Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange

New answers tagged

1

I think the problem arises from the assumptions inherent in the philosophical subject-predicate form. The underlying principle seems to be that the predicate should qualify the subject in the sense that it becomes more specific; it should refine it. So "A ball is in my garden" is refined by "The ball in my garden is blue". The problem with existence as ...


3

Nice question. Your textbox opens with what was going to be the first line of my answer! Take Russell's barber paradox about the town in which the barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself? Plainly this is a proposition followed by an interrogative. It is not a ...


0

How about metaproof? I did a web search for the term, and found the following excerpt in a paper entitled, "'Metaproofs' (and their Cryptographic Applications)"1: We develop a non-interactive proof-system which we call “Metaproof” (µ-NIZK proof system); it provides a proof of “the existence of a proof to a statement”. This metamathematical notion ...


0

Two descriptors that may fit the requirement are non-constructive proof and pure existence proof. From wikipedia: In mathematics, a constructive proof is a method of proof that demonstrates the existence of a mathematical object by creating or providing a method for creating the object. This is in contrast to a non-constructive proof (also known as an ...


1

"The physical is simply the verifiable contents of perception, a particular category of experience. As such, what we call ‘physical interference with the brain’ is simply the extrinsic appearance of experiential activity external to an alter that, in turn, disrupts the inner experiences of the alter from across its dissociative boundary." Bernardo Kastrup, ...


0

1) The burden of proof is borne by whoever makes the claim that is easiest to prove. Absolute non existence of something is impossible to prove, but please notice how your rephrasing into : "There exists at least one universe in which Object A does not exist." also narrowed the conditions. If you were to narrow it further into: "A glass of water does not ...


1

This is a very old and influential concept in the world of philosophy. In the west, Plato conceived of ultimate Reality as something that our ordinary reality only imitated imperfectly. In the east, Lao Tzu said the Dao that could be understood was not the true Dao. Ecclesiastes, in the Bible, describes the fullest capacity of human wisdom as "worthless ...


1

You would have to know what Reality is, independently of our historical concepts of it, to know whether those concepts acquaint us in any way with its nature. But we only have the concepts, verifying which against Reality appears impossible : it would need access to an unconceptualised Reality to ascertain any difference or agreement between our concepts and ...


0

A burden of proof falls under the auspices of speech acts. Anyone disrupting a conversation by bringing disagreement to it has an obligation to make things right, as it were, and explain one's self. It is completely a social construct. This is the principle of "onus probandi", be the application in general conversation or in a legal setting. A burden of ...


0

One might disagree with the interpretation of ousia as substance and claim that its meaning is better grasped as essence. Adopting the latin essence one might claim further that essence is over and beyond being. Anyway understanding proceeds through binary distinctions: essence vs substance or form vs substance and dualistic thinking acknowledges this logic ...


Top 50 recent answers are included