This site is supported by Nobility Studios.

Inzababa

Members
  • Content count

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

2 Fair

About Inzababa

  • Rank
    New Member
  • Birthday 05/21/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://inzababa.com

Profile Information

  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Lyon, France
  • Real name: Mark
  • Interests: lots
  • About me: I am Inzababa.
    I give homage to truth, justice, and what is "good".
    I also give homage to where I come from.
    I also give homage to anyone who gives homage to what I give homage to.

    :)

Inzababa's Activity

  1. Inzababa added a post in a topic I know one thing which is absolutely true, can you think of anything else?   



    and yet again..;

    Who cares what Descartes this that or the other?

    I, Inzababa (not Descartes), asked very nicely and politely, whether anyone could come up with something which was absolutely true objectively and had reflexive properties.

    No?

    Never mind then, good bye.
    • 0
  2. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   



    What you hope is irrelevant, as long as it doesn't in my world, then there is a problem with your phrase, it's not true "absolutely", or it would be "in my world".

    And if you think that's because "my world" is not logical, then that proves that what you say is wrong, the assumption that the world is tautologically logical.

    For how could something absolutely logical (which would mean its deterministic) produce something not logical which actually is a part of that world in the first place? Even if "what is not logical" is how I perceive the world.

    Think about it.


    And as long as you reject the eventuality, the potential, the possibility, the chance that what your assumptions are are wrong, there is no way of communicating on this kind of issue.

    I'm not trying to say what I say is true, I'm trying to say that what you say "may" be wrong, and as long as you stand on that as if it were some absolute, everything else which you think and deduce may be wrong as well without you even knowing it.

    Unless you have the humility to criticise your own reasoning, you won't get any where fast.

    And the OP is talking to a brick wall.

    On that note, I'm fed up with being insulted, by the way I thought you put me on ignore?

    Thing is, I can't and won't insult you back since that will just lead me to get banned (again).

    Kids do that, fox news does that, the jerry springer show does that. Civilised people do that (check signature).

    Was hoping this wasn't the case on this forum.

    If anyone knows of a place where people actually talk and listen to each other, without flaming and insulting and resorting to character assassination and mockery whenever someone says something they don't understand or don't agree with, send me a pm thanks.
    • 0
  3. Inzababa added a post in a topic I know one thing which is absolutely true, can you think of anything else?   

    Why out of all these posts, only one post actually replies to the question?

    What happened to actually replying to the OP's question when replying on one of his threads?
    • 0
  4. Inzababa added a post in a topic I know one thing which is absolutely true, can you think of anything else?   


    then forget desire, I'm trying to be rational here sir.
    • 0
  5. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   


    is only true in "your" world. Not in mine.

    For example, in my world :

    2 men + 2 women "functioning" together = more than the function of 1 man + 1 man + 1 woman + 1 woman

    In my world, everything depends not on what things are but on what they do. And because no thing that I can observe actually does the same thing at any two points in time, nothing is ever identical, nothing is ever reflexive, and 2 + 2 as you see it, doesn't exist except when absolutely defined in the first place.




    well, where do you want to go?
    • 0
  6. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   


    That depends.

    I don't see the world as having anything that "encompasses" or "subsets".

    See? We're looking at the same thing in different ways ; hence mis communication.

    In the world as I see it, logic doesn't apply, not the one your using.

    Any description of an objective state tautologically relies first and foremost on the perspective used when "observing", which has a huge impact on things that you may not even be aware of.

    For example, can you think of anything which you can describe in such a way that has reflexive properties? (anything).

    The reason I ask is because anything that is abstract is fundamentally based on axioms which do have those properties to begin with.
    • 0
  7. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   


    ok, so for you "all of what is universally absolutely true" and exists (basically, everything that can be "absolutely")

    is part of one world or another.

    So you see "the world" as two separate worlds, with one being actual and the other being not actual, is that right?

    See, that's the "pillar" on which your perspective stands.

    I'm not disputing it, I'm trying to understand your perspective.
    • 0
  8. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   


    So for you "possible" refers to the "actual world", and here we are, is it possible to define the actual world without knowing about the actual world? Because even though we may know a lot about it, we certainly are far from knowing "most" of it aren't we?


    For example, to apply logic to this assumes that the "actual world" is logical.

    Doesn't it?

    That may seem obviously true (that the actual world is logical) however, can we prove it?

    I don't think so. So unless that point is included in the logic itself, for example :

    Ax refers to an actual world which may not be logical (because we can't prove it).



    Also, because it is an abstraction, it by definition, necessarily, tautologically, is a derivation.

    Isn't it?

    Which means that there always is something "missing" when an abstraction is used by principle, as a matter of definition. That needs to be included as well, almost as if it were self defining. (like we are).

    Unless that point is integrated within the abstraction itself, I can't see how anything that may be concluded from it will ever be "tautolically" true.
    • 0
  9. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   


    this is the main topic as stipulated by the OP :



    Quote


    Quote
    making a distinction between kinds of 'possible'



    We don't have to wait for him to come back.

    You think there are different kinds of possible?

    Why?

    or

    Why not?

    I think there are.
    • 0
  10. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   


    I did, there's a contradiction in the phrase.

    quote from earlier post :


    Rather than ask me why I thought so there was a contradiction, you "character assassinated", maybe YOU will learn something from this.


    This was the question and number one priority of the OP :


    Quote


    Quote
    making a distinction between kinds of 'possible'



    You think there are different kinds of possible or not?
    • 0
  11. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   


    no, it's not the best I can do, it seems it's the best we can do.

    I just wanted to know what your logic was based on, ie, what were the assumptions.

    This :




    says a lot also about what you think of "ME"

    if I tell you I'm not attacking "you", or anything for that matter, you wouldn't believe me would you?

    Here's a tip :




    It's just a process ok? Nothing personal.

    Not attacking YOU, not trolling YOU, not insulting YOU, simply attempting to reply to the OP's question, which was

    "different kinds of possible".

    possible means what and functions how under what assumptions?


    This :

    Is personal :

    But if "you" and "anyone else" don't want to think critically, and prefer to resort to character assassination, no problem, I'll leave you to your childish games. You might get a job on Fox News.
    • 0
  12. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   


    so someone who asks how do we know something is an idiot?

    why? how does that work?

    Oh, and you're assuming I don't know about logic, which might be a mistake.
    • 0
  13. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   


    (that's one of the basic "assumptions")

    which means what?

    A symbol which represents "all that is possible"?
    • 0
  14. Inzababa added a post in a topic Modal logic and free will. Keith, Bob, Swartz, Dave, Tim: a bunch of guys.   


    who says "it's a logical contradiction"?

    If it were, you could demonstrate it.


    thanks again for your personal advice, made a note of this and will try not to waste your time


    definition defined by who?


    I know I coined that phrase, I said so in my previous post.

    I also know and understand your position.

    I would like you to "prove" it.
    • 0
  15. Inzababa added a post in a topic I know one thing which is absolutely true, can you think of anything else?   


    ok thanks, I know that now

    (very kind and generous of you)
    • 0