Indeductive- merely a player in language games

4.8K posts

Indeductive- merely a player in language games banner
Indeductive- merely a player in language games

Indeductive- merely a player in language games

@Indeductive

Arguing is the Olympics of talking - Stewart Stafford Come, let us reason together. Test all things, hold fast to what is good. - The Principles Of Science

Landscape of conceivability Inscrit le Mayıs 2023
135 Abonnements45 Abonnés
Tweet épinglé
Indeductive- merely a player in language games
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive·
Who created God? It's an interesting Scientific question. What sort of World's could we be living in if there was an immaterial mind that created all things apart from itself? Could we be living in a World where our local Space/Time geometry was created by a created being that some call God? Creation Scientists don't seem to have any good arguments to defeat such a hypothesis which leaves us with arguments like Philosopher Nick Bostrom's Simulation Hypothesis in the category of Best Explanation for the world we find ourselves in. simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
Indeductive- merely a player in language games tweet media
English
0
0
0
24
Indeductive- merely a player in language games
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive·
@_MrsPeanut_ @DrienaSixto Let me guess, you started reading how misinformed and ignorant one of the Crucible crew 'Logic Instructors' is and you couldn't bear to read anymore because you actually bought their 'Logic Courses' thinking they're really knowledgable in Philosophy and are learning they're not.
Indeductive- merely a player in language games tweet media
English
1
0
1
28
Driena Sixto
Driena Sixto@DrienaSixto·
Inherent “rights” don’t come from majority rule, nor from physical strength… Can’t believe I even had to explain that to Repeal the 19th Rachel over here 😂
English
30
0
9
829
Indeductive- merely a player in language games retweeté
Women Being Awful
Women Being Awful@WomenBeingAwful·
Watch out lady, dang...
English
32
13
210
11K
Indeductive- merely a player in language games
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive·
Einsteinian Classical Mechanics describes the Universe (our local World) as a physical entity whereby Time is a physical entity/dimension (Space/Time Fabric) and time is contiguous. Events are 'located' in this 4 dimensional 'fabric'. They're all in the fabric. It's very counterintuitive. Every past, present, future event exist. They're 'Co Equally Real' (BTheory of Time). What we describe as 'Reality' is Mind Dependent based on what we see with our naked eye and sense intuitively is Subjective Experience. The equations that more accurately explain and reliably predict novel findings don't care about our intuitions. Physicists learn quickly to not rely on them. The math speaks for itself and is prophetic. The Space/Time Fabric has a curvature which means the physical Time dimension bends due to mass. Light paths bend even though photons have no rest mass. Instead of a Newtonian interpretation whereby Time is 'absolute' and 'invariant' and ethereal. Einstein's picture is incompatible with that interpretation. Time is 'Material'. Our local geometry is taken to be Causally Closed, however there's Theoretical Physics which suggests there could be some sort of physics outside of our manifold geometry which acts(physically) on Gravity and keeps it weaker than the weak nuclear force by orders of magnitude. Counterintuitively, postulating a single universe is an additional hypothesis in Classical Mechanics, as Atomic and Sub Atomic (Quantum Mechanical) interpretations multiplies physical objects with Wave Functions and implies the Universe itself is one of many such entities. They're there in the Field Equations. It's explanatorily simpler and more powerful in scope, depth and accuracy.
English
0
0
0
14
Safecracker
Safecracker@davemcomie·
I'll ask the obvious Q: if the number of universes is infinite (or nearly infinite) wouldn't we expect some of them to be (accidentally) fine-tuned for life as we know it? Follow-up Q: if the universe is defined as the totality of all space, time, matter, and energy that exists, how can there be more than one?
English
1
0
1
25
Rachel Wilson
Rachel Wilson@Rach4Patriarchy·
Most people don’t really know how to read a study and interpret data, and some people literally just lie about what their source material says, thinking you won’t check it. Always check.
English
111
207
2.6K
60.2K
Indeductive- merely a player in language games
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive·
@DrienaSixto Rachel and Andrew aren't the Logic Ninjas they wish were and want everyone to believe they are. She even calls Andrew a 'Logician'. I don't think he's even got a high school diploma. You did fine. I don't even know what the point of the debate was about. x.com/Indeductive/st…
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive

