How do you want me to be clearer?

Incidentally, I looked at the Wikipedia page on truth, and I didn't realize there was an actual theory like the one in the OP called the performative theory of truth. It looks like Strawson beat me to it.

I'm not saying that agreeing that something is true makes it true. I'm saying that when we say something is 'true' we are merely an expressing an agreement. There's a subtle difference.

There's no possible world where both an unstoppable force and an immovable object exists. They are both co-impossible.

How would you describe "effective philosophy"? — Metaphysician Undercover

I mean having an effective discussion involving philosophy where you can successfully communicate your ideas with someone, but without the participants talking past each other.

I think that by definition omniscience precludes philisophical skepticism. Its knowledge of all that is, including all the facts, all the answers to all the questions, what is certain, what isnt certain, how everything works, what skepticisms are true or untrue...everything.
He knows he isnt a brain in a vat because he knows everything. Nothing is beyond his knowledge, so if he was a brain in a vat he would know that too.
I don’t think your question is sensical, how does he know? He is omniscient. — DingoJones

I'm questioning whether omniscience is even possible. Some people say that the skeptical problems of philosophy are insoluble. In my OP I'm basically giving an ultimatum: either omniscience is impossible, or philosophical problems of skepticism are soluble.

Using your definition, you’re saying that the objective fundamental existence of this physical universe, as the ultimate-reality, all of reality, and the basis of all else, on which all else supervenes—is something for which an outside reason might, in principle, be found? — Michael Ossipoff

It all depends on what you mean by an "outside reason". If by "an outside reason" you mean something other than what's included in the physical universe i.e. something immaterial, then no. If that's what you mean by an "outside reason", I believe you are equivocating 'any reason at all' with 'an outside reason', because it's not clear at all that they are identical.

That’s odd, because Materialism, by definition, doesn’t allow for there being anything else by which to explain there being the physical universe that I described in the paragraph before this one. — Michael Ossipoff

Again, what do you mean by "anything else"? Do you mean something immaterial? I think you are equivocating here again. Surely there is a difference between "something other than what's in the physical universe", and "any explanation at all".

…such as? — Michael Ossipoff

Such as being more parsimonious.

Sorry Purple Pond, but saying that you doubt something doesn’t count as an argument against it. — Michael Ossipoff

It never was intended to be.

There’s no evidence to support your belief. It’s faith-based because it’s a belief in an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff

You keep saying that, as if the more you say it, the more likely it is to be true.

No one’s suggesting that you “include” any assumptions. The uncontroversial premises of my metaphysics aren’t assumptions, and don’t call for “including” anything. …such as the brute-fact assumption that you “include” and believe in. — Michael Ossipoff

You are. You're suggesting that I include immaterial things into my ontology which I see no reason for.

I see that you already made a thread about your metaphysics, yet from what I saw they seem far from uncontroversial as you claim. But I digress, I don't think this the place to discuss your metaphysics. You can discuss it here, obviously, it isn't against the rules, but they will fall on deaf ears.

And, by the way, maybe you think that observation of this physical universe is evidence for Materialism. It isn’t. — Michael Ossipoff

No, but if society observing the universe far and wide for years and years and not finding anything that is immaterial that is a good reason to adapt materialism.

It typically isn’t possible to distinguish between metaphysics on the basis of physical experiments and observation of the physical world. Your Materialism amounts to a brute-fact assumption that is an unfalsifiable proposition. — Michael Ossipoff

This is a non-sequitur.

There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

This is like saying you cannot talk to someone on the phone because there is a time lag between the caller and the receiver.

You mean the mind cannot experience the present.

Allow me to present "mortal". — unenlightened

You mean 'mortal' is a predicate that denotes being alive at one point time, and dead at another point of time?

:up:

A brute-fact is an alleged fact whose advocate(s) can’t explain, or tell an origin or cause of. — Michael Ossipoff

No, a brute is a fact that cannot be explained in principle. A brute fact doesn't mean a fact that yet eludes my explanation.

Brute-facts are disapproved-of when they’re unnecessary. If there’s a metaphysics that needs and posits a brute-fact, &/or other assumptions, and if there’s one that doesn’t, then there’s no need for the one that does. — Michael Ossipoff

This isn't logical. Even if your metaphysics don't posit any brute facts nor assumptions(which I doubt) doesn't give me reason to prefer yours over mine. My metaphysics may be better in other ways.

You can disagree with those two dictionaries’ definitions, and that’s fine. But, regardless of definitions, Materialism is a faith-based belief in a certain particular version of ultimate-reality. — Michael Ossipoff

It's not a faith based belief, but it's a rational belief. What's faith based about not including extraneous things into my ontology until further evidence calls for it?

As for you metaphysics, you'll excuse me for not delving into into your particular metaphysics. I don't have the concentration nor the patience.

The synthetic a priori fits for example to mathematical conjectures and physics predictions. — Belter

Mathematical conjectures are not known a priori, nor a posterori, but they're are guessed. The same is true for some physical predictions. Furthermore, it's possible for mathematical conjectures and physics predictions to turn out to be false, and knowledge includes only true propositions.

Thus, (1) is a posteriori and synthetic, due to it refers to something that either exist or not. — Belter

How about the assertion that, 'there are no even prime numbers'? It refers to something that exists or not. Is that too a posteriori and synthetic?

My goal in the OP was to point out a problem with knowing the proposition that, 'there are no a priori synthetic truths'. I tried, in vain, to find a problem with each possibility given all the distinctions mentioned. But as you point out the very philosophical distinctions are the problem. I have nothing more to say other than language has defeated me once again.

The key point of interest is your suggestion that if S is true by virtue of 1 then the negation of S must be self-contradictory. — andrewk

It's just something that I hear a lot. A proposition's truth is analytic if and only if the negation of that proposition implies a contradiction. To quote the Encyclopedia Britannica:"Some philosophers prefer to define as analytic all statements whose denial would be self-contradictory, and to define the term synthetic as meaning “not analytic.” ". Here's a link.

Perhaps you can clarify what it is that you are saying. For a start it's not clear what statement 'the statement' refers to in 1, 2 and 3. — andrewk

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I may be poor writer but it is never my intention to be unclear.

I'm analyzing the statement 'there are no a priori synthetic truths'. I'm asking how is the statement, 'there are no a priori synthetic truths' known (assuming that it is known)? I break down all possibilities given the analytic-synethic, and the a priori-a posteriori distinction. I comment on each of the break down. And in case you missed it, the statement that I keep referring to is 'there are no a priori synthetic truths'.

Is that clearer to you?

Because it's logically impossible for you not to be you.

Why do we need a complete explanation?

It seems like you want to hold onto the PSR when that is the very contention that I am attempting to dismantle.

The problem is that to avoid an infinite regress, you need at least one self-explaining fact that explains all below it. — Dfpolis

And why would we want to avoid an infinite regress?

I fail to see why the set of facts that explain the set of facts that aren't self-explanatory can't include a self-explanatory fact. — Dfpolis

I meant to say, the set of facts that explain, and only explain, the set of facts that aren't self-explanatory.

As for the Barber Paradox as you have stated it, there is nothing to prevent someone from shaving all who do not shave themselves and shaving himself. If you want the premise to be the Barber shaves all the beards of those who do not save themselves and only those beards, that premise is provably false. — Dfpolis

I agree.

According to some believers omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do things that are logically possible. By "omnipotent" they mean can do anything that is logically possible. So Premise 3 is not necessarily true.

I don't know. — Purple Pond

Thank you for your honest answer.

In other words, then, your Materialism posits a brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff

No, just because I don't have an explanation of the physical universe it doesn't follow that my materialism posits a brute fact. And even if did posit a brute fact, I don't see any reason why there can't be any brute facts.

That’s my answer to your question, Why is there something instead of nothing. — Michael Ossipoff

I did not see a clear and concise answer.

You cannot prove anything using only a dictionary. I repeat you cannot wholly trust the dictionary. People use words Incorrectly and their meanings are often added to the dictionary. https://thewalrus.ca/can-you-trust-your-dictionary/

@Banno, does the Great Goat eat goats that eat themselves? Because if not, then there is The Great Goat paradox: the Great Goat eats only every Goat that doesn't eat itself. Does the Great Goat eat itself?

I think perceiving, in itself, is an act of ordering. That is, what would sensation be if not organised into percepts? The relationship which perception draws in connection with memory, observation, reason, imagination, etc is for the sake of giving context (significance/meaning) to an otherwise amorphous and incoherent mess. — BrianW

What I meant was that perception doesn't create order in the world. I'd agree that the act of perceiving creates order to mental phenomena from messy stimuli as you describe
.

Possibly. But, it is also possible to create order out of chaos, that is, organise the disorganised. — BrianW

Agreed.

That would be the mind creating order because imagination is part of conception. — BrianW

That would be a case of the mind creating order to its mental imagery.

I didn't ask you to respond. In particular, I didn't ask you to respond to the statements in my post. — Michael Ossipoff

Look, do you want me to respond to your posts or not?

