Jump to content

Schwarzwald

Members
  • Posts

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Schwarzwald

  1. On second thought, Mares seems to be stating that this model is a classical variant and that the problems of triviality can only be fully resolved in a relevant model that he'll propose at a later paper. In the above paper, classical logic's triviality is somewhat combated through the $ function, Humean supervenience, Lewis' delineation between ersatz and possible worlds, and Mares' well-formed formulae rule for validity. So with that stated, unless I'm missing something, thanks Chryssipus, you really set me straight, I was starting down a wrong route misinterpretating S that would've had me confused for days. You're a life saver.
  2. Thanks for your response! I agree with your interpretation over mine, I'd initially thought as much, but then I was thrown off by reading one of Lewis' papers on the function/relation S. So, what Mares' is saying is that... a counterfactual implication is true at an index if and only if there exists some sphere of indices, part of the set of spheres of that index, and there exists some index j, part of set of spheres, S, such that the antecedent A is true at j, and for all indices, k, part of the set of spheres, S, the antecedent A is false at k, or, the consequent, B, is true at k, OR...there is not some sphere of worlds, S, where there exists some index, j, inwhich S is part of the set of spheres of the relevant index and there exists some index part of set of spheres, S, where the antecedent, A, is true at j Is this correct? My problem is trying to wrap my head around the intuition of this truth condition. We're trying to alleviate counterfactual implication of a sort of mathematical triviality, right? We want the truth values of counterfactuals to not be in any sense vacuous. So, we treat ersatz or possible indices/worlds with as much reality as we can. However... Mares' is saying that a counterfactual conditional can be true when just the antecedent is true in some index, and false in all other indices within the sphere, or, the consequent is true in all other indices within that sphere, OR, when there is no sphere with an index that supports A to begin with. How does this solve the problem of triviality? One of the purposes of relevant logics is to do away with assigning the value of true to conditionals with false antecedents automatically? However, Mares' rule states 1.) that the antecedent can be true at j and false at k and still be considered true, or, the antecedent can be entirely vacuous (as in the last line of the truth condition) due to no spheres related to i supporting it. This seems pretty trivial? So I assume I'm misunderstanding Mares and Lewis. This is why I need a bit more information on the relation of j to k. Simplistically speaking, Lewis (with the limit assumption in mind) wanted counterfactuals to be assigned values based on the facts of the worlds they took place in. As such, a counterfactual condition would be true just in case the consequent was true for every world that departed the least from our world to make the antecedent true. So with Mares' tools, we set up these relational constructs of states of affairs trying to make the antecedent true, (I assume we have to make all of them for this to work?) and then we rate them on their similarity to create the set of spheres, $(i), and only if the consequent holds across the sphere most similar to i, S, do we state the counterfactual implication is true. This would seem in line with Lewis (which is who Mares states he gets the condition from), but ironically, this is counterfactual to what I've written above about Mares' truth condition. Soooo...I'm lost?
  3. Hey all, I'm looking for someone familiar with Mares' "impossible world" constructs, specifically from the 1997 paper, "Who's afraid of impossible worlds?" which can be found here:https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1039540767However, an unfamiliarity with Mares' work is not necessary if one has sufficient knowledge of David Lewis' work in Counterfactuals and S.My question regards Mares' outlining of the truth condition for propositions in impossible worlds:i ╞ A □→ B ≡ƎS (S ∈ $(i) & Ǝj ∈ S(j ╞ A) & ∀k ∈ S(k ╡ A ∨ k ╞ B))∨ ¬ƎSƎj(S ∈ $(i) & Ǝj ∈ S & j ╞ A)My first question is, is S being used here as a generic formulae, or as the function where S is a ternary relation regarding some selection frame K, or SaXb ≡ b ∈ f(a, X)?My second question is, in this impossible world talk, what is the relationship of formulae: A, B, to variables: j, k, and what do they refer to, that is, what order are we in? When I state j holds at A, am I stating that some fact substantiates the truth value of some proposition in some world, or some proposition substantiates some formula described by some index <R, a-1...a-n, π>?My third question is, why must k fail to hold at A in order for A □→ B?I'll take any help you all have to offer. General explanations of Mares' project are welcome too, :]
  4. When folks say they found out their result on the "website," do they mean the application portal or...?
  5. The Meno's slave experiment only shows that the slave has the ability to infer patterns given elementary rules. If I tell you there is a logical system with 2 elements: a, b and 1 operator, =, that denotes identicality, assuming you already know what identicality is, and I say a = b, and you infer that b = a, you've not immediately proven an innate knowledge of the system, but instead an ability to infer a pattern given basic rules. That ability is not necessarily innate though.
  6. So on the topic of questions, what is "is"?
  7. Lol, leave it to the philosophy forum to argue about the meaning of 'or.' How about you guys put some of this energy into helping me write my writing sample for next year?
  8. Shots fired, time to sit back and watch where this goes.
  9. I applied to FSU's Masters, anyone got news on that situation?
  10. Presuming rejection from FSU. Feels good to finally have a legitimate reason to be lurking in this thread everyday.
  11. Alien: Ressurection
  12. Schwarzwald

