It's all a mystery really.....

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]It 's like something that something is not red because the reason it's red is because someone painted it.

You lost me. 🙄[/b]

i wonder if there is any context in which that would actually make sense 😀

Originally posted by knightmeister
That is all correct -it cannot be “explained” because there is NO unknown explanation about a brute fact. ----------------------------------------------------------hammy----------------------------------------------

...and my point is that it doesn't matter whether there exists an explanation or not (known or unknown)

That's your problem. The def ...[text shortened]... se the reason it's red is because someone painted it. Who cares why it is red - It's RED!!

…That's your problem. The definition of inexplicable is simple
.…

You mean what you mean by it is “simple” -and what you mean by it is not necessarily what most people mean by it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
inexplicable = something that cannot be explained because the reasons for it are as yet unknown .

-this definition would prevent this confusion because it clearly implies that there MUST exist some as yet unknown reasons for it for it to be “inexplicable“.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------HAMMY------------ ad hoc. and does not match the dictionary definition.

What do you have to say about this?

…You can make up your own definition if you like , but the way I am defining the word "inexplicable" fits the generally accepted definition of the word.
.…

Actually, I modified the definition to make it better fit what I believe most people generally mean by it in the light of your misunderstanding of the word.

…I feel entirely justified in refuting your definition because it is eccentric and ad hoc. and does not match the dictionary definition.

What do you have to say about this?
….

Unfortunately, the people that made the dictionary definition, not surprisingly, obviously didn’t consider the possibility that someone (like yourself) would say that all brute facts are “inexplicable” -thus their definition is not designed to accommodate this particular potential misunderstanding and it could be argued that it would have been a bit pedantic of them to have designed it to accommodate this.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…You can make up your own definition if you like , but the way I am defining the word "inexplicable" fits the generally accepted definition of the word.
.…

Actually, I modified the definition to make it better fit what I believe most people generally mean by it in the light of your misunderstanding of the word.

…I feel entirely jus ...[text shortened]... argued that it would have been a bit pedantic of them to have designed it to accommodate this.

Unfortunately, the people that made the dictionary definition, not surprisingly, obviously didn’t consider the possibility that someone (like yourself) would say that all brute facts are “inexplicable” -thus their definition is not designed to accommodate this particular potential misunderstanding and it could be argued that it would have been a bit pedantic of them to have designed it to accommodate this
-----------------------hammy--------------------------------------------

I'm sorry . I know BS when I smell it. The hole you are digging for yourself is just getting deeper and deeper!!

This is hilarious. I could equally argue that the dictionary definition obviously saw no need for any caveats or sub clauses because it's very simple. Something that cannot be explained is "not explainable" - the shortened version of this phrase is "inexplicable".

Just as something that is not possible is "impossible" OR..

Something that is not finite is "infinite" (need I go on)

The question is whether a brute fact is capable of being explained. So is it? Of course it is not , why? because by definition it has no explanation. It is inexplicable.

The principle of parsimony is on my side. It is YOU that is overcomplicating and unless you have any evidence that supports your idiosyncratic definition then you will have to concede that the evidence falls down in support of me not you. If we had a competition to find defintions on the net that support you or me how many do you think would support my definition.

Infact , I could further. ALL definitions of similar words support me and not you. The prefix "in" or "im" is used to simply express the opposite of the other quality or property. (eg impossible , incredible , incapable , unsupported etc etc) I do not know of any words like these that contain within them special clauses about how they might be applied in certain contexts.

It's sooooooooooooooooo simple and sooooooooooo logical. If something is not possible then it is impossible by definition. We never say "ah , well it all depends on why it is impossible" We just say X is impossible because it's not possible" the ONLY way to challenge this to show that x is infact possible. The only necessary pre-condition for something to be defined as impossible is that it is "not possible". That's all you need.

So , do you think a brute fact is capable of being explained? If you say no , then there's nowhere else to go but to define it as inexplicable.

You inability to grasp this is erhem ...inexplicable!

I wonder if you are reacting to the emotional use of this word in other contexts and not thinking about what it must logically mean by definition. I wonder if you are as logical as you like to think you are.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…That's your problem. The definition of inexplicable is simple
.…

You mean what you mean by it is “simple” -and what you mean by it is not necessarily what most people mean by it.[/b]

How do you know what "most people mean by it" ? Have you interviewed them? Should I trust you or the experts?


inexplicable definition

in·ex·pli·cable (in eks′pli kə bəl; often in′ek splik′ə bəl, -ik-)

adjective

not explicable; that cannot be explained, understood, or accounted for

Etymology: Fr < L inexplicabilis

in&#8901;ex&#8901;pli&#8901;ca&#8901;ble&#8194; &#8194;/&#618;n&#712;&#603;kspl&#618;k&#601;b&#601;l, &#716;&#618;n&#618;k&#712;spl&#618;k&#601;b&#601;l/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-ek-spli-kuh-buhl, in-ik-splik-uh-buhl] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective not explicable; incapable of being accounted for or explained.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1375–1425; late ME < L inexplic&#257;bilis. See in- 3 , explicable
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006

Pronunciation
IPA: /&#716;&#618;n&#618;k&#712;spl&#618;k&#601;bl&#809;/, SAMPA: /%InIk"sprIk@bl/

[edit] Adjective
inexplicable (comparative more inexplicable, superlative most inexplicable)

Positive
inexplicable
Comparative
more inexplicable
Superlative
most inexplicable


impossible to explain; not easily accounted for.

