You just supported its existence by writing on it and successfully communicating on it to me. Thanks.

Well, Christianity addressed this paradox by presenting a Trinitarian God who is simultaneously incomplete human imperfection (Christ) and complete, omnipresent, omnipotent perfection (the Godhead)

And as with the other thread, I won't bother to read or respond to any more of your posts.

Yes, and the failure to engage is yours. I won't even bother to help your critical "thinking" and language "skills."

All I did was look at one side of the conjunction. Here's the other side:
And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car.

It would be simple to add a time - "the keys are locked in the car now". I'm not at all sure what it would mean to add degrees of locked-ness....

And you failed to address or represent what that side of the conjunction said. And thanks for supporting and confirming what I said about the inadequacy of your posited phrase, since the word "now" would not sufficiently represent the time they are locked either. As you well know, or should know, "now" can denote that very second or any length of time the speaker saw as "now" when he uttered or wrote the phrase.

I'd like to try to understand what you are claiming here.

they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state.
— Thanatos Sand

Do you mean that there may be a language, other than English, in which the keys are not locked in the car?

This was my whole, and very clear quote. If you took that from it, you didn't read it very well:

No, they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car.

It's how threads work. — Banno

They don't all work that way, and I'm new to this forum. But I checked back and, no, I don't agree with you.

See if we agree on this. There are some facts that cannot be represented away.

If the keys are locked in the car, they will be locked in the car regardless of how you present or represent them.

No, they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car.

I sure don't see it. Feel free to repost which post of yours with which I supposedly agreed.

Seems you are agreeing with me.

Possibly. Since you've done many posts I haven't seen, and you didn't list which one with which I agreed.

Thanks for further showing that "round" is just a linguistic concept dependent on other equally non-materially based linguistic concepts as itself. So, use whatever words you want when you chat about the moon. All you'll be doing is using words, not accurately describing the moon itself.
— Thanatos Sand

Well I'm not trying to be exhaustively accurate with error-free certainty, just chatting about the Moon.
If you'd written "the Moon is a regular tetrahedron", then you might need new glasses or a new encyclopedia or something. :)
As mentioned, I'm not chatting about English, but about the Moon.
Not about the word "Moon" either, but about the Moon.

As an aside, I just noticed the Wikipedia page has a list of characteristics, mean/equatorial/polar radius, flattening, circumference, surface area, volume, ...
I guess you could register and fix the page?

Thanks for confirming everything I said in the post to which you responded.

LOL. You accuse me of introducing a definition then you, yourself, introduce a definition with no more basis in physical reality or the English language than mine.

Thanks for further showing that "round" is just a linguistic concept dependent on other equally non-materially based linguistic concepts as itself. So, use whatever words you want when you chat about the moon. All you'll be doing is using words, not accurately describing the moon itself.

And since the moon isn't a smooth-edged orb, it's not actually "round."
— Thanatos Sand

The shape of the Moon is largely a result of gravity and composition and whatever, a spheroid within some margin of variation, round.
— jorndoe

Emphasis added.
In this context, the term round is how we already characterize the Moon, along with whatever other things.
It's not a definition of the Moon's shape (we don't define things into existence), it's observation.
In case I'd written "the Earth is flat", I'd be wrong. Not so with "the Moon is round".

It's not observation. It's imposition of a human concept onto an object that never had that concept as an essential attribute. And, as I mentioned before, the moon isn't even actually round, as it's not a smooth-edged orb. Your ignoring that fact doesn't change it.

And the shape of the moon wasn't "round" until humans called it that. And since the moon isn't a smooth-edged orb, it's not actually "round." So, you're not chatting about the moon, just your personal concept of it.

Here "round" doesn't mean

(x−
x
0
)
2
+(y−
y
0
)
2
+(z−
z
0
)
2
=
r
2
(x−x0)2+(y−y0)2+(z−z0)2=r2


The shape of the Moon is largely a result of gravity and composition and whatever, a spheroid within some margin of variation, round.
It had that shape long before homo sapiens walked the Earth.

No, round is a human concept to which the moon didn't apply before we existed and doesn't even fit many human concepts of round as it isn't a smooth-circled orb.

Actually, the moon Is round is observer dependent since it will only seem round to those seeing it from a particular part of the earth, and "round" is a human concept placing an idealized shape on the Moon it doesnt' actually have.

A primary, fundamentally-existent material reality is a brute-fact. Physicalism and "Naturalism" need to posit that brute-fact. That's what makes it unparsimonious...not the fact that someone assumes that Physicalism is correct.

A primary, fundamentally existent material reality Is not a "brute-fact," as a brute-fact is something that cannot be explained and a primary, fundamentally existent material reality can be explained. Michael doesnt' know what "brute-fact" means.

Who said there's no stuff? And he certainly didn't show I had a brute fact.

Again you post blather when you ask me to be specific when you've given no specificity, and when you ask me to be specific in unnecessarily proving a negative against your false unproven positive. So I don't need to provid a specific to back my correct criticism of your erroneous statement. Your thinking I do is cute.

That was a bunch of blather that again misrepresented my views and didn't address them at all. And your referring to a "topic" you wrote doesn't constitute presenting the erroneous arguments within that topic, so you still fail to support your argument in any way.

