@ouroborossun@TOEwithCurt It's not an epistemological issue, it's a linguistic one. We're not wondering whether Batmsn exists, we're wondering how to express his non-existence. What you're talking about is Frege's sense vs. reference distinction.
@ouroborossun@TOEwithCurt Not about improbability. If saying 'X doesn't exist' is true, it should be about X, but it can't be because X doesn't exist. So Russell reformulated it to read 'It's not true that X exists', while Meinong believed non-existent beings subsist so we can refer to them, etc.
@brianclegg Did I imply anywhere that assumptions are the same as truth? And you obviously think truth is identical to facts, which is not all that uncontroversial.
@brianclegg Everything we know about the Universe indeed is (educated) guesswork. We can also call it truth (and I believe we should). There's no point in reserving 'truth' for that we'll never reach.
@MishaRogov@IAI_TV I think there's a bottom-up way to the transcendental, not neccesarily a top-down way. The top-down approach (especially in Jaspers) asks of us to accept the existence of the transcendent as an article of faith and this is supposed to the the ultimate grounds to everything else.
@PotentialHuman2@skdh Absolutely so. But also note, decision is just an overide mechanism, diverting the natural cause of events. Because, if everything is a decision, nothing is (or at least the same kind of decision). No wise-sounding attempt detected π
@PotentialHuman2@skdh So more empirically grounded mathematician philosophers would be the goodest?
Never spoil a meta with a completely reasonable explanation, the first rule of Meta-Club!
It's like what the electron always says: I'm not indeterminate, you just don't know how to measureπ€·