mathematics means "finite". Hence their discussion will end.
— Corvus

You are claiming again that in mathematics 'infinite' means 'finite'. Amazing. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You keep misunderstanding which was the part of the main problem here. It was said by Wittgenstein, and I just used his sayings to support my own point.

↪Corvus I have.

I’ve addressed your post and comments directly.

↪Corvus More misrepresentation. Pathetic. — Banno

Your claim was out of point from the start, because you see the discussion in the quote as discussion in talking. It is the concept of infinity in Mathematics he was meaning, which doesn't exist, hence not speakable and is meaningless. If you are still hanging on that "discussion" and make song and dance about it, you are not in the game.