Quote:
Originally Posted by paul manata  1) I await the argument for the impossibility of 4 + whatever else you say is necessary for the preconditions (along with the argument that these are indeed necessary preconditions). |
I can only give an argument once I understand which premises you accept? Is it possible for God to be Four in One instead of Three in One? I have not yet seen a straight answer for you.
Can a system have the preconditions for intel. while having false statements?
Quote:
|
2) Of course. It's pretty standard.
|
Alright, then that is where the fight is.
Quote:
|
3) I don't see how that's the case.
|
The definitions concern space. If space is different then the definition would follow. The definitions come after not before. Therefore an appeal to violation of definition is just an implicit appeal to the violation of space that the definition apply to.
Quote:
|
4) I don't get your position. Do you deny possible worlds? Why appeal to them?
|
I was just having fun, I do deny possible worlds, but I do not deny counterfactuals. There was no need to use possible worlds. I could just have easily said, what if you had eye issues where everything you saw was the same shade of blue. Now talk to me about red.
Quote:
|
Anyway, (a) you wouldn't be coming up to me and asking me to talk about red, so you can't use your objection,
|
I never said that I grew up there. I said that you did. I've seen red.
Quote:
|
and (b) I could tell you at least two things about red, it's not blue (by definition) and something couldn't be both red and blue at the same time (by definition).
|
You call that conception? I can do the same thing with space. "Whatever this thing, I have never experienced is, cannot contradict itself."
[/quote]
And as you said about friend Vincent, there are objections hanging over the head of anyone who uses S5. Until those are addressed, why should anyone care about claims that possible worlds semantics has to be right?
You have called Mr. Choi up, right?
CT