Presumably, if one concludes, by considering whether or not all new properties which emerge can be explained by properly considering the nature of...
It's an interesting line of thought, however, I think that you've only established that the future is unknowable, and as that can be established...
That your title doesn't express anything clear enough to address.
I'd say it's bollocks. Can you quote the philosophers involved in this "tension"? As I recall, the high profile pests who have wanked on about the...
No. What you've described here is closer to determinism than to fatalism. Fatalism doesn't require "unbrokenness".
I dont think this is true. Models are more or less adequate for predicting the probabilities of making specified observations. They're not the kind...
But you've still to give me a reason to accept that the notion of unperceived reality makes sense. So you haven't any warrant to talk about a mistake.
It's easy to say that and superficially it sounds meaningful but if it actually is, then it should be possible to talk about what it means to know...
What a bizarre understanding. What is this based on?
What on Earth do you mean?
Step one: is this an accurate statement of your argument: If "yes", then go on to step two: If "no", then please clearly state what your argument is....
What do you mean? I'm asking for an argument, as you can see by reviewing my posts. What the hell is "universally observed" and how is it relevant?...
So, no argument. Here's the post to which I responded: I assume that your first argument is something like this: 1) relativism and the principle...
So, no argument, then.
I am not an argument, I am a reader. If he doesn't produce an argument withing the next six hours, I will take the liberty of attempting to construct...
If you do not have an argument, kindly link me to whatever site it is where you got the idea that there is an argument. I cannot provide a crit...
What argument? On this thread you have asked what a subset of readers interpret a certain phrase to mean, without having given sufficient context for...
Of course it's not inconceivable, the principle of non-contradiction is not unrestrictedly true in paraconsistent logics.
Please specify the logic and spell out the argument, premises and conclusion.
This exemplifies, clearly, your refusal to address questions as posed to you. I will report this. General philosophy does not mean platforming...
Separate names with a comma.