Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

[Skepdick]

It's all that matters because (a) is satisfied if it's a possibility. If it's not a possibility, then we have (b).

You seem to have doubled-down on your confirmation bias.

Any one of the N possibilities I gave you could be satisfied.

Sure, either it's possible or it's impossible.

Any of the options I offered you were possible.

If you have a third option other than "either x is possible or x is impossible" I'll consider it. Do you have a third option for that?

Yes I do.

X is possible. Y is possible X is not possible in the same way Y is possible

And the all-time favourite: The (im?)possibility of x is undecidable.

[Terrapin Station]

X is possible. Y is possible X is not possible in the same way Y is possible

It's nothing limiting the "ways" that x is possible. If it's possible, the "way" is irrelevant.

And the all-time favourite: The (im?)possibility of x is undecidable.

And I'm not asking about our knowledge. I'm asking about logical options. So saying that we don't know isn't addressing whether there's a logical option other than possibility or impossibility. We could very well not know which is the case. That is irrelevant to the logical possibilities.

[Skepdick]

It's nothing limiting the "ways" that x is possible. If it's possible, the "way" is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant in YOUR semantic. It's not irrelevant in MY semantic.That's literally how abstraction works.

Abstraction is the elimination of the irrelevant and the amplification of the essential. --Robert C. Martin

Both X and Y are possible, but in different ways!

Thus X is NOT possible in the way Y is possible; and Y is NOT possible in the way X is possible.

And I'm not asking about our knowledge. I'm asking about logical options.

So according to you logic is not knowledge?

So saying that we don't know isn't addressing whether there's a logical option other than possibility or impossibility.

"Undecidability" is a logical option. We can logically prove that some things are undecidable.

We could very well not know which is the case. That is irrelevant to the logical possibilities.

We can KNOW that the possibility or impossibility of X is logically undecidable.

[Terrapin Station]

It's nothing limiting the "ways" that x is possible. If it's possible, the "way" is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant in YOUR semantic.

It's irrelevant because no "way" of possibility was suggested.

I cut the rest off because I'm not arguing about every single thing every post. Settle one thing then I'll address more.

[Skepdick]

It's irrelevant because no "way" of possibility was suggested.

I cut the rest off because I'm not arguing about every single thing every post. Settle one thing then I'll address more.

There's nothing to be settled without a telos.

Logic is a tool. You can construct any logical system you want with any rules you want.

If you can't settle WHY you are constructing a logical system we can argue ad infinitum.

[Terrapin Station]

It's irrelevant because no "way" of possibility was suggested.

I cut the rest off because I'm not arguing about every single thing every post. Settle one thing then I'll address more.

There's nothing to be settled without a telos.

Logic is a tool. You can construct any logical system you want with any rules you want.

If you can't settle WHY you are constructing a logical system we can argue ad infinitum.

So construct a logic where it's not the case that x is either possible or impossible. That's not satisfied by talking about epistemology instead, or by claiming that anyone was talking about "ways" of possibility. You can't challenge it by changing the topic.

[Skepdick]

So construct a logic where it's not the case that x is either possible or impossible.

Sure thing..

Here it is.
A tri-valued logic!

f(X) -> { Possible, Impossible, Undecidable }

That's not satisfied by talking about epistemology instead

Says you. I say differently.

We have different criteria for "obtaining"

[Terrapin Station]

So construct a logic where it's not the case that x is either possible or impossible.

Sure thing..

Here it is.
A tri-valued logic!

f(X) -> { Possible, Impossible, Undecidable }

"That's not satisfied by talking about epistemology instead"

[Skepdick]

So construct a logic where it's not the case that x is either possible or impossible.

Sure thing..

Here it is.
A tri-valued logic!

f(X) -> { Possible, Impossible, Undecidable }

"That's not satisfied by talking about epistemology instead"

Says you. I say differently!

We have different epistemic criteria for ontological obtainment.

[Terrapin Station]

Sure thing..

Here it is.
A tri-valued logic!

f(X) -> { Possible, Impossible, Undecidable }

"That's not satisfied by talking about epistemology instead"

Says you. I say differently!

We have different epistemic criteria for ontological obtainment.

It has f-all to do with epistemic criteria. It's changing the topic, because the initial thing wasn't anything about epistemology. Again, it doesn't make a lick of difference if we know if something is possible or impossible or if we have any way to tell for what I was talking about.

[Skepdick]

It has f-all to do with epistemic criteria. It's changing the topic

I am not changing THE TOPIC.

I am rejecting YOUR FRAMING.

I have different semantics.

[Terrapin Station]

It has f-all to do with epistemic criteria. It's changing the topic

I am not changing THE TOPIC.

I am rejecting YOUR FRAMING.

I have different semantics.

You're changing the topic, because it has jackshit to do with what I was talking about. If you're talking about something different you're changing the topic.

This is like post after post of you being a thick, argumentative moron at this point.

[Skepdick]

You're changing the topic, because it has jackshit to do with what I was talking about. If you're talking about something different you're changing the topic.

This is like post after post of you being a thick, argumentative moron at this point.

I can say, with absolute certainty that the possibility or impossibility of X is logically undecidable. That's a third logical option.

And you can cry me a river till kingdom come and I won't let you promote your semantic to ontological status.

Because YOU are not talking about ontology, YOU are talking about epistemology. Pretending that it's ontology.

[Terrapin Station]

I can say, with absolute certainty that the possibility or impossibility is undecidable.

Great. The problem is that that has fuck all to do with what I was talking about.

[Skepdick]

Great. The problem is that that has fuck all to do with what I was talking about.

You were talking about epistemology. But you wanted to pretend that you were talking about ontology.