ontology is fallible

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 06:51 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155554 wrote:
Walt Whitman? ..........


no, but you have one more try.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 06:55 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;155616 wrote:
no, but you have one more try.


Thanks. Howdy Doody?
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 03:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155619 wrote:
Thanks. Howdy Doody?

and you are out!
 
north
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:09 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif

But this talk is just nonsense. One premise you have is that exploring what could exist is falsifiable. One question: How?


Quote:

One way is to see if it logically possible. We can imagine X, and the properties of X. If we find something inconsistent about the properties, the there is a good chance that X probable don` t exist.


yet using Reason its a good chance we don't quite then understand X

rather than thinking X doesn't exist
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:29 pm
@north,
north;155817 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif

But this talk is just nonsense. One premise you have is that exploring what could exist is falsifiable. One question: How?




yet using Reason its a good chance we don't quite then understand X

rather than thinking X doesn't exist



If you believe there are true contradictions. I sure hell don` t.
 
north
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:35 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack [URL="http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif"]http://www.philosophyforum.com/image...s/viewpost.gif[/URL]

But this talk is just nonsense. One premise you have is that exploring what could exist is falsifiable. One question: How?




yet using Reason its a good chance we don't quite then understand X

rather than thinking X doesn't exist





TuringEquivalent;155822 wrote:
If you believe there are true contradictions. I sure hell don` t.


not contradictions

just as I said , lack of understanding of X
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 05:44 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;155811 wrote:
and you are out!


Hey, three strikes are out, not two.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 06:05 pm
@north,
Quote:
north;155826 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack [URL="http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif"]http://www.philosophyforum.com/image...s/viewpost.gif[/URL]

But this talk is just nonsense. One premise you have is that exploring what could exist is falsifiable. One question: How?




yet using Reason its a good chance we don't quite then understand X

rather than thinking X doesn't exist


Let me say this again "If something has contradictory properties, then it cannot exist". Why? Because everything is possible.


Let p, q, r be propositions. let r be an proposition. Let q=-p.

1. p or r
2. q
--------------
r


So, i am right, and you are wrong.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 07:08 PM ----------

kennethamy;155848 wrote:
Hey, three strikes are out, not two.


It is 2 out of 3. If you win 2, you win the game. If you fail 2, you lose the game. simple.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 06:12 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;155863 wrote:
Quote:


Let me say this again "If something has contradictory properties, then it cannot exist". Why? Because everything is possible.


Let p, q, r be propositions. let r be an proposition. Let q=-p.

1. p or r
2. q
--------------
r


So, i am right, and you are wrong.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 07:08 PM ----------



It is 2 out of 3. If you win 2, you win the game. If you fail 2, you lose the game. simple.
You win. Your game. You make the rules.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 08:23 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;155863 wrote:
Quote:


Let me say this again "If something has contradictory properties, then it cannot exist". Why? Because everything is possible.


Could you explain how if everything is possible, contradictory things cannot exist? I agree with the conclusion of course. But how does the conclusion follow from that premise?

Maybe your argument is:

1. If X is a contradiction then everything is possible.
2. If everything is possible, then X cannot exist.

Therefore, 3. if X is a contradiction, then X cannot exist.

Now, that argument is valid. But could you tell me why you think that 2. is true? I don't see why.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:31 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155871 wrote:
TuringEquivalent;155863 wrote:
You win. Your game. You make the rules.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 08:23 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;155863 wrote:
Could you explain how if everything is possible, contradictory things cannot exist? I agree with the conclusion of course. But how does the conclusion follow from that premise?

Maybe your argument is:

1. If X is a contradiction then everything is possible.
2. If everything is possible, then X cannot exist.

Therefore, 3. if X is a contradiction, then X cannot exist.

Now, that argument is valid. But could you tell me why you think that 2. is true? I don't see why.



If every predication applies to X, then both "X is taller than 10 inch", and "X is shorter than 10 inch" is true. This is logically impossible.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:47 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;155917 wrote:
kennethamy;155871 wrote:
TuringEquivalent;155863 wrote:
You win. Your game. You make the rules.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 08:23 PM ----------




If every predication applies to X, then both "X is taller than 10 inch", and "X is shorter than 10 inch" is true. This is logically impossible.


That may well be true. But that has noting to do with premise 2. so far as I can see.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 08:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155930 wrote:
TuringEquivalent;155917 wrote:
kennethamy;155871 wrote:


That may well be true. But that has noting to do with premise 2. so far as I can see.

Perhaps, in addition:

3. Anything that is logically impossible cannot exist.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 10:07 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
What is logically impossible and who decides?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 10:11 pm
@jack phil,
jack;156215 wrote:
What is logically impossible and who decides?


A logical impossibility implies a contradiction. Thus, a square-circle, is a logical impossibility. Or, a married bachelor.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 10:23 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Tiger Woods is a married bachelor.

A logic that excludes the possibility of humor doesn't represent reality.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 10:29 pm
@jack phil,
jack;156224 wrote:
Tiger Woods is a married bachelor.

A logic that excludes the possibility of humor doesn't represent reality.


You know that is not what is meant.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 12:09 am
@kennethamy,
Describing the specifics, of HOW Ontology aims at what WHAT, may be in fact fallible, this, even if Being is not but what it is...

...and that of course, is an epistemic problem just as anything else.

Therefore I can only conclude with humour and a big smile, that asserting such, is/has no mystery, but the self mystery of such wondering...gazing at epistemic epistemic problems that are the very first reason of Philosophy itself must be "new-wave" thinking...go figure !

Its funny, the null set is in the very essence of this debate indeed...
...and yet the debate goes on existing ! :bigsmile:

(I realize that after all the set contains itself in One, which "you", some people call "zero"/null as it has no measure...(its obviously non computable by a smaller factor...))
(...zero is the "Apex" and "Ponex" of so many "Galactic" minds, thriving with self certainty's (of uncertainty) in this forum... a joke "in itself" I guess !...)
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 07:57:26