@Rach4Patriarchy Rachel tried to score 2 major points against Driena and failed badly. We've all been there and lost debates we were VERY confident we won but were deceived due to ignorance. It's not from a lack of intelligence. It's from a lack of knowledge. x.com/Indeductive/st…

English
1
0
1
57
Driena Sixto
Driena Sixto@DrienaSixto·
Repeal the 19th Rachel sells courses on how to debate but argues people she doesn’t agree with shouldn’t be able to vote, rather than trying to convince people her ideas are better 🤣😂🤣 #whatever
English
37
0
11
1.3K
Indeductive- merely a player in language games
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive·
@Rach4Patriarchy Rachel tried to score 2 major points against Driena and failed badly. We've all been there and lost debates we were VERY confident we won but were deceived due to ignorance. It's not from a lack of intelligence. It's from a lack of knowledge. x.com/Indeductive/st…
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive

Rachel Wilson lost this point as well. Driena asked Rachel "There's a single definition of the law of logic, is that what you're arguing?" The fact is, that what Rachel refers to as 'Laws Of Logic' have been traditionally known as 'Laws Of Thought', because they're *principles* by which we reason coherently using predications/propositions. If Rachel knew, and was honest and arguing in 'Good Faith' she would have informed Driena that what she referred to as Laws Of Logic are also called Laws Of Thought, Principles of Reasoning and a few other things. They're principles, because they're asserted (predications about predications) without *proof*. Some people take them as Incorrigible (Brute Facts/Necessarily True/Self Evidence/Self Authenticating) and fundamental to 'Knowledge' and 'Meaning'. The 2nd principle of thought, the 'Law Of Non Contradiction' is quite contentious in Analytic Philosophy but Creation Scientists who use the phrase 'Laws Of Logic' (for theological reasons in their apologetics by which they try and make them Concrete Objects rather than Abstracta) aren't very well read on 'Logic' in the Analytic Tradition. Concrete Objects are tangible and exist in the physica world. Trinitarian Creation Scientists need this in order to have a coherent God Hypothesis. God is defined as Logos and Jesus is defined as fully God(p) and is fully 'man'(~p). p and ~p co exist and are co-equal Physicists don't believe the Law Of Non Contradiction is Incorrigible. They don't presuppose the Principle Of Sufficient Reason (like Creation Scientists) and don't presuppose that every event is 'Caused'. 'Random' means Uncaused (No Deeper, more fundamental description/explanation possible for an entity or event) They can conceive of p and ~p co existing and being co equal Concrete Objects (Physically Measurable) in their equations in Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Superposition/Bi Location). Driena = 2 Rachel = 0

