Stack Exchange
log in

Hudjefa

 Discussion on question by Speakpigeon…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Sun 17:24
"Philosophers debate whether this truth reflects a Platonic reality or is merely a syntactic game of symbols, but working mathematicians rarely engage this question day-to-day." AI generated answer
Hudjefa
Sun 17:24
@Speakpigeon, what do you mean by "really true" then? Is it possible that 1 > 2 which would then prompt your question if I said 2 > 1. Maybe I hold the wrong end of the stick
Hudjefa
Sun 17:24
@Speakpigeon, to answer your question on "really true", math is very precise in its definitions and procedures (rigorous logic), leaving no room for the question, "is it really true/whatever?" If the definition is fulfilled by a number then that's it, the number is something that the definition says it is (e.g. sqrt(2) is irrational). If the "really true" idea is applicable to this simple fact then it should be possible that sqrt(2) is not irrational, which it is not.
Hudjefa
Sun 17:24
@Speakpigeon, is there a relevant difference between axioms and theorems. Both are propositions.
Hudjefa
Sun 17:24
I thought mathematics was an axiomatic system. So to split hairs, truth is assumed and so mathematics turns out to be a hypothetical system (fictionalism?)
 

 Discussion on question by Kai Le: Rat…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Sat 12:01
@keshlam, philosophy suffers from a demarcation problem. To me the question is philosophical, at least the very practical aspects of philosophy. The good life, does it not involve how we must deal with risk?
Hudjefa
Sat 12:01
@JoWehler, Buddha is smiling (anicca)??
Hudjefa
Sat 12:01
Buddha is smiling (anicca).
 

 Discussion on question by Kai Le: Can…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Sat 12:01
You may have engaged both without realizing they were connected. Are they?
 

 Discussion between Ashish Shukla and …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Sat 05:08
@AshishShukla "Got carried away" was meant for me, not you. The way you approached the problem reminded me of a gam.e
Hudjefa
Sat 04:34
@AshishShukla, either I didn't notice or this is a first time, seeing pair-matching (like to like).
Hudjefa
Sat 04:34
@AshishShukla, I know this person who plays this pair-matching game. Got carried away.
Hudjefa
Sat 04:34
@Ted Wrigley. I suppose question authors should do their homework - Google/SE/SEP/IEP are good resources to check if earlier work had been done on the topic. Including these in a question would then statisfy Philosophy SE criteria
Hudjefa
Sat 04:34
It's a novel outlook, but I'm not all that well-read in the area. Looks like you're pair-matching and +1 for the ludological interpretation, accidental/deliberate.
 

 Discussion on question by JorensM: Co…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Fri 16:32
It seems you're om the right track. That's what counts
Hudjefa
Fri 15:22
@JorensM That's unfortunate (if you have actually gone). I sympathize with you and your experience is quite rare. I hope you can make something out of it. As they say truth is stranger than fiction!
Hudjefa
Fri 11:16
@JorensM I was supposed to have done the clarification for you. I thought you wouldn't mind as your question was already past me doing anything bad to it. I can sense where you're coming from on the matter from the comment section of your query. I thought I could edit the question as best as I could and vote to reopen it.
Hudjefa
Fri 08:44
@JorensM, I haven't come across any literature or studies on this state you're describing. It seems plausible, but you're missing clarity in your description.
Hudjefa
Fri 08:44
There might be an ambiguous state between (true) life and (true) death. That could be what you're looking for.
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: Have …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Thu 15:47
Hangman's paradox? Gettier problem? Hume on miracles?
 

 Discussion on question by Blue: Does …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Jul 22 08:54
Time is the 4th dimension, along with the 3 physical dimensions, it provides a framework for science, history, you name it.
 

 Discussion on question by Speakpigeon…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
May 22 09:25
Perhaps you should compare a horse to a unicorn.
 

 Discussion on question by nyxveil: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
May 10 15:52
My reading of Dennett is that consciousness is an illusion to the degree that one thinks it demands a nonphysical explanation. So I guess those who said Dennett's book Consciousness Explained merely explained away consciousness were right.
 

