Oops.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Oct 12 2012 11:23pm

In this case, if something is possibly necessary, then it is necessary. (Axiom S5)

Observation is either an activity of a living being, such as a human, consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside worldthrough the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments.



Your issue was with how you get from possibility to existence. His issue originally is how you get from possibility to necessary possibility, but he kind of changed his contention later in his post so I don't know.



Math major is best major.

i^2 = -1 if thats what you were referring to.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 11:32pm

I've always complained about this argument about "maximal" or "greatest" something in logical arguments. Generally this implies that something is greater than something else. For this to be meaningful, you need an algorithm (something everyone will agree on, which does not require opinion) to determining this.

In ordinary speech this is of course not a requirement. If I were to say, my dog is greater than your dog, we would all realize this is just an opinion and not take it seriously. Or perhaps we might define the greatness of dogs as their mass, in this case we could use an algorithm to determine which dog is 'greater' by hooking them up to springs to generate a number for each dog which we can then compare. Without a algorithm, the term should not be taken seriously.

We've already gone over this, the modal version of the argument does not rely on personal definitions of greatness.

But that's wrong....

Axiom S5

if possibly p, then necessarily possibly p

Note how what follows the "then" is not "necessarily p"
or maybe I'm just missing it




This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2012 11:38pm

Which brings up my argument.




No, observation can refer to observation of the mind as well as the outside world. In Buddhism one of the six senses is the awareness of arising thoughts.



It ain't even much matter.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Oct 12 2012 11:38pm

It sure seems like it does to me.

Ok, let's take this slowly.

(a square means necessary a diamond means possible)

A→□◊A
In natural language, this statement says "if A exists, then it is necessarily possible that A exists"

Surely this is common sense. If something exists then it is necessarily possible. Surely if A exists it is necessary for it to be possible.

The validity of the above statement implies:

◊□A→A
In natural language, this statement says "if it is possibly necessary for A to exist, then A exists".

This proves the contention everyone is raising false.



Ah, you should reread it then.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 12 2012 11:43pm

The existence of A implies that something is necessarily possible, but something being necessarily possible doesn't imply the existence of A


P -> Q does not mean Q -> P

I did.

This is what I see (edited)

1. wishy washy statement
2. wishy washy statement
3. conclusion based on wishy washy statements

This post was edited by Azrad on Oct 12 2012 11:47pm