What metaphysical doctrine does /his/ subscribe to? Why?
>doctrines
>>>/x/ is that way, friend
Scientific realism desu.
>>1017871
This.
>there are people who seriously believe "A wizard did it" is a rational explanation for anything
Christian existentialism
Atheism of course
>>1017871
>>1017894
>>1017959
>>1017771
the Patriarchy
>>1017771
empiricists do not need fantasies, even less story-tellers who think that they are not story-tellers
>>1017771
platonism
>>1017771
>>1017871
>>1017894
>>1017959
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzMIjOyWOi4
monads
Christian existentialism
>>1017871
>>1017894
It's like you haven't even had your first experience of jhana!
Plebeanism
Solipisism
>>1017871
Well this is bait if I've ever seen it.
>>1017771
an odd mix of imagination, Stoicism, the secret and semiotics
>>1017771
Shitposting
Smartitism.
>>1017771
Rational Empirism.
Maybe there is something mystical going on, but I have never seen it, so I just don't worry about it
A nominalist changes the standard semantics instead, how truth values are assigned to predicates and quantifiers. Traditional assignment formalized by Tarski in 1936 requires a universe of objects with properties, and P(a) is evaluated true if object a has property P. But according to nominalism access to these universes is mysterious and their existence is redundant, for all that is actually involved in doing mathematics is mundane manipulation of symbols. In a way this reverses the Plato's cave metaphor. If all we ever see are shadows on the wall (symbols) there is no reason to leap to ideal forms that supposedly cast them (abstract objects and universals). Whether they exist we can never know, and the real task is to describe what we actually deal with anyway.
It seems strange at first that one can quantify without anything to quantify over, but consider an example. Suppose P is "divisible by 17". If we want to evaluate P(243) we would divide 243 by 17 and see if it is an integer, or something like that. To do the division we could use a pocket calculator, or paper and pencil algorithm, or even perhaps do it in our head. But nowhere in the process do we make contact with Number 243, the abstract object, or Divisibility by 17, the universal, only signs and symbols are involved throughout, even when simulated in our head. Once we know how to assign truth values we can quantify in a standard way: ∀xP(x) simply means that P(a) is evaluated true for all relevant symbols a. Moreover, in cases of "infinite" universes evaluation of ∀xP(x) and ∃xP(x) may not even involve specializing to any P(a), as the standard semantics would have it, but rather giving general proofs, a more complex manipulation of symbols. In particular, ∃xP(x) does not mean that there is some a with property P, but rather that some composite symbol P(a) is evaluated true, or that ∃xP(x) is proved true. In other words, despite the name the "existential" quantifier has nothing to do with existence.
>>1019464
This is called deflationary nominalism. Another popular form of nominalism is fictionalism, which evaluates P(a) in "as if" fashion of fictional narratives, similar to "Pegasus is a flying horse" being true-according-to-Greek-mythology despite the non-existence of Pegasus or flying horses.
Biblical Literalist.
It's the most logical and reasonable worldview.
Everything else has been debunked.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/false_religions.htm
Hume is agnostic about causality, only asserting that no conclusive evidence for it exists, but let's say that he would humor you and defend the negative position. First, by his analysis we do not know if observed causes are really causes, and even assuming we are right about that there is an obvious selection bias at play. Our observing evolved to aid our survival, we benefit from focus on repeatable patterns that can be relied upon. We do not focus on why the temperature is 74.53 degrees and not 74.49, or why dropped spoon landed where it did, or why somebody has a birthmark. That we could find out if we looked is merely an optimistic extrapolation. Eventually it runs into the issue of absolute precision for systems sensitive to perturbations, and there can be no precision beyond quantum limits. Motion of planets is an exception, not a rule, and in most cases we test causation in tightly controlled experiments, in very improbable environments. But even then we never observed supposed cause determine its supposed effect in every detail, not even once, sufficient cause is a pure idealization.
But even aside from that Hume could say that no explanation is owed here. You seem to be running a particular case of Putnam's no miracles argument: it would be a miracle if all this regularity occurred without the underlying causation. Well, let's assume that regularity is a very good test for causation, namely the probabilities of false negatives (observing no regularity conditioned on causation) and false positives (observing regularity conditioned on no causation) are very low. What can we say about probability of causation conditioned on observed regularity? Intuitively, it seems that it should be very high, and this intuition explains the appeal of no miracles arguments.
>>1019495
But this intuition is flawed, in fact any value, including arbitrarily small one, is consistent with the assumptions. The reason is that we do not know the "base rate", the prior probability of causation before observation, nor do we have any way of making sense of it. For that matter, we do not even have a good reason for asserting low rate of false positives, because causation is certainly not the only mechanism that produces regularity.
Since you are into Hume's reasoning and counterarguments you may find Howson's Hume's Problem an interesting read. In particular, he discusses the base rate fallacy in detail.
>>1018218
Weird choice anon tebehe
scientific teleology
Egoism
>>1017994
this desu
Transcendental Idealism
>>1019487
>Biblical Literalist
Which bible?
>>1020561
Authorized Version.
Also known as the King James Version.
The preserved Word of God.
>>1017994
i honestly can't decide whether platonism is correct, or whether its exact opposite is correct.
>>1017771
Radical materialism as opposed to eliminative materialism: mental states are the brain's interpretation of some of it's own different states, like colors are interpretations of different wavelengths of light - it's not a perfect representation of reality but it works. I think it's a productive approach which ties in with the ones below.
Representationism, pragmatism, nominalism... philosophy of mind and epistemology cannot be disjointed from questions concerning reality.
I can't disprove simulationism or solipsism, but those are dead-ends.
>>1020573
bro your stump an atheist section has a small flaw. you presume the existence of any aliens implies the existence of your alien (God). You could say the odds of god coming from one planet are small but the amount of planets make the appearance of a god a near certainty.
>>1020616
Assuming the existence of aliens is wise.
Thinking they are all the same is foolish.
stoned, orgy-lovin, blood drinkin absurdism.
why not?
>>1020573
I dunno, man. Seems like it would be better to translate from the earliest available versions with translator's notes and context.
Smarterthanyouism
solipsism
dontthinkaboutitism
>>1020706
blood for the blood god
pseudointellectualism
>>1020573
>King James literally shat on for its poor translations of old manuscripts
Yeah man it's totally the preserved word of God. Not the Hebrew texts.
>>1017894
>committing yourself to the existence of unobservables while simultaneously disregarding any ontological questions associated with said existence
It's like you don't even know what you believe, because you genuinely don't. Scientific realism is a lot spookier than something like instrumentalism
esotericism
>>1017771
Nihilism desu senpai,
Inb4 edgelord.
>>1019653
Cool - why?
Hedonism
Trial and error
>>1017771
>metaphysical doctrine
mfw
>>1019546
Underated post
>when /a/ is too dumb to understand this anime
But they Love Lain. I assume they dont actually understand it either and just like loli
>>1017771
why haven't you denounced metaphysics yet
>>1025360
get out fucking positivists
>>1025360
