Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:52 pm But B is one of many phenomenon points towards.

No it isn't.

You are misinterpreting my B.

Yes it is. A may point to B but A may also point to C, D and E. B is one of the many variables A points towards. The if/then dichotomy does not clarify itself in regards to this problem.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:01 pm Yes it is. A may point to B but A may also point to C, D and E. B is one of the many variables A points towards. The if/then dichotomy does not clarify itself in regards to this problem.

It may. It didn't. It pointed to B.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:33 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:01 pm Yes it is. A may point to B but A may also point to C, D and E. B is one of the many variables A points towards. The if/then dichotomy does not clarify itself in regards to this problem.

It may. It didn't. It pointed to B.

But there is no clarification as to why B.....

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:36 pm But there is no clarification as to why B.....

Why not B?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:36 pm But there is no clarification as to why B.....

Why not B?

Because C,D and E are potential other variables.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:39 pm Because C,D and E are potential other variables.

Potential. In actuality it's B.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:39 pm Because C,D and E are potential other variables.

Potential. In actuality it's B.

Yet the "if" is defined through its potentiality. What A may be defines A as the potentiality is a future actual. The difference between actual and potential, in an if/then statement, is not clarified.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:46 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:39 pm Because C,D and E are potential other variables.

Potential. In actuality it's B.

Yet the "if" is defined through its potentiality. What A may be defines A as the potentiality is a future actual. The difference between actual and potential, in an if/then statement, is not clarified.

Your bullshit on your sandwich.

Why "if A" why not "IF C"?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:50 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:46 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:42 pm
Potential. In actuality it's B.

Yet the "if" is defined through its potentiality. What A may be defines A as the potentiality is a future actual. The difference between actual and potential, in an if/then statement, is not clarified.

Your bullshit on your sandwich.

Why "if A" why not "IF C"?

If A then why B considering C,D,E as either potentials (future actuals) or further actuals?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:58 pm If A then why B considering C,D,E as either potentials (future actuals) or further actuals?

Why if A then B?
Why not if Q then ?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:01 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:58 pm If A then why B considering C,D,E as either potentials (future actuals) or further actuals?

Why if A then B?
Why not if Q then ?

The if/then dichotomy does not clarify why if A then B.

If Q follows the same dilemma.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:09 pm The if/then dichotomy does not clarify why if A then B.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 12:30 am "If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows.

If A then B.

Obviously it doesn't specify WHY it follows. It specifies THAT it follows.

If you re-write if A then B in functional notation then you get: f(A) = B

When you define the internal workings/mechanics of f() then you are clarifying defining WHY "if A then B".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:06 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:09 pm The if/then dichotomy does not clarify why if A then B.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 12:30 am "If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows.

If A then B.

Obviously it doesn't specify WHY it follows. It specifies THAT it follows.

If you re-write if A then B in functional notation then you get: f(A) = B

When you define the internal workings/mechanics of f() then you are clarifying defining WHY "if A then B".

No you are just expressing "if A then B" in a new form with f(), you did not define the internal workings of f().

The statement "If I put my hand over the fire then it will burn" does not Express why it will get burned, only that it will burn. The same occurs for all if/then statements.

"If I put my hand over the fire then it will burn" does not Express why it will get burned, only that it will burn

Quite, and for the purposes of avoiding getting burned, that wisdom is sufficient. For most of us in many situations that is all we need and want. That "why" is missing is not a problem. There is nothing stopping further explanation of why and how being included if desired.

Why do you think there is a problem?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:44 pm No you are just expressing "if A then B" in a new form with f(), you did not define the internal workings of f().

So what? You can't define the internal workings of an electron. It's a noumenon.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:44 pm The statement "If I put my hand over the fire then it will burn" does not Express why it will get burned, only that it will burn. The same occurs for all if/then statements.

Why do you want to know why?