English
0
0
0
190
Indeductive- merely a player in language games
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive·
People like you who claim to have won the argument didn't know the definition of the term and failed to score the point they thought they did *Lack of commitment* IS Infidelity She was right. You're wrong. Driena Sixto = 1 Rachel Wilson = 0
Indeductive- merely a player in language games tweet media
English
6
0
0
635
Indeductive- merely a player in language games
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive·
Rachel Wilson lost this point as well. Driena asked Rachel "There's a single definition of the law of logic, is that what you're arguing?" The fact is, that what Rachel refers to as 'Laws Of Logic' have been traditionally known as 'Laws Of Thought', because they're *principles* by which we reason coherently using predications/propositions. If Rachel knew, and was honest and arguing in 'Good Faith' she would have informed Driena that what she referred to as Laws Of Logic are also called Laws Of Thought, Principles of Reasoning and a few other things. They're principles, because they're asserted (predications about predications) without *proof*. Some people take them as Incorrigible (Brute Facts/Necessarily True/Self Evidence/Self Authenticating) and fundamental to 'Knowledge' and 'Meaning'. The 2nd principle of thought, the 'Law Of Non Contradiction' is quite contentious in Analytic Philosophy but Creation Scientists who use the phrase 'Laws Of Logic' (for theological reasons in their apologetics by which they try and make them Concrete Objects rather than Abstracta) aren't very well read on 'Logic' in the Analytic Tradition. Concrete Objects are tangible and exist in the physica world. Trinitarian Creation Scientists need this in order to have a coherent God Hypothesis. God is defined as Logos and Jesus is defined as fully God(p) and is fully 'man'(~p). p and ~p co exist and are co-equal Physicists don't believe the Law Of Non Contradiction is Incorrigible. They don't presuppose the Principle Of Sufficient Reason (like Creation Scientists) and don't presuppose that every event is 'Caused'. 'Random' means Uncaused (No Deeper, more fundamental description/explanation possible for an entity or event) They can conceive of p and ~p co existing and being co equal Concrete Objects (Physically Measurable) in their equations in Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Superposition/Bi Location). Driena = 2 Rachel = 0
English
3
0
0
176
Indeductive- merely a player in language games
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive·
That's just due to how lay people MOSTLY tend to use the term Infidelity, colloquially, so the writers of the study used that term as shorthand. The term has a heavy connotation colloquially to be constitutive of sexual Infidelity in a committed sexual relationship, but those aren't the only things the term can refer (point) to. The term Infidelity isn't a Semantic Primitive. Like how 'Hate' in the Bible can mean 'Not Glorifying God'. Hate isn't a Semantic Primitive. Hence why militant Christians will say 'You hate God' to an atheist. They mean 'You love Satan' or 'You're not glorifying God who is worthy of glorifcation). It makes no sense to the Atheist since they don't believe such a thing exists. To the atheist it's like being told 'You hate leprechauns' by someone. It makes them sound nuts to the 'non believer' in those things. So it's incoherent semantically to say those things, even though it's grammatically acceptable in formulation.
English
1
0
0
90
The Black Line Brief
The Black Line Brief@BlackLineBrief·
@paleochristcon Andrew, I’ve reviewed your recent debate with Zach Costello and I think there’s real value in continuing that discussion in a more rigorous format. I host a long-form program called The Black Line Brief, and I’d like to invite you on for a structured debate where we can methodically examine the core claims, evidentiary standards, and logical assumptions underlying the position you’re defending. There are several areas that deserve deeper scrutiny — identification certainty, evidentiary handling and interpretation, forensic conclusions, and internal consistency within the official timeline. In my view, these issues raise serious analytical questions that weren’t fully resolved in the format you were previously in. My goal wouldn’t be theatrics or point-scoring. It would be to stress-test both arguments in a transparent setting where each of us has the time to build and defend a coherent case. If you’re confident your position holds up under sustained examination, this is a strong opportunity to demonstrate that. If you’re open to it, I’d be glad to coordinate timing and format. — Matthew McKim Host, The Black Line Brief
English
6
2
7
771
Andrew Wilson
Andrew Wilson@paleochristcon·
Simple. My debate position will be the state has provided the most rational explanation and given the best evidence to date on what happened to Charlie kirk. Vs the position You have alternatives to the states evidence which is more viable or gives a better explanation of events.
Bronson@rageBronsonYT

@baroncoleman says he is willing to debate @paleochristcon with some stipulations. Your move Andrew Wilson. Share this so Andrew sees it and lets get this thing done!!!!!

English
38
26
221
11.9K
Indeductive- merely a player in language games
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive·
Dude, you're the one who needs to catch tf up already. Of course you're not debating me. You'd need something other than the declarations and opinions in your initial response to me. If you actually had actually offered up arguments, then I'd have a debate with you. My response to your silly GIF was explaining 'why I'm the way I am' when I said you didn't have an argument.
English
1
0
0
9
Indeductive- merely a player in language games
Indeductive- merely a player in language games@Indeductive·
She has no shame, why should her husband imagine she might feel ashamed if the neighbors see him sleeping in a tent in the backyard because his wife is frigid? He's not messing around while going MGTOW. Dude might become the G.O.A.T of MGTOW. 😂
The Washington Post@washingtonpost

Her husband started sleeping in a tent in their backyard after his wife stopped having sex with him. She’s now worried about what the neighbors might think. Advice columnist Carolyn Hax weighs in.

English
0
0
0
14
Brittany Hugoboom
Brittany Hugoboom@BritHugoboom·
Huh??? All women want to be poly? 😭
English
33
12
142
23K

Découvrir

@_MrsPeanut_ @DrienaSixto @shellig @Rach4Patriarchy @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano