Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:34 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:30 pm That's not a third option for what we can be pointing at, lol

Since you insist being in charge of determination, you need to tell me what third option is acceptable to you.

If any. If none - say so.

Ah you changed this as I was typing. I already explained this above:

It would have to be a third option of what we could be pointing to where (a) it can't be the same thing and (b) it's not necessarily different things.

Saying that I'm equivocating isn't saying WHAT WE'RE POINTING TO

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:36 pm I haven't the faintest idea what that response is saying.

I am saying that I am not willing to falsify your logical pre-suppositions for you if you can't do it yourself.

Try it this way maybe:

Would you say that there's a logical possibility that there could be two arms pointing at just one thing?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:37 pm Saying that I'm equivocating isn't saying WHAT WE'RE POINTING TO

Geeee, If I could tell you what I was pointing to then language wouldn't have a grounding problem would it?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:40 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:37 pm Saying that I'm equivocating isn't saying WHAT WE'RE POINTING TO

Geeee, If I could tell you what I was pointing to then language wouldn't have a grounding problem would it?

Don't forget that this is about the logical possibilities.

At any rate, then you'd just be saying that you're incapable of even addressing the issue. That wouldn't be giving a third option. It would be an inability to address it given other assumptions you're making.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:40 pm Would you say that there's a logical possibility that there could be two arms pointing at just one thing?

Yes. There is such a possibility.

There is also a logical possibility of 1 term pointing to N things.

There's also the possibility of 1:1, 1:Many, Many:Many, Many:1, Many:Any, Any:Many, Any:Any, Some:Other

There's many relational properties! This stuff is covered in relational algebra.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:42 pm At any rate, then you'd just be saying that you're incapable of even addressing the issue. That wouldn't be giving a third option. It would be an inability to address it given other assumptions you're making.

I am not making any assumptions other than assuming that YOU are making assumptions which aren't telling me about.

That's why you think there are only two possibilities. You've semantically chosen that to be true.

That is the logic you've invented.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:42 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:40 pm Would you say that there's a logical possibility that there could be two arms pointing at just one thing?

Yes. There is such a possibility.

Okay, then (a) is the case.
(a) doesn't say that other things can't be going on instead. (a) is the case just as long as it's possible for two arms to point at the same thing, regardless of what might be going on other than that.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:44 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:42 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:40 pm Would you say that there's a logical possibility that there could be two arms pointing at just one thing?

Yes. There is such a possibility.

Okay, then (a) is the case.
(a) doesn't say that other things can't be going on instead. (a) is the case just as long as it's possible for two arms to point at the same thing, regardless of what might be going on other than that.

Why did you cherry-pick my post? That is not all that I said?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:42 pm There is also a logical possibility of 1 term pointing to N things.

There's also the possibility of 1:1, 1:Many, Many:Many, Many:1, Many:Any, Any:Many, Any:Any, Some:Other

There's many relational properties! This stuff is covered in relational algebra.

In other words, the dichotomy is simply "either x is a possibility or x is impossible."

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm Why did you cherry-pick my post? That is not all that I said?

Because that was all that mattered. If it's possible, (a) is the case regardless of anything else. Other things that might be going on are not other options than (a). (a) obtains just so long as it's possible for two arms to point at the same thing, whether they are or not.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:47 pm Because that was all that mattered.

No. That's "all that mattered" in YOUR reference frame.

It wasn't "all that mattered" in MY reference frame.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:47 pm If it's possible, (a) is the case regardless of anything else. Other things that might be going on are not other options than (a). (a) obtains just so long as it's possible for two arms to point at the same thing, whether they are or not.

Q.E.D you have CHOSEN to reduce N possibilities to 2 thus constructing a dichotomy.

Your taxonomy has 2 categories. But it could've had N categories. You CHOSE that semantic.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:51 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:47 pm Because that was all that mattered.

No. That's "all that mattered" in YOUR reference frame.

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

Q.E.D you have CHOSEN to reduce N possibilities to 2 thus constructing a dichotomy.

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

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?

The whole reason for this, by the way, is that I wanted to clarify if Veritas was saying that Gewirth's argument worked on (a) or whether it required (b). (Hence the utility of framing this in a dichotomous way that exhausted the logical possibilities--either x (pointing to one "that") is possible (a) or x is impossible (b)).

My initial assumption was that it required (b), but Veritas seemed to suggest that it would work on (a). So I want him to clarify this, and then if he's saying it can work on (a), I'll want to go through how it would work for the cases where X and P are pointing to the same thing.