@Deleted User Hempel's Dilemma

I accept a tautological definition of physical and natural

But reject dualism, because it's not parsimonious

You need not say there's some alternate substance called "the mental"

So... you just eliminate it and use that as a placeholder normatively... (because people have concepts of mental)

A la: people have mental illness (these are physical illness)

Abstracts are contingent on ... the subject or concept holder... unless you're talking about the referent of the abstracts

Impossible = still impossible in possible worlds

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44111476

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/memory-transferred-between-snails-challenging-standard-theory-of-how-the-brain-remembers/

P1. Nothing comes from nothing
P2. There is something
C. There has always been something

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

It's merely aesthetic and the baggage Inspiring Philosophy talks about

They're alternate cosmological models

A - > B -> A

Singularity - > Universe as it is today - > singularity

The evidence points to expanding universe though, that's still not a problem though

1 sec someone's talking to me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

the current evidence is the universe is still examnding, however, there are models of Crunch

There's also minor contradiction in the current model in the existence of supermassive blackholes that ought not be there

@AusFox Consensus is Big Freeze

You have a .00000000000000000000000001 / 7 bil theory

So you get your Big Dick Cosmo theory in the memes

👍

Good on you man

@Deleted User I mean... Hume's stuff "The wise man comports himself to the evidence"

But with addendum. What they attribute stuff to X with a mistaken name/label

Or the misattribute

The Liar's Paradox is fine

Destiny probably already believes this

Trivialism is true <:PEPELAUGH:643817011117424708>

@AusFox https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6714/93693da32d0b9c38aad857672021a950486a.pdf on scholastics, it's fun(ny)
And a great meme to defend since people literally want you to justify anything and everything

And then also justify why anything and everything are also false

I'm askign the big crunch justification tho not like your entire philosophical world view basis

It's pretty easy... depends on how bored you are though
T-scheme is a tautology, everything that is and exists is true
In some possible world, instead of using a T-schema (or the moniker/property of true), they use F-schema

And declare everything that is true, false.
So you merely invert T/F value

A la: Everything is false

```Chapter 2: Arguments for Trivialism 1.Introductory Comments 48 2.The Explosive Liar 49 3.The Curry Paradox 54 4.The Argument from the Characterization Principle 56 5.The Argument from Possibilism 63 6.A Cosmological Argument for a Trivial Entity 68 ``` There are the arguments

```2.The Explosive Liar Take the following argument for trivialism 73 :
(1)L is true
(2)It is not the case that L is true
(3)Therefore, trivialism is true

Here L is simply the self-referential liar sentence: ‘L is false’. Note that one could substitute for L any so called dialetheia (i.e. sentence that is both true and false). The most obvious alternative is the Russell paradox generated by the naïve conception of set (i.e. the set of all sets that fail to have self-membership). One then could have as premise (1), ‘R is a member of itself’, and for (2), ‘It is not the case that R is a member of itself’. I will not examine R as an alternative to L, as much of what I have to say about the latter applies to the former. The inference from (1) and (2) to (3) is traditionally known as ex contradictione quodlibet, and it takes the general form of p, ¬p├ q. More recently it has come to be referred to as explosion.
74 ```