Philosophy Now Forum

I don't know why these people go on with this stuff. I think that I, uwot, Noax, and others have made clear that we do not regard theories as definitive truths. So what is the argument?

In the case of Ken, he has promised a TOE that is a definitive truth. But he never produces it.

However, on reflection, I also disagree with the OP. It seems to imply that “zero probability” is the same as “impossible.” It is not.

The difference is that God is unique but there could even be many similar bahman (in some possible worlds). Explain how "uniqueness" can a) be predicated of a being you claim doesn't exist at all, and b) provides some qualification for your earlier claims. It's not readily apparent to any...

Wrong. I agree...he is. But it's his wording and logic, not mine. So your issue is with him. No, it isn't. bahman presumably exists. He wrote a post. This means that in principle it would be possible to meet him and evaluate his personal properties and disconfirm counterfactual properties. This is ...

What we know is that processes happen less frequently the greater the speed, and/or the stronger the gravitational field. We know that, because we can see it. What we don't know, is the mechanism that causes it. I guess, at the risk of giving some here the chance to cackle that relativity defenders...

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:00 am

davidm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:50 pm Is SpheresOfBalance Kens' sock?

Your fear is very apparent, as well as your confusion!

*trembling all over*

I must beg to differ. Insults are not (necessarily) ad hom. You're correct. It is not necessarily an ad-hom storm. But I find the language crossing a line of civility with a large percentage of the threads in which you participate. In fairness to myself, I would say that in a large percentage of th...

I must beg to differ. Insults are not (necessarily) ad hom. You're correct. It is not necessarily an ad-hom storm. But I find the language crossing a line of civility with a large percentage of the threads in which you participate. It carries a perception of immaturity. Fear not, there are far wors...

Wrong uwot, you're just assuming they are indeed facts, sure they are factual ... :lol: That you cut when you did, shows that you're immature, like I've been saying all along! You can't win that way, son! ;-) Ho, Ho, Ho, Merry Christmas! No, what I cut off spared you the embarrassment of not knowin...

I am also awaiting for you to point out where the stuff you quoted contradicts anything I wrote in this thread, as you claimed to be the case. Waiting ... waiting ... waiting ... *crickets* You're a dumb bunny aren't you??? I only ever said that your response had nothing to do with my initial messa...

"Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe—a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred t...

You can choose to be a clone or an original, it's up to you! And a clone you surely seem to be! Spheres, people who take the trouble to familiarise themselves with current research are not clones, they just know what the facts are. Wrong uwot, you're just assuming they are indeed facts, sure they a...

I am also awaiting for you to point out where the stuff you quoted contradicts anything I wrote in this thread, as you claimed to be the case.

Waiting ... waiting ... waiting ...

*crickets*

No one here -- not I, not noax, not uwot, not thedoc -- claims "certain and complete knowledge," nor do any of us claim that a theory is anything but a defeasible model. In this very thread, I believe I've discussed the pessimistic meta-induction -- the idea that we ought to expect that a...

Is SpheresOfBalance Kens' sock?