What does this have to do with the Barcan formulas? — Snakes Alive

The Wikipedia entry on the Barcan formula states:

The Barcan formula has generated some controversy because—in terms of possible world semantics—it implies that all objects which exist in any possible world (accessible to the actual world) exist in the actual world, i.e. that domains cannot grow when one moves to accessible worlds. This thesis is sometimes known as actualism—i.e. that there are no merely possible individuals. There is some debate as to the informal interpretation of the Barcan formula and its converse. — Wiki

Therefore, if we are limited to the actual world when positing counterfactuals, then how are necessary conditionals possible to stipulate for other possible worlds?

In your standard modal semantics, all formulae are evaluated with respect to a possible world. — Snakes Alive

You mean, that all formulae are evaluated with respect to the actual world?

At the other extreme is what was sometimes said of Marcus Aurelius - that he distanced himself so far from his family and friends that he lost all zest for life. — andrewk

Would you posit that this is the result of taking the Stoic conception of "apatheia" to the extreme, hence the modern negative connotation with "apathy"?

Wikipedia provides the following:

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently-existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect"; it can only differ from other definitions, but it can be useful for its intended purpose. — Stipulative Definition, Wiki

So, stipulative definitions are tantamount to subjective descriptions or theorizing of events? When does a stipulative definition become an ordinary definition then? Are you basically saying that the two are the same?

So, information is not lost or is lost? How they are represented can differ and is a side issue I suppose.

But, the computer you are using and the room in which you don't expect the roof to collapse are all the results of applied maths.

If we were to try and communicate with aliens, perhaps one day, it would be through the language of numbers, no?

Where does the number two exist in? Our heads only?

Huh? — Terrapin Station

So, I take it you don't believe that mathematics is a form of reality? Ex. Platonism?

Dimensionality other than three dimensions (plus time if you want to consider that a dimension) isn't real. It's just a mathematical game that we can play. — Terrapin Station

But, the instrumentality argument of mathematics would be a backbone in asserting truth or "reality" of these "mathematical games".

When asked whether the glass is half full or empty, a Buddhist would reply that it's broken. — Anthony

Please expand.

Anyway, this will be dealt with when treating the Tractatus. — Pussycat

So, where do you want to start? From the beginning? We've covered a lot already, so maybe skim the thread and then see what questions you have then?

Would you be willing to abandon all the luxuries that the economy has to offer just for having a stable peace of mind? I mean, if I were to choose between a brut and Spartan lifestyle of taking a bath once a year on in a cold creek or pond along with being at risk of starvation and simple illnesses such as the flu or an infection that could endanger my life, then would you choose peace of mind over those luxuries?

Some of that is in the cyber realm these days. Have you ever been approached by a recruiter online? — frank

Oh, wow. I've never been approached by anyone, thankfully. How about you?

I see. So, why are so many people twisted and grow up twisted? What's going wrong in the developmental process? Do you assert that Buddhist tenents ought to be instilled from a young age? If so, then wouldn't the market economy collapse if we were all Buddhists?

Not that cognitive science, like cybernetics, isn't useful for understanding up to an extent, it's just that the human mind works quite differently than these disciplines allow for. — Anthony

So, you have your own theory as to how the mind works?

Was Afghanistan a required player in the attack on the WTC? Weren't the main operatives Saudis? Did the pilots learn to fly in Afghanistan? No. Maybe the terrorists trained in effectively deploying violence -- it seems like Afghanistan would be a good place to practice. — Bitter Crank

My memory is a bit fuzzy on the matter; but, I believe Afghanistan was the home turf for where Osama Bin Laden was radicalized via what Brzezinski orchestrated (I know he fought together with the Mujahideen against the Soviets). He did that and after the Soviets were defeated or withdrew, he next aimed at America. He took the Mujahedeen ideology and turned it into jihadism via Al Qaeda.

