r

[r @analyticityy]

@KhalilAndani “Circular” is functional in the context of inferences or arguments.….interdependence relations are not inferences.….so ascribing circularity to them is categorically incorrect. 💀😭

[r @analyticityy]

@ValentinaForUSA @realDonaldTrump @SusieWiles @SecRubio 😭😭💀

[r @analyticityy]

@Hanbali2024 @KhalilAndani Not even sure what it means for an “act to be caused” when acts are the antecedents in causal affairs. Also not sure why it’s “absurd” for an act to just occur based on volitional production. Don’t see any issue for taymi’s here….

[r @analyticityy]

@worldviewmstery @ExploringReali2 Not sure what it means for “kinds to play a role” and I asked earlier for elucidation on “incomplete individuals” is that just an individual that’s being assigned to a ‘kind’? Are you just trying to say ‘kinds’ are instanced by individuals?

[r @analyticityy]

@worldviewmstery @ExploringReali2 Not sure what ‘kind’ adds here to help you but by ‘kind’ if you mean things that share qualities or qualities true of a group, then sure I guess.

[r @analyticityy]

@worldviewmstery @ExploringReali2 It’s predicating the property ‘human’, it’s not that complicated…the property P will have a standard of qualification that needs to be met by some individual x which that you can say P(x). Are you asking what is the qualitative account of ‘human’? I think that’s common knowledge

[r @analyticityy]

@worldviewmstery @ExploringReali2 Universal metaphysics don’t need to be invoked here, it can be as simple as ‘human’ being property and ‘is human’ being a predicate applied to some individual that has all necessary/sufficient qualities of the property.

[r @analyticityy]

@Kaporaaa @ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 Ur a parrot, ur not worth my time. Larps like you hear some model theory and RI—regurgitate it and think u look cool.

[r @analyticityy]

@Kaporaaa @ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 Not sure why I’m being roped into this.

[r @analyticityy]

@ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 And also if we are assuming AI all of the metaphysical layering is unnecessary because we can stick to the formal language and we can either get 1 G or 3 Gs, Sijuwade’s appeal doesn’t do anything but just add more intension but in extension the issue is very apparent.

[r @analyticityy]

@ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 Seems like we’re just adding more metaphysical and semantic layering (“module trope”, “relational aspects”) unless these are just substitutionary terms for the assumed ones. What do these new terms add to the picture that resolves the objections brought up?

[r @analyticityy]

@Kaporaaa @q55458 @ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 U must be a juju parrot 😭, thought we left you losers in 25’.

[r @analyticityy]

@Kaporaaa @ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 “Thought well formed formulas axiom schemas”…. Maybe try writing coherently first buddy.

[r @analyticityy]

@ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 From what I’ve heard his view is just equivocating on “is God” and “1 God”, but from my engagements with it if you unfold the equivocations it leads to 3 Gs, a non trinitarian has no motivation to equivocate so the logical problem is still there imo.

[r @analyticityy]

@ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 No worries, and you can dm me the formulation if you would like or just reply on here with it. But if I’m not mistaken you are saying the trinity as it’s understood in orthodoxy (non heretical) can be formulated with absolute identity without leading to 3 Gs, 1 G/1 P or a P,-P?

[r @analyticityy]

@AngelloGua65392 @ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 You can say under absolute identity that j and f are not the same G, sure no issue with that simpliciter—but your background commitment is that there is one G (presumably), but that formulation leads to at least 2 Gs.

[r @analyticityy]

@ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 What’s the third option if not qualitative predication or prediction by identity (absolute)? You can list the third option if you’d like, I can only think of maybe an alternative identity operation rather than absolute but not sure if that’s what you would invoke.

[r @analyticityy]

@ExploringReali2 @Hanbali2024 “Universals” are not relevant here, he never invoked them because predication (formal, linguistic) and grounding commonalities in metaphysics are distinguished topics. Not sure why you inserted those metaphysics into the dichotomy provided….