[edit] Synonyms
unexplainable

[edit] Antonyms
explainable
explicable


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM......

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]If it has no cause and it is a brute fact then it's "impossible to explain or account for it" - it is therefore inexplicable.

Under your libertarian construal, do you consider instances of free will to be inexplicable?[/b]

No because they are caused by the individual.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i wonder if there is any context in which that would actually make sense 😀

I obviously made a tired grammar mistake. A moments thought would have revealed this to you.

I meant to say "that's like saying something"

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Even if there is no ultimate truth - that is the ultimate truth of existence , namely , that there is no ultimate truth.

Could you be any more blatantly contradictory?

Also, I would like some clarification on what constitutes an 'ultimate' truth. For instance, what conditions would suffice to make a truth an ultimate truth? Is there something that confers the ultimacy?[/b]

Whatever is true is true. That's ultimately the truth.

Let's leave out the word "ultimate" for a minute

One could say "there is no such thing as truth".....

The problem is that this statement is either true or not true. It's it's own paradox.

If it is true then it cannot be true , if it is not true then there is such a thing as truth. The only way out is to say

"there is no such thing as truth , except for this statement which is true " ---- but this is a bit of a kop out.


Goedel's incompleteness theorem (which mathematically is beyond me) was expressed philosophically as "this statement is false" or "I always lie"

It drove Goedel mad I think.

The truth is whatever is true at the end of the day. The brute fact of existence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
One could say "there is no such thing as truth".....

The problem is that this statement is either true or not true. It's it's own paradox.

If it is true then it cannot be true , if it is not true then there is such a thing as truth. The only way out is to say

"there is no such thing as truth , except for this statement which is true " ---- but this is a bit of a kop out.

The more sensible solution is to realize that not all things are either true or false.

Your use of the term 'ultimate truth' tends to imply a deeper or more important truth than other truths. I tend to take it to mean the brute facts that all else is merely a reflection or result of.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The more sensible solution is to realize that not all things are either true or false.

Your use of the term 'ultimate truth' tends to imply a deeper or more important truth than other truths. I tend to take it to mean the brute facts that all else is merely a reflection or result of.

The more sensible solution is to realize that not all things are either true or false. -------------------WHITEY--------------------------

How true do you think this statement is? LOL

Originally posted by knightmeister
No because they are caused by the individual.

Well, under your construal I simply don't see how that can be the case. On the contrary, your view implies that the content of free willing is metaphysically random. Given your word choices as elaborated in this thread, I would have thought that you would be committed to the stance that free will, under your own libertarian construal, is 'mysterious' and 'inexplicable'.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Whatever is true is true. That's ultimately the truth.

Let's leave out the word "ultimate" for a minute

One could say "there is no such thing as truth".....

The problem is that this statement is either true or not true. It's it's own paradox.

If it is true then it cannot be true , if it is not true then there is such a thing as truth. The The truth is whatever is true at the end of the day. The brute fact of existence.

Whatever is true is true. That's ultimately the truth.

That whatever is X is X is more or less just tautological. So this basically says nothing. You still haven't answered my question: supposing there are 'ultimate' truths, what confers the ultimacy? What makes a truth an 'ultimate' truth?

Let's leave out the word "ultimate" for a minute

You were the one who was just using the word in a seemingly material way. Is it out of line for me to ask what you mean by 'ultimate truth'?

One could say "there is no such thing as truth".....

Blah, blah, blah. I'm not interested in the claim that "there is no such thing as truth". I'm interested in what to make of your claims regarding 'ultimate' truth.

EDIT: By the way, I am also still waiting on some specific examples from you concerning those implications for how you view 'life' that follow from the proposition that there exists at least one brute fact.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The more sensible solution is to realize that not all things are either true or false. -------------------WHITEY--------------------------

How true do you think this statement is? LOL

It is true.

I think you have got it wrong that Goedel's incompleteness theorem is equivalent to the Liar paradox.

Why not read through:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

and maybe even
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

My personal opinion of the Liar Paradox is that recursive logic does not work. It is simply bad logic to assert the truth value of a statement whose truth value depends on an unstated variable or on the original statement in a recursive manner.

Is the statement a=5 true or false where a is a variable?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I obviously made a tired grammar mistake. A moments thought would have revealed this to you.

I meant to say "that's like saying something"

i don't bash grammar 😀 or spelling. i make some from time to time and as long as the meaning gets through, why comment on a something like that.


so since i made that clear, i will repost my comment along with the corrected sentence that triggered it:

"It 's like SAYING something is not red because the reason it's red is because someone painted it."
"i wonder if there is any context in which that would actually make sense"

Originally posted by knightmeister
How do you know what "most people mean by it" ? Have you interviewed them? Should I trust you or the experts?


inexplicable definition

in·ex·pli·cable (in eks&#8242;pli k&#601; b&#601;l; often in&#8242;ek splik&#8242;&#601; b&#601;l, -ik-)

adjective

not explicable; that cannot be explained, understood, or accounted for

Etymology: Fr <

[edit] Antonyms
explainable
explicable


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM......

…
How do you know what "most people mean by it" ?
….

Exactly the same way I find out what most people usually mean by any other word:
-I often talk to people that occasionally use that word and grasp what THEY mean by the word by the way they use it.