As to why almost all of the suicide bombers on 9/11 were Saudis is a mystery to me. They seem to have also been radicalized in Afghanistan or elsewhere (Pakistan?).

Nice comparison. Though treating life as an ongoing movie seems somewhat constrained. Maybe more like a Hilbert cinema with an infinite amount of movies playing. Though some get stuck in some uncomfertably scary horror movies to kind of beat the analogy into the dirt.

I don't have the willpower to study topology and differential geometry. I failed vector calculus twice! Can't really grasp the subject. I like algebra though.

Thanks for the paper.

It would have to be 'flattened' in order to put it there. — andrewk

Hmm, so is this just another way of saying that you would have to apply some compression theorem to achieve that? Or truncate it? Rounding off would be cheating.

It depends on what you mean by describe. — andrewk

You mean to assert that there are no conditions that would render the truth value of embedding a larger countably infinite dimension into a smaller one as true?

It is a proven theorem of topology that the answer to that is NO. — andrewk

Could you point me this theorem. I wish to read about it.

Thanks so much.

What are you trying to ask? — andrewk

I'm basically asking if you can describe n dimensions in n-1 dimensions. Does this apply from going from n to n-k dimensions also or is 1 to 1 correspondence only applicable/maintained for/to a single lower dimension?

So, information is not lost when going to a lower dimension? But, then how can "time" exist in 3-dimensions?

Since this would only be a mathematical game, the only answer that would make sense would be based on how we're setting up the rules of the mathematical game we're playing. — Terrapin Station

What do you mean? Trying to figure out what...

So if the problem is that we are social animals and but other people are frustrating, how does one resolve this tension? Is it better to habituate ourselves to be alone or is it better to resign ourselves with dealing with the frustrations of other people as just the cost of being a social animal? — schopenhauer1

I think, the solution is "curiosity" or nurturing that flame inside one's self. You can't really live as a solipsist even if you try.

Not yet. After Kripke. — Banno

But, but, I want it now!

Then I think this topic deserves its own thread. — Banno

Please start one. I haven't let my CPU enough time to process through that insight.

Yes, we are predominantly a social species, so communication assumes huge importance. I find this especially difficult, being an autist. Setting aside the many variations within the autistic community, most of us share communications difficulties, because we do it a little differently. I don't think it would help or entertain to delve into autistic communications any more than that, but our issues clarify the huge importance of communication to us humans. If you can't communicate easily and fluently, you are at risk of being outcast, as lepers once were.

People come in all shapes and sizes, and some of them can be difficult to get along with, as the OP observes. But we manage it anyway, or we disappear (as a species). :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I tend to think of myself as an absolute introvert. By "absolute" I mean, I can't even role play an extrovert. Some people have the ability to "become" or "act out" as if one were an extrovert. I lack this ability. But, this isn't the same as what schopenhauer1 is describing. He's fundamentally describing a dislike for other people. I don't share this misanthropic view of his from some odd 3 years ago. I can get along with people (as long as I'm not overly paranoid), which is distinct from being a misanthrope or absolutely introverted.

What do you and others think?

I got stuck. I'll be back soon to play catch up, with what we're covering. @Banno, what page are we on?

If Wikipedia were a living entity, it would tell you that philosophy is very important. And the time-quantifier "today" means nothing.

See:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4722/all-topics-converge-to-philosophy

Here's more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy

Stop taking advice from strangers. You can start with this post if you'd like. :smile: — Jake

The paradox is REAL!

I don't think this is a terribly interesting case, because it's clearly baked into the style of an encyclopedia; if there were another wiki-format encyclopedia of similar breadth it'd likely follow the same pattern if it used the same broad style in its lead paragraphs. Sure, the specifics might vary, but as long as there's a context-broadening link as the "first link" in most cases, we're likely to end up at something existential if we follow that pattern repeatedly. — Quora

Well, I think it is interesting. Thoughts?