But yes, I did ask a question. I asked:

Why is there that physical universe that's all that there is, on which all else supervenes?
— Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

I don't know. And I have a question for you: Why is there something rather than nothing?

That's a question, not "bullet-point". If you can't answer it, I won't pretend to be surprised. Don't worry about it. — Michael Ossipoff

The form of the question was like a bullet point. I guess I'm supposed to feel stupid now, right? Because I can't answer one of the big questions.

Maybe I should quote Merriam-Webster for you again: — Michael Ossipoff

Maybe you shouldn't because dictionary definitions aren't wholly reliable. There are different dictionaries with different meanings of the words "materialism" and "religion". So I would take it with a grain of salt. I personally don't agree with the definition of religion that you mentioned. The fact that a mere philosophical position such as materialism can logically be called a religion, in my opinion, acts as a reductio ad absurdum to those dictionary definitions.

But your belief that this physical world is all of reality, the ultimate reality on which all else supervenes, and "by which all being and processes and phenomena can be explained" amounts to a religion, by a reasonable interpretation based on something that religions have in common. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't understand the reasoning here. Just because materialism may have something in common with religion doesn't mean it is a religion.

You can't perceive something that isn't there, otherwise you'd just be imagining it. If you environment is chaotic, then all you can perceive is the chaos.

And a second question: could it be that to look or otherwise sense is to try to create order? — frank

Perception doesn't create order. If you perceive order, then order was already there. It is also possible to imagine order when there is only chaos.

I can't respond to bunch of bullet points. What is your argument?

Your Materialism is a questionable faith-based religion — Michael Ossipoff

No it's not. My materialism is a philosophical position.

If an event happens at one time and the cause comes a second later, there is the second where the event is uncaused. How can an event be uncaused and caused again? It doesn't make sense.

But sometimes the truth doesn't make us happy. That means that truth is an objective with value separate and independent of happiness. — TheMadFool

Not necessarily. Truth may not make us happy in the short term, but if you avoid the truth and do self-destructive things that make you happy in the short term you will end up a very sad person.

Another question that is relevant is - what type of threads do you like? And what type of threads don't you like ( don't say my threads :joke: )?

Why do you think they prescribe chemicals that act on brain chemistry? It is to treat disorders of the brain? What is not understood with many drugs is exactly which neurotransmitter in which part of the brain makes the most difference. Thorazine, for instance, or lithium carbonate are effective drugs; we know that they alter aspects of production/uptake of neurotransmitters. — Bitter Crank

The medications that effect the neurotransmitters are not correcting some chemical imbalance as that's a myth Psychoactive medication that are used to treat mental illness are palliative. It's like putting on a band aid. A person has to use a lot of other coping mechanisms to get them back on track. (And let us not forget about the placebo effect.)

Many psychiatrists (and others, laymen too) view mental illness as diseases of the physical brain which have behavioral or affective symptoms. — Bitter Crank

Whatever it is they believe they don't call it brain disorders. The DSM doesn't call ADHD an unknown brain disorder with causes such and such symptoms. They cut right straight to the symptoms and say that "this illness is characterized by such and such symptoms".

The available drugs that effectively address symptoms like mania, hallucinations... are crude but effective. — Bitter Crank

True, but isn't there much more to bipolar and schizophrenia than mania and hallucinations? It's very hard to treat all the symptoms when you can't do anything about the disease that's causing the symptoms.

there are many that believe the mind doesn't actually exist. — aserwin

I've never heard of person who believes that minds don't exist.

There are no real ways to test the "mind". Most "mental" disorders are diagnosed via interview. — aserwin

I know that psychiatrists are limited by lack of knowledge of the brain. However, it still doesn't make sense to conflate symptoms with illnesses.

perhaps we should first ask what makes commodities valuable? — bloodninja

Commodities are valuable things. They have value by definition.

I'm basically asking what makes paper bills a commodity?

an absolute value on any denomination is futile in assesing. — Posty McPostface

The foreign exchange market doesn't do that?

Banno please stop acting the goat.

If the stars in the sky all of a sudden formed the words, "I Am that I Am", then we would be forced into considering non-natural explanations. — Marchesk

Or you could be having a psychotic episode.

Well isnt a breach in the laws of nature the exact thing “supernatural” is meant to describe? — DingoJones

It could be something that can't be explained by science but is not in conflict with laws of nature. In other words, it is complementary with nature not opposing it.

That seems pretty close to saying that the “supernatural” is impossible by definition, is that right? — DingoJones

I'm not making a statement on whether or not evidence of the supernatural is possible. I'm genuinely interested in what would count as evidence for the supernatural. My only problem is concerning miracles and how they are possible.