Say what?
Oy vey. What are you talking about? "Manifest themselves"?They for sure exist if they are coherent. By coherent I mean if they could manifest themselves.
Could be real.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:58 pmSay what?
Oy vey. What are you talking about? "Manifest themselves"?They for sure exist if they are coherent. By coherent I mean if they could manifest themselves.
What would a set even be as something other than a mental abstraction?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:01 pmCould be real.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:58 pmSay what?
Oy vey. What are you talking about? "Manifest themselves"?They for sure exist if they are coherent. By coherent I mean if they could manifest themselves.
Set is mental. I am talking about things though.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:23 pmWhat would a set even be as something other than a mental abstraction?bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:01 pmCould be real.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:58 pm
Say what?
Oy vey. What are you talking about? "Manifest themselves"?
Now that I understand that a square circle is not only imaginable but also describable when using the appropriate semantics and that, furthermore, it is real in every city, it remains to be seen whether ANY imaginable thing exists in reality, I.e. whether ALL imaginable things are real.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:45 pmOooooohhhhhh!Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:00 am I am going to split your comment in two so I can address it.
It's precisely about semantics. I won't focus on the sphere with a corner because Impenitent hasn't told me how to construct the interpretative framework for it.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:50 am It may be impossible to put into words, even if it is possible to imagine it.
One might express semantically a sphere and a corner separately, but not a sphere with a corner.
So lets say I told you about a "square circle". And you said "you might semantically express square and circle separately, but not a square circle"
What you are really telling me is that you lack the semantic framework in which to interpret a "square circle". You lack the kind of geometry in which those two concepts can coexist without causing you mental anguish.
But when I tell you about the kind of geometry I have in mind then you'll go "Oooooohhhhhh! Is that what you mean?". And your outrage evaporates.
When you abandon your semantics and substitute them for mine, then you understand the square circle as I understand it.
So if Impenitent provides me with the geometry/semantic he's using then I don't see a problem. But on the principle of charity, I at least, have to ask for it.
Is it as preposterous as the existence of square circles? Because those are in every city.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:50 am It’s preposterous to claim that whatever can be imagined exists in the physical world.
There is even a you (commonsense) who is trying to convince a me (bahman) that any imaginable thing is real now somewhere in the whole right now. Another you being the unicorn and another me be the Pig.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:57 amNow that I understand that a square circle is not only imaginable but also describable when using the appropriate semantics and that, furthermore, it is real in every city, it remains to be seen whether ANY imaginable thing exists in reality, I.e. whether ALL imaginable things are real.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:45 pmOooooohhhhhh!Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:00 am I am going to split your comment in two so I can address it.
It's precisely about semantics. I won't focus on the sphere with a corner because Impenitent hasn't told me how to construct the interpretative framework for it.
So lets say I told you about a "square circle". And you said "you might semantically express square and circle separately, but not a square circle"
What you are really telling me is that you lack the semantic framework in which to interpret a "square circle". You lack the kind of geometry in which those two concepts can coexist without causing you mental anguish.
But when I tell you about the kind of geometry I have in mind then you'll go "Oooooohhhhhh! Is that what you mean?". And your outrage evaporates.
When you abandon your semantics and substitute them for mine, then you understand the square circle as I understand it.
So if Impenitent provides me with the geometry/semantic he's using then I don't see a problem. But on the principle of charity, I at least, have to ask for it.
Is it as preposterous as the existence of square circles? Because those are in every city.
To see that that is NOT the case, one needs to cite an imaginable thing that is not real.
Are there unicorns with purple stripes, or polka-dotted pigs that fly or speak Pig Latin?
Is it fair to say that those pigs and unicorns are not real just because no one has ever reported seeing either in a peer-reviewed journal?
If I can imagine a forum member who is clever enough to pull catchy but preposterous phrases out of his anus, does that mean that bahman is real?
Both serious replies (from Skepdick) and petulant protests (from bahman) are welcome.
No problem, dude. Your criticism is always welcome.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 2:14 am bahman,
I sincerely regret poking fun at you just now and for every time before that.
I will continue on occasion to debunk your posts, however I will refrain from making mean personal comments about you even if intended in jest.
I’m sorry, man, sorry.
How can I get a unicorn steak and a cheese cake made with Dragon milk?
You have to become open very far. If you are lucky you may not become their food!Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:23 amHow can I get a unicorn steak and a cheese cake made with Dragon milk?