Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:26 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:31 pm Einstein was not a scientist but a philosopher whose toy idea proved to be true by observation.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:20 pm Can anybody provide a definition for "God" that does not recurse into a Null-pointer [1]? A signifier without a signified.

e.g God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. All three of those adjectives are null-pointers unless you can provide an example of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:20 pm Can anybody provide a definition for "God" that does not recurse into a Null-pointer [1]? A signifier without a signified.

Three of those adjectives are null-pointers unless you can provide an example of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_pointer

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:22 pm No, it's not a "No true Scotsman fallacy".

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:44 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:22 pm No, it's not a "No true Scotsman fallacy".

Then I am sure you will have no trouble producing your classification rule (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule ) for sorting “scientists” from “non-scientists”?

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:37 pm Null pointers in philosophy have classical names: impossible, non-existent, nil.

So we call them null-pointers from here on. Okay.

What's the advantage? What's the need that necessitated the change?

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:49 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:44 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:22 pm No, it's not a "No true Scotsman fallacy".

Then I am sure you will have no trouble producing your classification rule (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule ) for sorting “scientists” from “non-scientists”?

I am sure you are having problems understanding factual statements and comparing it to reality.

If you read Einstein's own account of creating his relativity theory, and the history of its supporting evidence, you would be able to see that you erred when you called my claim a "Not a true Scotsman" fallacy.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:44 pm
Then I am sure you will have no trouble producing your classification rule (...) for sorting “scientists” from “non-scientists”?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:52 pm I am not interested in Einstein’s written account (now that he isn’t here to address ambiguity).

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:56 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:52 pm I am not interested in Einstein’s written account (now that he isn’t here to address ambiguity).

You make it hard to make known facts be accepted by you.

And your reason for that is...???

There is no ambiguity. Your calling it does not create it.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:51 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:37 pm Null pointers in philosophy have classical names: impossible, non-existent, nil.

So we call them null-pointers from here on. Okay.

What's the advantage? What's the need that necessitated the change?

That is the thing, epistemically they aren’t the same thing.

Non-existent is not the same as impossible.

Impossible means “violates known laws of physics” e.g omniscience. Maxwell’s daemon. Violates 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Non-existent means “not yet discovered”. e.g black swans. There are no physical laws that one can use to dismiss their existence.

And so the God signifier is not nil in your head

God -> omniscient.

But omniscient is impossible. So God becomes a nil-pointer.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:02 pm
Non-regular languages are open to interpretation. Derrida has demonstrated this over and over again with deconstruction.

I will demonstrate it to you. I need one ambiguity to shift the entire semiotic framework.

Words don’t have objective meaning. You are just a victim of the correspondence theory of truth (which is a load of bullshit).

This is the symbol-grounding problem and the principle of explosion. I know how to leverage it to my advantage.

And so yes - just because you don’t see an ambiguity doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:12 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:02 pm
Non-regular languages are open to interpretation. Derrida has demonstrated this over and over again with deconstruction.

I will demonstrate it to you. I need one ambiguity to shift the entire semiotic framework.

Words don’t have objective meaning. You are just a victim of the correspondence theory of truth (which is a load of bullshit).

This is the symbol-grounding problem and the principle of explosion. I know how to leverage it to my advantage.

And so yes - just because you don’t see an ambiguity doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your demonstration applies to your claim and logic equally. You have not used completely clear language, either. So with the same reason that you painstakingly presented here, I have just as much right to reject your arguments as much right you falsely claim you have to reject mine.

You have not built a case, your claim is unsupported, and you use a blanket epistemological description, unrelated to the foregoing, to fallaciously try to invalidate my argument.

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:12 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:02 pm
Non-regular languages are open to interpretation. Derrida has demonstrated this over and over again with deconstruction.

I will demonstrate it to you. I need one ambiguity to shift the entire semiotic framework.

Words don’t have objective meaning. You are just a victim of the correspondence theory of truth (which is a load of bullshit).

This is the symbol-grounding problem and the principle of explosion. I know how to leverage it to my advantage.

And so yes - just because you don’t see an ambiguity doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your demonstration applies to your claim and logic equally. You have not used completely clear language, either. So with the same reason that you painstakingly presented here, I have just as much right to reject your arguments as much right you falsely claim you have to reject mine.

You have not built a case, your claim is unsupported, and you use a blanket epistemological description, unrelated to the foregoing, to fallaciously try to invalidate my argument.