I suggest you tighten up your thoughts and address my arguments in concise paragraph form instead of writing a ramble of semi-coherent sentences, your final doozy being a prime example of that semi-coherence.

I agree with that.

Except all facts are presented in language, which is always a social context. Some facts, particularly those presented in the language of Math, are more successful in representing indisputability and resisting slippage into ambiguity. However, they're all presented in language.
— Thanatos Sand

Yes, all statements of what is believed to be a fact is done so in some symbolic language which is inevitably ambiguous for a variety of reasons.

Mathematical symbols, when stated as a definition, are more resistant too change because they are accepted definitions (for now). However, mathematics when used as representational suffers from the v same problems as any symbolic language.

Absolutely, as Godel showed long ago, which is why I said Math was more successful in representing indisputability, but still is vulnerable to the dynamics of language.

[Ontology of the universe as facts is a problem since facts are our views of the material reality of the universe, not the truths of the Universe itself.
— Thanatos Sand

That's an unsupported belief.

Your statement is a statement of the Physicalist belief that reality is material. ...that the material world is primary, is what's fundamentally real and existent.

Your primary, fundamentally real and existent material world is a big, blatant brute-fact.

There's no need for brute-facts. A metaphysics based on inter-referring hypothetical facts needs no brute-facts or assumptions. ...as I describe in my topic "A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics."

In my other reply to this topic, I told some reasons for that.

Michael Ossipoff

Nothing you say in your "counter" to my quote above it counters or even effectively addresses what I said at all. I never made a physicalist belief; I just correctly said our facts are our reflections of the material reality of the universe; I never said they weren't part of our reality as well.

And the only big, blatant brute-fact is your statement calling my statement one, as my statements can and have been explained, and you don't explain or support yours at all. And your referring to your outside in-supported topic with the interesting name does not suffice or stand as explanation or support.

Thanatos Sand

Except all facts are presented in language, which is always a social context. Some facts, particularly those presented in the language of Math, are more successful in representing indisputability and resisting slippage into ambiguity. However, they're all presented in language.

Ontology of the universe as facts is a problem since facts are our views of the material reality of the universe, not the truths of the Universe itself.

You said it was best not to "feed" me, and yet you can't even follow your own advice. Adorable.

Facts are observer-dependent as long as we are a society of observers. Since facts for us are usually our human contextualization of physical realities and not just physical realities themselves, then the contextualizations of observers, and of those engaging the observers and their observations, are observer-dependent

I have no idea what Banno said, but I'm amazed at how you Brock trolls are simply unable to conceive of progressives like myself not buying into your Russia conspiracy theories, particularly when you have provided no evidence of it. And please cease from feeding me your paranoia and nonsense. I have no time for it.

No, it wasn't and you clearly can't show it was as you have failed twice to do so. So, the only garbled nonsense is what you call "thought" running through your head. You and I are done, kid. I won't read or respond to any more of your posts.

That was a nothing comeback that didn't address anything I said. Feel free to do so at any time. Until you do, I'm happy to let my post stand.

I'm not Pro-Trump. But you corrected me on assuming your position was Putin had tampered with the election, which would be silly if you thought he had tampered with it. So, you do think Putin tampered with the election, of which there is no evidence, and you were being silly, too. That's fine.

Oh, so you agree Putin didn't tamper with the election. Very smart of you.

Yeah, I would agree with that. She's also a warmonger who helped kill hundreds of thousands with her Iraq War vote, and tens of thousands more with her horrid coups in Honduras and Libya while she was SOS.

But feel free to go ahead and show any proof of Putin actually tampering with the election. We both know you can't.

If it's not obvious to you that you haven't shown any of Trump's duplicity and only Trump Jr's apparently harmless duplicity, then your judgment is atrocious. Mine, however, is excellent.

And the fact you post some unfounded opinion someone made that doesn't in any way show Russia actually tampering with the election shows your thinking is subpar as well. And you've shown no game plan of Putin's, nor how it affected the election. More proof of what I just wrote.

Of course she was spouting accusations since she didn't check to see if that story was true. All she had to do was check the New York Times who printed the lie. And Politifact is a Clinton-biased rag whose opinion means almost less than the publications whose stories they "rate."

And of course you can deny collusion since all we have is proof little idiot Trump Jr. accepting contact from a lawyer claiming to have info. There was no proof of any info being passed on and certainly no proof of the Russians actually interfering in the election

No, if something is logical, it is (ideally) considered logic; right has nothing to do with it. It's why it could be logical to murder a human being to save one hundred human beings but it wouldnt' be right because it would be murder. As Sapientia notes, you need to grasp the common philosophical notion of logic and realize that many unethical or wrong decisions can be logical and many ethical and right decisions can be illogical, self-sacrifice among them.

Also right and wrong very often have nothing to do with logic and vice versa.

Even if you believe a system of actual unchanging logic exists, no logical decision can make all synchronous or past or future diachronous logical decisions logical also. Eventually they will contribute to an illogicality.

It's been about 9 months since HIllary spouted her accusations about 17 agencies agreeing that Russia hacked the election. Since then we've seen no evidence of such hacking and found out the "17 agencies" story was a lie, leaving an oversight org. and three agencies who have all proven themselves to be treacherous liars. We really need more than that before we can say Russia interfered with the election or Putin's "got" Trump.