Search results for query: *

Your dimensionless "position" is NOT necessary. It is neither modally nor contingently necessary. The issue of the same place-time has already been shown to be NOT a contradiction. You insist on being modally erroneous. That insistence of yours along with your foulness wastes my time. But you...

A contradiction is NECESSARILY derived from multiples. In the current context, the focus of multiples is set on multiple possibilities. Not all multiple possibilities effect contradiction even if the actualization of one of the possibilities excludes or precludes actualization of the other...

The modal error which occurs most frequently is that which happens when a person imagines something as being possibly the case but the person asserts that something as being actually the case. This error most commonly occurs when a person has not sufficiently imagined other possibilities which...

What you describe there is what in Kuhnian terms would be normal science. Normal science works with/from interpretations previously provided by others. Theory development requires interpretation. Data becomes evidence by fitting with an explanation, a theory, a narrative, a story - whatever it...

I am well aware that "decidability is a concept in math". That is one reason why I wrote what I wrote in the way that I wrote it.

I have no idea whether you are being metaphorical with that "undecided". Since minds decide, and since determinism has been a central topic, and since determinism has been described as a description rather than a function thus making it unnecessary to restrict determinism to causal determinism...

You are a modal fallacy incarnate. Yes, they are basic terms, but, since they are not necessary terms, you were given the opportunity to express yourself differently and in a way which did not make it seem as if you were insisting that those terms were necessary which is to say to the exclusion...

The above is uncommunicative expression. You might like it that way, but it would not be for any respectable reasons. Describe "concrete", because, by your presentation, your demand comes across as a non-necessary requirement. Then describe "relational" and "functional", and I might be able to...

What have been referred to previously in terms of physical possibilities are certainly possibilities and have consistently been noted to be possibilities, but they are physical possibilities without having to be physical objects even if physical possibilities relate to expression in or by a...

Right. In this case I specifically noted that "To make it a contradiction, you will have to define place in particular such that no two things can be in the same place at the same time." The most immediate problem with that to-be-asserted definition in the context of this discussion is that if...

With regards to possibilities, the fact is that possibilities are not objects (which is to say physical objects). Therefore, a fact that two physical objects cannot be in the same place at the same time in the same way has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of possibilities.

Your body is certainly not in one distinct volume across spacetime. Nor are you equally free across spacetime. Don’t make the mistake of identifying places with dimensionless points, because dimensionless points are not physically real. As interesting as all that can be made, I expect some...

Based on that definition of place, math and science fail to correspond with reality. Your body is in one place, the same place as are your body parts and even your thoughts. Likewise, in one place is the determinate condition which is the conjoining of the A possibility and the not-A...

Not at all. To make it a contradiction, you will have to define place in particular such that no two things can be in the same place at the same time. You should already sense how preposterous as well as non-necessary such a definition would be.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly. False. There is one possibility with the characteristic of A, and there is also one possibility with the characteristic of not-A. At the same place-time. It is not a matter of one possibility which is both A and not-A. The something made from conjoining the A possibility...

Well, this is a problem, because I am sure that DBT has thought (as have I) that self-described compatibilists would hold to compatibilism which is commonly thought of as "the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism." So, you see, it is common for compatibilists to refer to...

That is not actually responsive to DBT. Well, it is not actually responsive to my interpretation/understanding of what DBT is trying to say. I am under the impression that DBT sees this discussion as regarding whether a something referred to as free will is compatible with an other something...

As time goes by, you get continually more non-sensical. Let's review. I said, "If there are concurrent multiple alternative possibilities, there is indeterminateness. If there are not concurrent alternative multiple possibilities, there is no indeterminateness." And your reply to that is "the...

If there are concurrent multiple alternative possibilities, there is indeterminateness. If there are not concurrent alternative multiple possibilities, there is no indeterminateness. That is a better way of expressing the fact. Your "yield" is wholly unnecessary and an inferior manner of...

It was not said that there is anything indeterminate about a possibility. Incoherent non-sense. You can go ahead and describe "decidability" to possibly effect some extent of coherence, but, if you think that there can be deciding or decision without there being multiple concurrent...