Philosophy Now Forum

Then I'll fight for my life. So we are in agreement ;) Only difference is that you will fight tooth & nail, whereas I will fight tooth, nail and a gun. You posed a philosophical question whether any murder could not be considered wrong or murder is always wrong and it in piqued my interest. As such...

I looked through the thread response, then looked at the first question. Besides the standard "you are babbling", etc. the first question what "what russian pyramid studies": The babbling is in reference to your repeated babble about muslims. I said google it, if I have not posted stuff up already....

Logic comes from reality. I'm less certain of the existence of space as such than I have to be of the existence of logic. So... EB And logic exists in accords to spatial forms/function; ie the Munchhausen Trillema. If there's no space, then logic cannot accord with space. EB The negation of space e...

Actually the penguin is defined relative to the nature of flying, in these respects it maintains a neutral nature. An inference is made. From this it may be deduced the penguin in neutral in regards to flying. "No penguin eats mammals" is a negative inference. From this it may be deduced what the p...

But you claim infinity is irrational. I claim that infinity is not a useful concept for a finite mind. You want me to define "finiteness"? Limits. Limited time. Limited energy. Limited observations. Limited decisions. Limited samples/experiments. Limited sets. Limited number of integers. Limited pr...

Then by your axiom the above is false. All points of origin must be described by further points of origin. Which are described by further points of origin. Right till I ask you: How many axioms are there? How many points of origin are there? Infinitism is stupid. False, all axioms as nothing in the...

You are just proving the prime triad through your continual process of "divergence". Obviously I am proving it! That is how all confirmation bias works. You count your hits and your misses under the same banner. If it's unfalsifiable - it's religion. Which is why we came up with science. I already ...

Lol...not really. The only thing you can do is keep "diverging", in an effort to create some false identity grounded in the "rejection" you felt in your childhood by society. What you fail to understand is that you are strictly replicating the behavior you condemn. You are strictly following the la...

I looked through the thread response, then looked at the first question. Besides the standard "you are babbling", etc. the first question what "what russian pyramid studies": The babbling is in reference to your repeated babble about muslims. I said google it, if I have not posted stuff up already....

Plenty of infinitely long numbers with pi being the most obvious one [ I think you meant an infinitely long integer or whole number but as you didnt specify then irrationals can be included here as well ] Pi is not infinite. Pi is irrational. It's only infinite in theory. In practice it's as finite...

False, because that "1 bit" must be describe by further axioms. "1 bit" is "assumed" as true; hence is grounded by an absence of "thinking" about the percieve phenomenon. This "empty mind", where the axiom is not "thought out" but just "assumed" grounds it in a boundless space equivalent to point s...

Equivocation. Violates identity and obscures modality. If your claim is to be believed then the negation of the pronoun "some" is still "some". Then SOME = ¬SOME This assigns equal truth-value to all three of these propositions: 1 flying and 99 non-flying penguins. 50 flying and 50 non-flying pengu...

Identity is grounded in both equivocation and non-equivocation where "identity" itself is grounded in "relations" in which one axiom exists as fundamentally a ratio. A exists as B and C; hence b and c are a ratio. For example "horse" exists as the ratio of the axioms "mammal", "herbivore" and "x" (w...

There is a common criticism to the 'Law of Excluded Middle.' I'm not able to find a source right now, but it goes something along the line of "Either penguins can fly, or they can't - but what if only some penguins could fly?" And the reason why that doesn't hold water as an argument against the La...

You are just proving the prime triad through your continual process of "divergence". All axioms are "nothing in themselves"; hence "points of inversion" With inversion existing as process of divergence in which one phenomenon in turn is changed to "many". You cannot program the infinite nature of "e...