If we had a theory that unified quantum field theory and general relativity, we'd say that we have a "theory of everything."

Most people would not then say that we have a theory that "completely explains all physical phenomena in the universe."

Or in other words, "theory of everything" is more a "term of art" in physics that is about a particular issue where some aspects of some of the most fundamental theories seem incompatible. The desire is to make them compatible.

No need to match because facts are always already in propositional form. — Janus

The only fact that's in a propositional form is the fact of a proposition being thought.

All other facts are not in propositional form.

Propositions are the meanings of statements.

The fact of my computer keyboard sitting on my desk is not the meaning of a statement. It's my computer keyboard sitting on a desk.

(I didn't see your post until now, by the way. I don't know if I don't receive some notifications that I have a reply, or if I just don't notice all of them sometimes.)

Logic does not operate on real-world observables. It operates on statements, which are not real-world, but language objects that live in their own abstract, Platonic world. — alcontali

That's just one view. Another view is that there is no separate "abstract, platonic world," yet we still have logic, here in the real world

And re this:

In fact, the term "Platonic" is just a figure of speech to refer to an abstraction, i.e. a mere language expression. I just use it to distinguish them from physical, real-world objects. So, a chair is a physical object, but the language expression "chair" is not. — alcontali

There is a view that the linguistic expression "chair" most certainly is physical, as is everything else. That view is called "physicalism."

Yes sorry, my original point was that infinite (unlimited ability to act) is self-contradictory in a finite universe. — Devans99

But then you're supporting that with arguments about infinity in the quantitative sense.

Contrast to actual infinity. ∞+1=∞. IE something that when you change it, it does not change. How is that logically. — Devans99

Okay, but again, Dfpolis stresses that he's not talking about finite/infinite in this (quantitative) sense, but in the sense of limited vs unlimited abilities.

At least criticize his argument from the perspective of his argument. Not from what you'd rather talk about re infinity.

So part of the background assumptions you're working with is that the physical world has different (and unknown) logic?

You'd need to support that claim.

In the thread you're linking to you're talking about finite/infinite quantitatively. Dfpolis stresses that he's not talking about finite/infinite in this sense, but in the sense of limited vs unlimited abilities.

Reality is constrained to what is logical
- Actual infinity comes with a bunch of illogical behaviours (see Hilbert's Hotel etc...) — Devans99

And if the second premise is true, how would you be arriving at the first premise?

- If we define the universe as everything then God must be within it by definition
- Everything must also be finite — Devans99

I hesitate to ask, but how are we arriving at "everything must also be finite"?

Proving a theorem amounts to demonstrating that it necessarily follows from the explicitly-stated axiomatic construction logic of the abstract, Platonic world in which it is provable. — alcontali

You don't have to buy anything a la platonism to do proofs.

God is defined as the creator of the real, physical world. — alcontali

That's not necessary in a proof. You can define something any way you like in your proof, really.

Therefore, to prove the theorem, we would need access to the axiomatic construction logic of the real, physical world, also called, the theory of everything (ToE). — alcontali

How are you arriving at that conclusion?

I can't speak for Dfpolis, but I'm guessing he might draw a distinction between actually acting, vs simply having the ability to act. So God can act as an old man in the sky, but probably just doesn't on account of the whole thing being... kinda stupid really... — Theologian

But then we need to alternatively explain the major religions, who supposedly had their god(s) speaking to them.

Or is this supposed to be a proof for a god that bears no resemblance to the god of any major religion?

There are a bunch of issues with the proof. We should tackle one at a time.

First, "not being able to do things that are logically impossible" would be a limitation. So if a god can't do things that are logically impossible, then the god isn't infinite, either.

If, instead, we say, "'infinite ability' refers to 'no limitation of ability within the scope of abilities that are possible'," then we invite discussion as to why we should consider logical-but-not-physical possibilities as within the scope of abilities that are possible, because we seem to be conflating what "ability" refers to.

Or otherwise, with a nod to the Euthyphro problem, it suggests that logic is prior to any god. That would need to be explained (how is that the case ontologically for example), and it would need to be justified why god should be given an exalted position in that case rather than logic, since god would be logic's lapdog so to speak.

Of course, the points about logic also have problems depending on one's ontology of logic. The comments about logic do not work if one isn't a platonist on logic.

Yes, I was wondering what exactly Dfpolis has in mind by the term "being." Although if God is completely unlimited in ability to act the point becomes moot, since that would include the ability to act in all the ways that one would attribute to a sentient being. — Theologian

Well, but what is acting? Are we talking about shape-shifting, or? If so, then we are talking about an old man in the sky sometimes. It would just be that we're not only talking about that.

Let’s start by clearing up some confusion. (1) While some people may think of God as an old man in the sky, that is not the notion of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, nor that addressed by Aristotle or the Buddhist Logicians. For us, God is an Infinite being. (2) “Infinite Being” does not mean, “really big and powerful being.” It means completely unlimited being. — Dfpolis

One problem with this is that all of the major religions have a god that not only has the feelings of a person--the god is pleased or displeased, it has preferred states or preferred behavior for others, and so on--but usually it even speaks so that we can quote things it said.

So what sort of thing is it supposed to be if it has those characteristics? It's natural to think of it as a person, because persons are the sorts of things that have those qualities.

What are we supposedly quoting if not a person?

if you take 100 people who have watched porn and all of them believe that having regular sex isn't as exciting as porn. The point is that porn is what caused them to believe that sex is boring. — Maureen

Not that that would actually be the result of the poll, but what would you surmise is different if it's not the quality/creativity/variety of the sex?

