Philosophy Now Forum

Because logic in itself has no value. In the formalist ontology, logic is indeed not "about" anything at all. Rationality is based on the interpretation of the world as multiple. I personally think that the intuitionist ontology is not particularly helpful. Computing devices can mechanica...

As I had stated, morality within religions must be questioned within the Philosophy of Morality in general. I do not question religious morality. I do not see the need for that. There is no theory governing moral theories. The "morality of moralities" is a thing that does not exist. Where...

Note again, we are dealing with the Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of Morality which the latter is about good over evil. In my opinion the philosophy of religion is about two questions: - Ontology: What is religion? - Epistemology: How does religion justify its conclusions? I consider morali...

So why are relying on Luther's argument which is not a trial by God in heaven? I do not rely on Luther. I merely happen to think the same as he did. Note we are dealing with Philosophy of Theology here. Concerning the epistemology of religious jurisprudence, I believe that all theorems in moral the...

But since nihilism is the other side of the coin of rationality, we have also fed nihilism. Pure Reason requires blind faith in first principles. You can choose first principles in whichever way you want, but Pure Reason is impossible without them. Nihilism is about having no such first principles....

These people were also empirical. Take for example Lowenheim-Skolem theorem. What empirical element do you detect in the following explanation: [The theorem] implies that if a countable first-order theory has an infinite model, then for every infinite cardinal number κ it has a model of size κ, and...

The basic principle of Morality as a Standard and Guide is, No evil act of any degrees on any human is permissible! period! As far as I am concerned, all morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. I will never disavow the holy principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". P...

But that's the point: maths isn't a thing that "just exists" somewhere out in an imaginary Platonic realm. It was always a product of empirical situations in the first place. The divorce from physical reality happened 2500 years ago already. This divorce is a logical consequence of Aristo...

That's again only half the story. The idea of a totally inapplicable mathematics is futile. Mathematics is vindicated not merely by its formal elegance, but also by its efficacy and accuracy in representing empirical situations. Yes, but this efficacy is a concern only for scientists, engineers, an...

It is important to consider, that a scientific formula about the physical universe is an expression that belongs to science and not to mathematics. That's arbitrary, really. Anything that's a "formula" is mathematical in structure, if not in referent. A formula about the physical universe...

I am familiar with Curry's paradox. What I don't understand is why you think this paradox, or any paradox is a "problem". It's just a theorem. The following is considered a problem: Since F is arbitrary, any logic having these rules allows one to prove everything. Maybe read the page on t...

Unencumbered by the limits to non-contradiction I am free to use the untyped lambda calculus; or fixed point combinators. You know - all the unsound, contradiction-producing tools Mathematicians hate. The problem with the untyped lambda calculus revolves around Haskell Curry's paradox. Curry's para...

The basic principle of Morality as a Standard and Guide is, No evil act of any degrees on any human is permissible! period! As far as I am concerned, all morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. I will never disavow the holy principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". P...

It is possible to show how, following Cantor's same diagonal argument, the same system of natural numbers is uncountable... The existence of uncountable (non-standard) natural numbers as universes generated by Peano Arithmetic is usually argued on grounds of the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem ("upwa...

Strawmaning, I did not attack modern mathematics as useless. I did not say that you argued that modern mathematics would be useless. (That is actually the real straw man here.) I argued that your attack on religion eventually always degenerates into an attack on mathematical Platonism, which is fun...