• Pfhorrest
    1.2k
    We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks.Boojums All the Way Through - N. David Mermin
    The catch is, we also know that it is nearly impossible for “nobody” to be “looking”, because anything at all counts as “somebody” and any kind of interaction at all counts as “looking”. So this boils down to saying the moon demonstrably does not exist when it stops interacting with the rest of the universe, which is in turn a reasonable definition of nonexistence, making the claim rather trivial.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    Yes, saying something redundant about x.

    X is a symbol and symbols are already about something. A symbol can't be about itself. Then its not a symbol, but the thing itself.
    Harry Hindu

    It's the redundancy of x=x that tells us something about x explicitly that just x does not. X is self-identical. X doesn't tell us that. Although common sense might suggest it, it's not actually expressed through just X. It's only expressed by x=x.

    Also, x=x is three symbols, even one of them is repeated.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.7k
    It's the redundancy of x=x that tells us something about x explicitly that just x does not.Artemis
    You don't know what redundant means.

    What are you saying when you say x? Are you just making a sound, or does the sound symbolize something that isn't you just making noises with your mouth?
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    You don't know what redundant means.Harry Hindu

    *Sigh*
    I'm just trying to phrase this in a way that will get through to you by using your own words. I.e., explaining that the very aspect you think is superfluous and repetitive is the key to understanding why it's actually saying something new.

    What are you saying when you say x? Are you just making a sound, or does the sound symbolize something that isn't you just making noises with your mouth?Harry Hindu

    And if you're still stuck on how x is a symbol for anything and/or everything in both math and logic and can't move beyond that to see how its being applied here, I'm not sure the conversation can go anywhere.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.7k
    I'm just trying to phrase this in a way that will get through to you by using your own words. I.e., explaining that the very aspect you think is superfluous and repetitive is the key to understanding why it's actually saying something new.Artemis
    Then why form your reply as an argument rather than an agreement. If what you are saying is that we are saying the same thing differently, then just say so.

    Yes, I agree that x=x is saying something new. It is saying it is redundant.

    And if you're still stuck on how x is a symbol for anything and/or everything in both math and logic and can't move beyond that to see how its being applied here, I'm not sure the conversation can go anywhere.Artemis
    I asked you a question. I'm asking what you mean by just x. From there, I might be able to understand what you mean by x=x. If we're not talking about symbols, or meaning, then we're just talking about scribbles.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    Then why form your reply as an argument rather than an agreement. If what you are saying is that we are saying the same thing differently, then just say so.

    Yes, I agree that x=x is saying something new. It is saying it is redundant.
    Harry Hindu

    Now you're just totally confused.

    I asked you a question. I'm asking what you mean by just x. From there, I might be able to understand what you mean by x=x. If we're not talking about symbols, or meaning, then we're just talking about scribbles.Harry Hindu

    Of course x is a symbol, but in this discussion it is not meant to stand for anything specific. It's a placeholder for anything and/or everything in the universe. Saying "X" (i.e., just x) is different than "x=x" (which is more than just x).

    But if it helps you, we can use a specific example, like apple. "Apple" is different than "Apple = Apple."
  • Pfhorrest
    1.2k
    Why did Einstein, of all people, feel obliged to ask that question? — Wayfarer

    Because he thought Pais was nuts.
    Andrew M

    This was the point I was trying to make before, less bluntly. Thanks.
  • Mac
    37
    You are exactly right.
  • jgill
    314
    About the moon which is not there breaking into pieces which aren't there either? :nerd:
  • jgill
    314
    x=x

    Leibniz: "It is what it is."

    Clinton: "It depends on your definition of 'is'."

    :chin:
  • Pfhorrest
    1.2k
    The difference between senses of "is" actually is a philosophical matter that Clinton was referring to. There's the present-tense "is" and the tenseless "is", and the difference between those is what the claim Clinton referred to depended upon (as the Lewinsky affair was at the time of utterance no longer presently ongoing, but there was still an affair in the tenseless sense that somewhen in time an affair had happened).
  • jgill
    314
    :cool:
  • Mac
    37
    I'm not buyin. Please do not contact me with unsolicited services.
  • jgill
    314
    ↪jgill
    I'm not buyin. Please do not contact me with unsolicited services.
    Mac

    ??? I hope this is a joke, and that you have not received a fake message from someone who has hacked my info! :gasp:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.