As I said, it's mistaken in the different person's view. If I have the same judgment as one of them, I'm not going to think they're mistaken. I'll think the other person is.

Fair enough. :up:

The parents are feeding rat poison to their children. The children are dying. The parents, however, believe it’s true the rat poison is harmless and they’re actually looking after them. According to you they’re not wrong. — AJJ

aka conflating truth with objective facts. Not the same thing.

You’re making it on the basis of whether the proposition relates properly to the state of affairs. That too is a judgement, which you’re making on the basis of what? — AJJ

The correspondence relation is a judgment made on the basis of what you have in mind with the proposition versus the facts from your perspective. The two components that you're checking against each other aren't judgments. They're rather the meaning(s) you assign and your perception (or apperception as the case might be, or even a stipulation in some cases).

Another question we could ask is "If this is the case, why are we typically having such boring sex with each other?" Maybe we should step up our game.

Yes, I misread that, because you were arguing that the relation can obtain mind-independently.

since I’ve judged the example proposition to be true also. All of that is mind-dependent judgment. — AJJ

You performed a mind-independent judgment? :brow:

Cool. I'm going to comment on whatever strikes my fancy. ;-)

I use the "abbreviation," too, but we know that "the cat is on the mat" isn't literally the proposition, right?

If an autistic person engages in a debate with an allegedly "normal" person, — Mark Dennis

Somebody's been reading thephilosophyforum.com

The cup is on the table. Someone says "the cup is on the table". Person A... — creativesoul

Sure. So why do you think I'd say they're both mistaken?

The cup is on the table. Person A judges that false. Person B judges that true. According to you, both are mistaken. — creativesoul

They're not judging anything about the cup being on the table per the conventional analytic philosophy sense of truth-value that I'm using. They'd be judging something about a proposition, which could be the proposition "The cup is on the table," and that proposition's relation to the cup being on the table.

None of you are Nike's target audience so it's really funny that you think they should give a shit what you think — Maw

Not that I'm saying I'm their target demographic--I'm older than what they're ideally shooting for, but I do buy shoes like Nike, Reebok, Addidas, etc., and I even wear them to events like basketball games. ;-)

i dismiss your opinion everytime. Not everyone else. — christian2017

At least you care enough to respond to tell me this.

Your comprehension level is near-retarded. And that's not a joke or an exaggeration or just said to be an insult. It's meant as a serious observation.

A lot of that statistic, according to what I’ve shared, is made up of gang members killing other gang members, who they “know”. This means that the statistic is for the most part not referring to regular people being killed by other regular people known to them. — AJJ

"Most people are not killed by strangers; they're killed by people they know" does not amount to anyone saying "Killed by other 'regular people.'" That's a misunderstanding of "Most people are not killed by strangers."

The reason we point out that most people are not killed by strangers is because some people have a belief that a significant percentage of murders are committed by random encounters on the street. They're not.

Most women, however, are killed by "regular people" they know. Most women are not killed by rival gang members, drug dealers, etc.

My wife is Indian (and a Hindu) and gets annoyed at all of the fuss over swastika (from all angles--that it was co-opted, that people are largely ignorant of the Hindu usage, etc.)

i disagree with that. — christian2017

Then you answer "Otherwise why bring up the notion of completely dismissing the opinions of others at all times? "

You say, ignoring what I’ve just posted. Assertions, nothing but. — AJJ

It's not ignoring what you posted. People aren't not thinking of things like rival gang members when they note that most people aren't killed by strangers.

People who are thinking that people are killed by strangers are thinking what I mentioned above. Rival gang members aren't strangers perpetrating crimes on random people.

Some people--they tend to be unusually paranoid people--have a notion that a significant percentage of murders occur as random encounters in public. They worry about strangers coming up to them and mugging them or raping them and then killing them, or they worry about "maniacs" simply attacking them for no good reason, or whatever it is that they worry about strangers doing in essentially random encounters. These are the folks who tend to believe that carrying a concealed weapon is going to help them avoid these sorts of situations.

But that's not the source of most murders. Most murders are committed by people who know each other, either because they have a growing beef with them and/or due to more immediate emotional outbursts/crimes of passion, etc.

who said that? Its not all or nothing. — christian2017

You did, by responding to a critical comment about endorsing argumentum ad populums as if it implied completely dismissing the opinions of others at all times.

Otherwise why bring up the notion of completely dismissing the opinions of others at all times?

To completely dismiss the opinions of others at all times is a sign of narcisism. We should all value atleast somebody else's opinion. — christian2017

"Either I'm going to endorse argumentum ad populums rather than consider them a fallacy, or I'm going to completely dismiss the opinions of others at all times."

Now there's a fine example of nuance.

Are we making progress?

If 3 people claim to have seen something supernatural or extra-natural (ofcourse they could be lying)
then i believe for someone to say there are no extra-natural nor supernatural occurences or god like entities, then the notion of gods or a God cannot be dismissed without evidence. — christian2017

Aside from the conflation of the supernatural and god(-like entities), that's basically an endorsement of argumentum ad populums.

"The abrupt cancellation came after Colin Kaepernick, the former National Football League quarterback and social justice activist, privately criticized the design to Nike, according to a person with knowledge of the interaction.

"Mr. Kaepernick, who signed a lucrative deal to serve as a Nike brand ambassador last year, expressed the concern to the company that the Betsy Ross flag had been co-opted by groups espousing racist ideologies, the person said."

That's from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/business/betsy-ross-shoe-kaepernick-nike.html