Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:41 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:40 pm You'd need to explain why the answer I gave doesn't count as an answer in your view.

Because the premise of the question rests upon a contradiction.

Huh? My answer doesn't count as an answer because the premise of your question rests upon a contradiction??? That makes no sense to me.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:44 pm Huh? My answer doesn't count as an answer because the premise of your question rests upon a contradiction??? That makes no sense to me.

You'll have to explain why that makes no sense to you.

Who could possibly be interested in a reality without referrers?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:46 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:44 pm Huh? My answer doesn't count as an answer because the premise of your question rests upon a contradiction??? That makes no sense to me.

You'll have to explain why that makes no sense to you.

Who could possibly be interested in a reality without referrers?

It makes no sense because first, let's assume that "the premise of a question rests on a contradiction." Why would whether an answer to such a question counts as an answer be based on that fact (that the premise of a question rests on a contradiction)?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:49 pm It makes no sense because first, let's assume that "the premise of a question rests on a contradiction." Why would whether an answer to such a question counts as an answer be based on that fact (that the premise of a question rests on a contradiction)?

Who would be asking/answering any questions in a universe without question askers/answerers?

Your Philosophistry ignores the strong anthropic principle.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:51 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:49 pm It makes no sense because first, let's assume that "the premise of a question rests on a contradiction." Why would whether an answer to such a question counts as an answer be based on that fact (that the premise of a question rests on a contradiction)?

Who would be asking/answering any questions in a universe without askers/answerers?

Your Philosophistry ignores the strong anthropic principle.

The above is in no way addressing: "Why would whether an answer to such a question counts as an answer be based on that fact (that the premise of a question rests on a contradiction)?"

At any rate, no one is saying that we're presently in a universe without askers/answerers.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:54 pm The above is in no way addressing: "Why would whether an answer to such a question counts as an answer be based on that fact (that the premise of a question rests on a contradiction)?"

Well, you'll have to explain to me why is it not addressing it?

Why do you think that your answer "addresses" my question. Given that you were special pleading.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm Because a world independent of referrers is the majority of what's the case.

A world containing referrers is the totality of what's the case.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:56 pm Well, you'll have to explain to me why is it not addressing it?

Because it says nothing about why whether something counts as an answer would hinge on such a question. Addressing that would have to say, "Whether something counts as an answer hinges on such a question because _______" --something in that vein.

A world containing referrers is the totality of what's the case.

Which isn't inconsistent with the majority of that world being independent from referrers.

For some reason it's apparently a mystery to you that we can refer to, say, 1842, despite the fact that we're not presently "in" 1842.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:59 pm Which isn't inconsistent with the majority of that world being independent from referrers.

For some reason it's apparently a mystery to you that we can refer to, say, 1842, despite the fact that we're not presently "in" 1842.

For some reason you think that's an ontological reference.

The only place "1842 exists" is in books/records. Human memories.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 3:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:59 pm Which isn't inconsistent with the majority of that world being independent from referrers.

For some reason it's apparently a mystery to you that we can refer to, say, 1842, despite the fact that we're not presently "in" 1842.

For some reason you think that's an ontological reference.

The only place "1842 exists" is in books/records. Human memories.

That it doesn't exist any longer doesn't imply that you can't refer to it.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 3:49 pm That it doesn't exist any longer doesn't imply that you can't refer to it.

Really? So what exactly are you referring to when you take out the referrers and all of their their memories of 1842?

Please locate it for me in space-time, once you take humans out of the equation.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:10 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 3:49 pm That it doesn't exist any longer doesn't imply that you can't refer to it.

Really? So what exactly are you referring to when you take out the referrers and all of their their memories of 1842?

Ever since we first started talking, this sort of stuff confuses you so much.

You can't refer to something if there's no referrer. But what you're referring to doesn't depend on a referrer in a case like this.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:13 pm Ever since we first started talking, this sort of stuff confuses you so much.

You keep projecting your confusion onto me.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:13 pm You can't refer to something if there's no referrer. But what you're referring to doesn't depend on a referrer in a case like this.

Great! Put your money where your mouth is. Locate 1983 in a universe without referrers.

Locate any point in future OR the past in a universe without referrers.

Win that Nobel prize in Physics already!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:15 pm Great! Put your money where your mouth is. Locate 1983 in a universe without referrers.

Again, it doesn't have to still exist to be something that can be referred to. The location is a temporal one, 38 years prior to the present.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:22 pm Again, it doesn't have to still exist to be something that can be referred to. The location is a temporal one, 38 years prior to the present.

Temporal locations exist in the minds and memories of of referrers.

Do you suffer from some condition affecting your ability to think clearly?

You are the one interested in "what is the case" extramentally. So you don't get to use phrases like "38 year prior". Prior to what?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:24 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:22 pm Again, it doesn't have to still exist to be something that can be referred to. The location is a temporal one, 38 years prior to the present.

Temporal locations exist in the minds of referrers.

No they don't (not most of them at any rate). They exist external to people now, and they existed outside of minds, and will exist outside of minds.