For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
No, "acauasality" could be easily, easily disproven...just find or demonstrate the real cause, and you've done it for that item, phenomenon or event.
So, to just CLARIFY, to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, what does the 'it' word here refer to, EXACTLY?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:38 pm1. The constant nature of the truth being "there are multiple truths" necessitates it as absolute. Absoluteness is consistency.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:17 am
REALLY?
Some can SEE and are SAYING that this appears to be an attempt at DEFLECTION, projected, itself.
OF COURSE, there are MANY, so called, "truths". Each and EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, has and holds their OWN, so called, "truth".
Also, so if 'this truth' is a singular entity as a 'singular truth', then does that mean that 'this truth' is irrefutable?
If yes, then does that now make 'this irrefutable truth' absolute?
And if yes, then would that now make 'this irrefutable and absolute truth', 'A truth of things'?
If yes, the I just refer to this kind or type of 'truth' as 'thee ACTUAL Truth of things', or shortened, 'thee Truth', which just makes expressing 'that thing' SIMPLER and EASIER.
OF COURSE.
Contrary to YOUR BELIEF 'this' has NEVER been DISPUTED.
What I did was ask you to PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of the 'a "specific thing", which you were 'trying to' CLAIM NOT everyone agrees with, which you THEN 'tried to' CLAIM was "one singular truth".
Talk about DEFLECTION.
To me, there are SOME 'things' that EVERY one does AGREE ON, so if this is True, then that would REFUTE your CLAIM here. And then, this THE OPPOSITE of YOUR CLAIM would NOW become 'one singular (irrefutable and absolute) Truth. Surely this NOT to HARD NOR COMPLEX to UNDERSTAND?
Also, the ONLY other thing I did here was to ask you, 'one WHAT, exists though many WHAT/S?'
What can be SEEN here is you have FAILED to answer my CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to you, as well as FAILING to PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of what I CHALLENGED you about.
Now, if you had been Truly OPEN and Honest, by PROVIDING BOTH the EXAMPLE and the ANSWER, then we could have come together in AGREEMENT, MUCH EARLIER, MUCH SIMPLER, MUCH QUICKER, and MUCH EASIER than we are going to now.
Why would it be "a way to 'set' the burden of proof" when we're talking about something that has nothing to do with actualized, empirical facts?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:38 am I'm pointing out that empirically is a way to set the burden of proof.
Because "burden of proof" means the question of who has something to prove. The person who believes in causality has nothing to prove, because his way of thinking is the most obvious one, the one with all the evidence already. That's empirical. The believer in "acausality" has everything to prove, because nobody has a single case of what he's claiming exists, and his idea is counterintuitive, non-evidentiary and plausibly fictive.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:29 amWhy would it be "a way to 'set' the burden of proof" ...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:38 am I'm pointing out that empirically is a way to set the burden of proof.
Your answer has nothing to do with why the burden of proof for logical possibility would have something to do with what's actually instantiated.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:04 pmBecause "burden of proof" means the question of who has something to prove. The person who believes in causality has nothing to prove, because his way of thinking is the most obvious one, the one with all the evidence already. That's empirical. The believer in "acausality" has everything to prove, because nobody has a single case of what he's claiming exists, and his idea is counterintuitive, non-evidentiary and plausibly fictive.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:29 amWhy would it be "a way to 'set' the burden of proof" ...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:38 am I'm pointing out that empirically is a way to set the burden of proof.
But you know that, if you know what "burden of proof" means. And I won't insult you by assuming you don't.
"Burden of proof" and "logical possibility" are two different issues. (Do I actually have to explain this?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:56 pmYour answer has nothing to do with why the burden of proof for logical possibility would have something to do with what's actually instantiated.
)You were talking about the burden of proof of logical possibility, right?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:34 pm"Burden of proof" and "logical possibility" are two different issues. (Do I actually have to explain this?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:56 pmYour answer has nothing to do with why the burden of proof for logical possibility would have something to do with what's actually instantiated.
By the way, what is something inherently making sense? How would you say that's determined?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:34 pm
"Logical possibility" means "Does this concept inherently make rational sense."
No.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:51 pmYou were talking about the burden of proof of logical possibility, right?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:34 pm"Burden of proof" and "logical possibility" are two different issues. (Do I actually have to explain this?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:56 pmYour answer has nothing to do with why the burden of proof for logical possibility would have something to do with what's actually instantiated.
When two words in an expression like "acausal event" contradict one another then the expression being employed is a self-contradiction. It also means it's not possible in any "world" at all.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:27 pmBy the way, what is something inherently making sense? How would you say that's determined?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:34 pm
"Logical possibility" means "Does this concept inherently make rational sense."
Ah, so you're claiming a contradiction. Not that the particular word matters--it's not like what I'm talking about is any different whether we call it an "event" or not, but what definition of "event" are you using?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:41 pmWhen two words in an expression like "acausal event" contradict one another then the expression being employed is a self-contradiction. It also means it's not possible in any "world" at all.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:27 pmBy the way, what is something inherently making sense? How would you say that's determined?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:34 pm
"Logical possibility" means "Does this concept inherently make rational sense."
Well, that's weird then, because that was the topic--whether something is logically possible or not, and you were soliciting proof for a claim that something is logically possible.
With Physicalism. An "event" is a phenomenon in the physical realm, because Physicalists by definition believe in nothing else. But "acausal" means "non-physical" as well. So it renders the characterization of the "event" an oxymoron: a "physical thing with no physicality," so to speak.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:54 pm So where are you seeing a contradiction with "acausal"?
Well, that's what you wanted to narrow it down to, perhaps. But I had three critiques, not merely one. It doesn't help your case that logical impossibility is only one of the problems with "acausal events."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:56 pmWell, that's weird then, because that was the topic--whether something is logically possible or not
Source?