Philosophy Now Forum

'This one' now claims that letters believe things. So, 'the delusions', here, continue. ZFC is an abstract "thing". In line with Platonism, I believe that it is an object in a metaphysical reality: Gemini AI Mathematical Platonism is the philosophical view that mathematical objects, like ...

I am a non-theist and non-religious. That's fine. However, you cannot prove that there would be inconsistencies or falsehoods in the deductive closure of any other religion than Christianity. So, in general, there is nothing wrong with theism or religion. That is why the only religion that has witn...

Which are 'an infinite hierarchy of delusions', correct? Yes, I came to the conclusion that ZFC+inacc is a theory that is racist towards what it considers to be inferior theories. ChatGPT: ZFC+inacc believes (but cannot prove) that the cardinal κ is inaccessible to ZFC but not to itself. On the con...

Which are 'an infinite hierarchy of delusions', correct? For finitists, yes, an infinite mathematical object is a delusion. For example, as an object, the natural numbers do not exist in finitism, because it would be an infinite object. If you believe that it exists, however, by means of the axiom ...

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 3:27 am Did someone just say Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Tuchkov?

Sounds like real Russian pronunciation!

2. When it is possible to 'look at' and 'discuss' what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, which 'we' could be doing, here, instead, then 'looking at' and 'discussing' what are just 'theories' is, literally, a so-called 'waste of time'. (Which is what I have been, literally, showing ...

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:13 am Who's winning?

Christianity is provable nonsensical. All other religions are fine. So, there is no winner. There is only a loser, i.e. Christianity.

Knowledge workers all reject doctrine. That amounts to claiming that all knowledge is inductive and that there is no deductive knowledge. That is obviously wrong. Attacking each other's doctrinal positions from doctrinal positions. In principle, I am fine with any doctrinal position as long as it i...

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 2:20 pm Again, to show and prove how and why 'looking at' and 'discussing' 'theories' is, literally, a so-called 'waste of time'.

This post is about a hierarchy of mathematical theories. If you think that theories are a 'waste of time', then why do you want to engage in this post?

I would've thought having the choice leaves the matter to be settled between partners. Where I live multiple marriage agreements are recognized Community of property, antenuptial with; or without accrual. So you can share some assets and not others; or share no assets at all. But hey. We aren't big...

You can't possibly live well with your utterly transactional/materialistic obsession. Not wanting to lose half your stuff to your ex and her new boyfriend, is "materialistic"? Seriously? Most of all. You sound too incompetent to hire a lawyer and draft a prenup. Whatever your faith. There...

With 'this kind of belief' of yourself, here, there is no wonder how and why you also arrived at 'the conclusion', and belief, that 'higher set theory is a delusion'. Well, numerous great mathematicians were finitist. They certainly thought that infinite objects are delusional: https://en.wikipedia...

2. To reinforce that looking at and discussing theories has been, and continues to be, what is called a 'complete waste of time'. We are currently looking at the following theories: ChatGPT: Theories in the ZFC consistency hierarchy The ZFC consistency hierarchy refers to a ranking of formal theori...

This is a practical/ethical problem, not a logical/epistemological one. Nobody cares if Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Judaism is true. They only care whether their doctrine helps them live well. Christianity also fails on that count. According to the Christian doctrinal imbecilarium, if I...

The example deduction is not "invalid". It is false: Deductions are neither true nor false. Deductions either follow from the premises (valid) or they don't (invalid) True/false are evaluative terms! Validity preserves semantic value. Even if that value is "false". If the premis...