 Discussion on question by Hudjefa: A …

Imported from a comment discussion on math.stackexchange.com/q...
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@lulu, ok. I find it odd that the question can't be answered. Signing off now. Too many comments.
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@BrianTung, I've forgotten. It's basic probability, so definitely not in college/university.
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@lulu, it's not clear if the analogy is useful, but the numbers seem to match. What particulars would you like me to provide to answer this question?
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
I have to be somewhere. Later.
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@BrianTung, I've edited my question as advised.
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@lulu, we can see that Adam catching Tom means Adam catches a thief AND that thief is Tom. My "answer" is based on what I consider to be this compound event.
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@BrianTung, gracias, that is correct. I did comment on that. The 2 events (Adam catching a thief and the thief being Tom) are independent.
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@BrianTung, give me a moment to edit my question
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@BrianTung, I don't know how to answer this question, but I'd stick my neck out to say that thief Tim isn't "keeping track of Adam's movements" and neither is Adam doing the same to Tim.
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@RobertIsrael, I want to know how probable is the event Inspector Adam catches thief Tom, given the info in the OP?
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@MartinBrandenburg, apologies, I'm quite clumsy with mathematics. There's no real mathematical idea that I'm trying to unravel here. It's just a simple question to which I've got different answers on different websites. I'm confused. I can't state the problem mathematically, like $a + b < c$ or something.
Hudjefa
Jan 20 10:26
@lulu, isn't the probability of Adam catching Tom the probability that Adam catches a thief and that thief is Tom?
 

 Discussion on question by pie: Is phi…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Oct 6, 2024 09:24
Cogito I heard someone say that "ominously", funding for philosophy has declined over the years and some universities are even closing down their philosophy departments, downscaling them if not. There is also no Nobel for philosophy. However, one branch of philosophy, once called natural philosophy, now known as science, is flourishing
 

 Discussion on answer by Speakpigeon: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Aug 20, 2024 10:22
@PW_246, I'll have a go at that article. Thanks for reminding me.
Hudjefa
Aug 20, 2024 10:22
Good post. If you wish to elaborate/expand, please do. I like your answer.
 

 Discussion between Hudjefa and Conifold

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:18
accepting your model reality theory.
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:17
Aren't we talking about propositions ... being true/false/both/neither? In me humble opinion, the description (of reality) should correspond to reality. Note that I'm
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:13
@Conifold, please write an answer.
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:13
@Conifold but models must reflect reality and if reality is such that everything is true ...
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:13
@Conifold that's the circularity I was referring to: a contradiction is unacceptable because it leads to contradictions. How is that a good justification? Please write an answer, if that's not too much trouble.
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:13
@Conifold, ok but how exactly does a contradiction trivialize truth? I know the justification for why contradictions are unacceptable, viz. the principle of explosion, which is that everything becomes true. What if everything is true? Non liquet,
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:13
@Conifold, suppose there are 2 propositions p and q. A truth table will demonstrate that p is true in at least one world and q is true in at least one world. The union of these 2 worlds would have both p and q being true, albeit in different worlds, right? Non liquet
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:13
@NaïmFavier, is everything is true really not interesting? Perhaps the issue is an idiosyncratic one (pertaining to me alone). Thank you for the math example, I kinda sorta get how trivial it is to say that a^n + b^n = c^n is true for n = 0.
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:13
@Conifold, I tried that and though it doesn't answer my question, cogito it's circular: contradictions are no good because contradictions are no good.
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:13
@MauroALLEGRANZA read my answer to Conifold
Hudjefa
Aug 13, 2024 05:13
@NaïmFavier can replace the word "trivial" with a phrase in your answer? I can imagine a world where everything is true (mayhaps the union of all possible worlds). That isn't trivial, right?
 

 Discussion on answer by Miss_Understa…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Hudjefa
Aug 8, 2024 09:24
At the "end" of this supertask if the lamp is on then infinity is odd and if it's off, infinity is even. Does infinity leave a remainder when divided by 2?