Rigid designators are graspable without any descriptive content. — frank

Yeah, they just are. Hence, I don't see your argument as legitimate, unless treating their descriptive content as necessary a posteriori to establishing their necessity, which isn't true, I think. Perhaps some disambiguation is required here.

If Hesperus=Phosphorus is necessary a posteriori, then these two proper names can't be de jure rigid designators, which one can grasp without any descriptive content. — frank

This is false, because the rigid designator is the same across all possible worlds where Hesperus and Phosphorus denote the same entity. If what you mean to imply that the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is being committed then, I agree to some extent.

But bipolarity has to do with propositions that have sense and can be either true or false, which is why they are called bipolar in the first place. The "That which we cannot talk about must pass over in silence", refers to non-bipolar propositions, in the realm of the nonsensical. — Pussycat

But, the seventh proposition of the Tractatus can be interpreted as self-referential to all the previous propositions. Hence, the principle of bipolarity can apply to all the other propositions and maintain that we must remain silent when thinking about them, as nonsensical, I think.

Here are some of the responses I got from Stack Exchange:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/58946/when-are-accessibility-relations-satisfied/58954#58954

What are your thoughts about those answers, @MindForged?

Are you talking about frame conditions? (E.g. the properties of what worlds access others?) — MindForged

Yes, I am. What are your thoughts about that?

No, a frame is just a set of worlds that share some relevant feature(s). — MindForged

Here I go repeating myself; but, that can only depend on one world from within a stipulation of another possible world can be made.

An accessibility relation tells you which worlds can quantify over which other worlds in some particular frame. — MindForged

So, yeah, I agree with that. Can you expand on this framing aspect?

Your whole lotto thing is a perfect example, you're constraining your modal discourse to worlds where the lotto exists, you exist and in which you play the lotto. That's a frame. You can quantify over other worlds, I'm not sure what the problem is. — MindForged

Yes, but I don't understand how you can quantify modal relations. Sure, I can set up a frame of reference wrt. to this world relative to another world where something might have happened otherwise than in this one; but, that's the limit of what I can do. I can't say that something happened if I did nothing in this world that would conditionally restrain another world where the event could have happened otherwise.

The same. An accessibility relation is a feature of a modal logic, not of reality (controversial, depending on how you think reality and logic relate). — MindForged

Ok, so this touches the crux of the issue. Basically, I understand logic to be pluralistic not unitary, so predicate logic might converge with modal logic; but, not absolutely. What do you think? The case I'm making is in regards to when do they converge or don't in this thread.

That's not an accessibility relation obtaining — MindForged

Sorry to pester you; but, you have established a frame of reference where an accessibility relation obtains. If I didn't win the lotto then I didn't in this world; but, may have in another one. I can't assert otherwise because I'm constrained to one world only.

But, what I'm grappling with may be more succinctly described as to how does quantification work for other possible worlds?

It depends on how we constrain the set of possible worlds. — andrewk

Thanks. I'm just confused because what is necessarily true in one world may not be accountable in another possible world. One world constrains the other or at least what can be said about the other legitimately.

So, just to provide an example. Let's say I played the lotto in this world; but, didn't win. In some possible world I actually won the lotto; but, this can only be fathomed by the actions undertaken in this world.

I don't understand what you're saying hers. How does an accessibility relation obtain (that is, become actual in the real world)? — MindForged

Yes, if we talk about an accessibility relation of me winning the lottery in a possible world where I played the lotto, then where is the quantification of it taking place? Relative to the world where I'm stipulating such a situation?

I'm just trying to answer your questions, which seem irrelevant by my lights. — creativesoul

My question was in regards to counterfactuals and their existential dependency, as you call it. Is it not important that the world we can stipulate is existentially dependent on the one from where the stipulation originates from? Therefore, I am confused about how can anything be called necessary in another possible world if they are unequivocally contingent on our own. A sine qua non if you will.

I think I can't express this any more clearly than the above.