    Doing it

    I was told that "metaphysics," mistakenly taken to mean above, beyond, or pre physical, is actually a librarians creation. In cataloging Aristotle's physics, there were a group of works that were not specifically a part of some preconfigured set, these were labeled as the metaphysics. A distinction that needs to be drawn is the difference in meaning between metaphysicist and metaphysician. In brute senses, one is concerned with physics and the other physiology. I always think of the difference between Descartes' and Spinoza's projects when I think of the two terms. Descartes, a metaphysicist, was concerned with the mechanisms of the world, he did speculative physics. Spinoza was concerned with therapy, and how a mechanistic conception of the world could ease the psychological harm done by teleology. This is simplistic, but I believe important. In general, I believe metaphysics is a class term, an amalgamation of different fields: ontology, epistemology, physics, ethics, phenomenology, etc. However, even this is too specific. Metaphysics is an approach to solving problems. That approach is generally based on analyzing phenomena and their relations in a certain linguistic tradition typified by people historically deemed "metaphysicists" or "metaphysicians." Somewhat circular, this is the only definition I think appropriate. If you try to say metaphysical projects seek to aim at some general view of relations, I believe that betrays the particularity of the projects at hand. If "general" is to be taken to mean simplistic, or most basic, it becomes more problematic. Russell's delineation of infinity in two categories is fairly precise, and not to be taken as the beginning or outline of some analysis of some phenomenon. When Marx states that political emancipation is not true emancipation because one's political existence is a separate ideology serving apparatus, he doesn't mean that in general, he means it in particular. Metaphysics also cannot be considered the seeking of "foundations," as then people like Sartre couldn't be doing the metaphysics of simple objects like cups and tables. (Although, I guess its a bold metaphysical claim to say that cups and tables aren't foundational, lol.) You might want to say that while the cups and the tables may not be foundational objects for the existence of all things, the metaphysics of cups and tables seeks a foundational or holistic account of the phenomena in question, so, metaphysics must be about holistic accounts of phenomena. However, then you exclude people who only offer partial accounts of phenomena. For instance, Spinoza states there are infinite attributes, but only names two, so there's nothing holistic about his account. Of course, he's still historically considered to be doing metaphysics.(Although there are arguments for why this must epistemically be the case, as well as why two may equal an infinity or be infinite in themselves.) At any rate, I believe we shouldn't think of metaphysics too rigidly, as rigid definitions seem inappropriate for the scope of the field. TL;DR Metaphysics isn't a field, it is the class of all fields approached through a method necessitated by a certain vocabulary and linguistic tradition.
  13. Bus stop
  14. I figure it means like, atleast you're not in that auto-reject pile, which means you atleast are on the waitlist for the waitlist. Now, to kill your competition.
  15. haha, yeah. I started to realize in my head that UCLA definitely has claim to the simple "LA" tag over LMU to most people. G'luck with UCLA!
  16. They require official transcripts, just not completed undergraduate transcripts. For the record, this is for LMU not UCLA.
  17. Posh Spice
  18. It was a def "as of now" situation, my post was cheeky. I had to share, mostly because when I read the first line I had a mini panic attack, but the rest of the email clarified.
  19. Just bought a tablet and a bunch of books. It's a disease.
  20. Got an email today from LA that was like "We don't have your transcripts, but honestly, we probably don't need them."
  21. There is hope! Assuming you've used up all the hope now, are you willing to set some money aside from your TAships to fund a Hostel for rejected applicants?
  22. Hey all, I'm looking for some information on Kent State University and the University of Toledo's application process. Kent State University 1.) On the Kent State Application portal, when you are reviewing your app, it has a space for "status" and "received." I assume "Received" describes when the materials were received by the graduate office, what is "status?" 2.) I was told that I could email my letters of recommendation. My recommenders have receipts for their submission; however, my application doesn't show a reception of any of my letters. Is this normal? Does the system simply not regularly update? 3.) What's the standard protocol for getting the department to look at an incomplete application after the deadline? Will an email to the department suffice? Should I contact the grad office? Should I attempt to reach out to a professor? What's the deal? The information they need is readily available in their system's email box, but who knows what it'd take to access it if it's an automated system. University of Toledo: 1.) Does Toledo's program require letters of recommendation? I can only find a page that states for assistantships, GRE Scores and a Writing Sample are required. 2.) How does one confirm the reception of application materials for University of Toledo? When I review my application on their portal, I get a very basic description of my application, with no information on the confirmation of my departmental materials.
  23. Great news, I just got accepted into vast swathes of anxiety and self doubt. Technically, that's 1 acceptance, no rejections, so we're off to a good start.
  24. I've had my girlfriend (bless her soul) making routine trips to McDonalds and Taco Bell for McDoubles and Mini Quesadillas. At this point, I'm hoping I explode before the rejections get to me.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use