As i have said before. If some one ask me what the sensation of pain is, or how to define pain, then they fail to understand pain. It is no different than a dog that fails to understand general relativity. If you fail to understant what EW is, then you fail to understand.

And, if you fail to understand what proclivity drinks procrastination means, then you fail to understand. And so does everyone.

. It is not an idea i came up with, but i idea that quentin, Nocizk come up with. Surely, they people are much smarter than me. There must be a reason they think the way they do.

No doubt. The reason is that they are confused. The notion of an empty world makes no sense.
And arguments from authority are no more convincing or valid when the authorities are Nozick and Quentin, than they are when the authorities are Aristotle and Aquinas.

Making fun of a view that you hold is not the same as making fun of you. You ought really to make that distinction.

Like i said before, you can make fun of a view all you want, but this is a useful concept because it solves problems, and at the sametime tell us somethng about possible worlds. I really do not know what to say.

As i have said before. If some one ask me what the sensation of pain is, or how to define pain, then they fail to understand pain. It is no different than a dog that fails to understand general relativity. If you fail to understant what EW is, then you fail to understand.

You did not say that at all. You said I was making fun of you.

What problem does "empty world" solve?

And what does it tell us about possible worlds except that an empty world is not a possible world, because the notion makes no sense?

You need not say anything, and then you will not miss the opportunity to keep quiet.

Answer this: Do you consider the EW to be an object, something that would fall under the heading of 'noun'? Or do you consider it to simply be a logical definition with no noun behind it? I would consider the empty set to be the latter (since it makes no philosophical sense to refer to it as an object, Mathematical Platonism is still platonism).

I argue that EW amounts to a 'limit' (as in a mathematical limit). I could call the EW the intersection of all possible worlds (since each world would have an ontological opposite).

EW is of course asserted as part of my ontolgy. I postulated EW as a object which allows me to refer to it by a name( ie: 'nothing').

But can you simply postulate that? Don't you need to justify it? Couldn't it actually be the case that EW is not an object?

But can you simply postulate that? Don't you need to justify it? Couldn't it actually be the case that EW is not an object?

He's also positing that it is an object. He is also positing that the idea makes sense. He is a prodigious positor. He got that way because he is so positive. (And I posit that).

The simple answer is yes. It is very often that philosophers postulates something for a particular use. This is not at all uncommon. The justification is always a mean to solve some existing problems.

---------- Post added 08-09-2009 at 10:46 AM ----------




Yes, how great. You stop asking presupposed questions, and start doing caricatures. That is wonderful, and people say you need a brain to be fun.
Perhaps there is a possible world in which asking presupposed questions, and making caricatures is doing philosophy, but i would hate to live in such a world.

What are, presupposed questions?

What are, presupposed questions?

WoW! why would you ask. You are a master at it. It is call supposing a piece of information you already know(or need to prove), and try to get as far as you can go by asking a "question" about it. You don` t give any "reasons", "justifications". Hell, you don` t even need a brain. Don ` t you know? It is improv philosophy without the "arguments" to go along with it.

Oh, you mean, question-begging questions. I don't do those. Let me know if you have an example of my doing one.

Get the hint, because it is all over the last couple of pages. You obvious have no intention of taking the matter seriously, and all you want is to play your games. The only thing you know is question begging, and painting caricatures. There is no arguments, or justifications. This is not philosophy as i practice it. What you have are little games to waste your time away.

Any examples?......

And what does it tell us about possible worlds except that an empty world is not a possible world, because the notion makes no sense?

How about this:



This is exactly the kind of games you are into. lacking any substantive content. There is not standard formulation of your thesis. No arguments in support of your thesis. There is no structure to anything you do. It is like you just want to "talk".

And you have not shown it does. Next?

Possible worlds are defined by their content. But empty worlds would have no content. Therefore, no empty world is a possible world. QED

That is begging the question to the issue i have given my reasons for many times. You either response with a begging question, or a caricature of my view. This is not philosophy. These are non-constructive responses to prolong the discussion and make people talk you.




This is the first argument you gave in the last 7 pages after i exposed your tricks. What now?