Posts: 2020
Threads: 133
Joined: July 26, 2017
Reputation:
5
RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 25, 2023 at 12:50 am
(June 23, 2023 at 9:34 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No...he's not the author of anything. He was a syncretist. His life's work was to say that his stupid god was the thing that -other- authors described.
There isn't a single, or even christian...idea...in his entire pack. If I correctly remember what were taught in our philosophy classes, he is the author of the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Which is, I think, the least philosophically problematic theory of truth. Sure, it does make it tough to explain how could statements such as " Had Balsac not made a living of his writing, he wouldn't have written 20'000 pages of text." be true, but Coherentism just opens way more problems than it solves. And Pragmatism (" Truth is that which is useful.") is, in my opinion, even more ridiculous than Coherentism. The Correspondence Theory of the Truth makes by far the most sense.
Posts: 35273
Threads: 204
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
146
RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 25, 2023 at 1:13 am
(June 24, 2023 at 9:00 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: (June 23, 2023 at 10:17 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: A far more important question:
Do pixies wear watches?
What about Pictsies?
I read this as "Do pickles wear watches?" and it was still a far more important question.
Well, do pickles wear watches?
And what type of watches do each type of pickle wear.
And does Peter Piper wear a watch while picking pecks of pickled peppers?
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 35273
Threads: 204
Joined: August 13, 2012
Reputation:
146
RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 25, 2023 at 1:14 am
(June 24, 2023 at 10:14 pm)polymath257 Wrote: (June 23, 2023 at 10:17 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: A far more important question:
Do pixies wear watches?
What about Pictsies?
Do fairies wear boots?
Depends where they go on their nights out...
Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:
"You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???"
Posts: 67172
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 25, 2023 at 7:14 am
(June 25, 2023 at 12:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: (June 23, 2023 at 9:34 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No...he's not the author of anything. He was a syncretist. His life's work was to say that his stupid god was the thing that -other- authors described.
There isn't a single, or even christian...idea...in his entire pack. If I correctly remember what were taught in our philosophy classes, he is the author of the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Which is, I think, the least philosophically problematic theory of truth. Sure, it does make it tough to explain how could statements such as "Had Balsac not made a living of his writing, he wouldn't have written 20'000 pages of text." be true, but Coherentism just opens way more problems than it solves. And Pragmatism ("Truth is that which is useful.") is, in my opinion, even more ridiculous than Coherentism. The Correspondence Theory of the Truth makes by far the most sense.
You remember incorrectly.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 46033
Threads: 538
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 25, 2023 at 7:23 am
^Yeah, pretty sure that goes back to antiquity.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 844
Threads: 3
Joined: November 16, 2018
Reputation:
15
RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 25, 2023 at 9:35 pm
(June 25, 2023 at 1:13 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: Well, do pickles wear watches?
Not dill pickles. To get watches you need thyme.
Posts: 46033
Threads: 538
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 26, 2023 at 5:56 am
(June 25, 2023 at 9:35 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: (June 25, 2023 at 1:13 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: Well, do pickles wear watches?
Not dill pickles. To get watches you need thyme.
![[Image: 200w.gif?cid=6c09b952oeqnzck6ghjzen8lhia...w.gif&ct=g]](https://media2.giphy.com/media/tHPFjJ2g6n5u0/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952oeqnzck6ghjzen8lhiaapa0troubui2czpad27oz&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 1659
Threads: 5
Joined: September 26, 2018
Reputation:
12
RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 26, 2023 at 5:52 pm
(June 25, 2023 at 12:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: If I correctly remember what were taught in our philosophy classes, he is the author of the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Which is, I think, the least philosophically problematic theory of truth. Sure, it does make it tough to explain how could statements such as "Had Balsac not made a living of his writing, he wouldn't have written 20'000 pages of text." be true, but Coherentism just opens way more problems than it solves. And Pragmatism ("Truth is that which is useful.") is, in my opinion, even more ridiculous than Coherentism. The Correspondence Theory of the Truth makes by far the most sense.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth is the one that most people use in science and their daily life. There is a sense that there is a single reality, and that statements are correct when they correspond to reality. This single reality is what allows us to ask questions and get consistent answers.
The problem with it, is that there is no way to prove this "thing that truth corresponds to" actually exists. All we have is our consistent set of answers to questions, with which we build models. Our models are useful if they provide predictions. The "things" within the model have no guarantee of existence beyond their use in the model.
An example is Space-Time. Does it exist, or is it just a mathematical abstraction? I don't know. We could find another model that doesn't include it.
Posts: 2412
Threads: 5
Joined: January 3, 2018
Reputation:
22
RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 26, 2023 at 6:41 pm
(June 26, 2023 at 5:52 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: (June 25, 2023 at 12:50 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: If I correctly remember what were taught in our philosophy classes, he is the author of the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Which is, I think, the least philosophically problematic theory of truth. Sure, it does make it tough to explain how could statements such as "Had Balsac not made a living of his writing, he wouldn't have written 20'000 pages of text." be true, but Coherentism just opens way more problems than it solves. And Pragmatism ("Truth is that which is useful.") is, in my opinion, even more ridiculous than Coherentism. The Correspondence Theory of the Truth makes by far the most sense.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth is the one that most people use in science and their daily life. There is a sense that there is a single reality, and that statements are correct when they correspond to reality. This single reality is what allows us to ask questions and get consistent answers.
The problem with it, is that there is no way to prove this "thing that truth corresponds to" actually exists. All we have is our consistent set of answers to questions, with which we build models. Our models are useful if they provide predictions. The "things" within the model have no guarantee of existence beyond their use in the model.
An example is Space-Time. Does it exist, or is it just a mathematical abstraction? I don't know. We could find another model that doesn't include it.
And what, precisely, do you mean when you say that something 'exists'?
I usually think of existence as a defined quality that corresponds to whatever all minimal predictive theories agree upon. So, if all such theories agree that something exists, it does.
Posts: 4443
Threads: 13
Joined: September 27, 2018
Reputation:
17
RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 26, 2023 at 6:59 pm
(June 26, 2023 at 5:52 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: The Correspondence Theory of Truth is the one that most people use in science and their daily life. There is a sense that there is a single reality, and that statements are correct when they correspond to reality. This single reality is what allows us to ask questions and get consistent answers.
The problem with it, is that there is no way to prove this "thing that truth corresponds to" actually exists. All we have is our consistent set of answers to questions, with which we build models. Our models are useful if they provide predictions. The "things" within the model have no guarantee of existence beyond their use in the model.
An example is Space-Time. Does it exist, or is it just a mathematical abstraction? I don't know. We could find another model that doesn't include it.
Good points.
As I understand it, the Correspondence Theory goes back to Aristotle.
Thomas Aquinas added to the discussion that such a theory has both metaphysical and semantic aspects. I think that's pertinent to what you're talking about here.
If we assume that there's a "something" that actually exists (e.g. space-time, in your example) then the theory is a metaphysical theory. Correspondence Theory would then rely on truth about things, and not just models.
The semantic version is more about the models.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth...spondence/
|
