Metaphysics as an Error

[Little Idiot]

I have to agree with Jamest on this point; if you say the world isnt as it appears to be, your doing metaphysics.

First of all, I would appreciate it if you tried to use English properly. Mistakes are human, but missing apostrophes and substituting 'you're' for 'your' in the same sentence is unacceptable. Second, I haven't claimed 'the world isn't as it appears to be'..

First.
Unacceptable to who? Are you my judge?
The primary purpose of language is communication, missing an apostrophe does not obscure meaning.
Were you to charge me with a small error, I will easily accept guilt, but since you seek to set rules for what is acceptable, I hope you understand why I ‘give you the finger’.
Second. You may notice I specifically agree with Jamesh, who posts words to the effect of ‘one is doing metaphysics when one says the world is not as it seems to be’.
Not everything is about you, and your ego, Sir.

Do you then say the world is exactly as it appears to be or not?
I assume this is not your opinion, but will you answer this simple question?

Unless there is some evidence or argument to demonstrate that measurability has any metaphysical implications, then clearly, such an equivocation is unwarranted and can not - as of yet - be accepted.

Isnt the measurement problem exactly such evidence?
The two slits experiment shows an example of this; elecrons perform diffraction through two slits as normal for waves, (its considered the interference of the probability wave that gives rise to the diffraction pattern, right?). But observation or measurement of the electron stops them behaving as waves, it destroys or collapses the probability wave and so the electron behaves as a particle.
Now the point is that the measurement or observation causes an observable change in the 'empirical reality' and not a small shift; it determines the nature of the electron to be either wave or particulate in nature with entirely different empirical results!

Eeeehh. No. Please don't bring Quantum Mechanics into this discussion.

Why? its currently one of the most powerful tools for understanding which humanity possesses.
As you must know there are different ways to understand QM, which removes any solidity from your unfounded claims about my understanding of QM later in your post.

The idea that one should refrain from speaking of such things is seen to be as cowardice, precisely because it is assumed that 'there is something out there'. The extension, the implication is that there is something to be described, even when it might be unknowable.

Isnt this 'something' exactly what Quantum mechanics describes?


As a casual follower of both Quantum Mechanics and traditional mysticism, sometimes it is hard to distinguish which camp issued a particular quote, and I dont just mean 'new age quantum quacks', I refer to the 'founding fathers' of QM, likes of Max Plank who said

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

A casual follower of both Quantum Mechanics and traditional mysticism? What, you blew your brain out of an airlock?

Err, no.
A throw away quip dismisses my point then, the fact that reputable modern physicists say almost exactly the same words as mystics and metaphysicians of the distant past is a matter of chance; you need not bother to actually address this at all. Only an idiot like me would consider it as the slightest bit relevant to a discussion on metaphysics, the suggestion that the ancients knew by metaphysics things we are only now proving through science.
Your casual quip really addresses that one well then.

The point is, however, that the methods not of getting to metaphysics, but the methods of coming to the idea of metaphysics, the methods by which one makes the assumption that there is something that can be covered by the term existence are suspect. This, of course, is highly problematic, not in the least because it is apparently assumed that denying the existence of the sun would mean to deny the sun as an empirical phenomenon, when nothing like that is intended. The sun is empirical and can be measured, but the idea that it is caused by some 'metaphysical sun', some 'thing-in-itself', this idea comes with suspect methods. That is to say, methods that have never been successfully argued for or provided evidence for.

Recall if you will that special relativity put paid to the idea of a 'hard' fixed space time out there independent of the observer, within separate frames of reference, such as on a moving train or on the stationary platform there can be no agreement on simultaneity of events.
A simple example, using the sun you refer to; as we know light from the sun takes several minutes to reach us, the sun we measure is not the real sun as 'the sun-itself' is, its an outdated image several minutes old. The famous example, if the sun disappeared NOW it would be several minutes before we noticed. Quite simply, our measured empirical world is not the actual world as it really is, any claims based on empirical measurements as the practical are fine, but as the factual need be considered carefully, very carefully. This suggests for me, a real need for metaphysics; we really do need to know what the hell we are talking about!

You are so incredibly ignorant about science I don't know where to begin. In fact, I don't think I will..

I assume that’s you attempting to be funny, because otherwise that’s a personal insult.

If I were as wrong as you suggest, a couple of lines would dismiss my arguments, the 'your too dumb and I am so smart that I don’t need to answer you' line doesn’t fool anybody after high school.
As it happens, here is a clip using exactly the same example (one observer on a train and a second on a platform) and stating exactly the same conclusion as I state ‘within separate frames of reference, such as on a moving train or on the stationary platform there can be no agreement on simultaneity of events’
The problem with telling a teacher of physics that he is incredibly ignorant of physics is that you’re quite likely to have to eat your own words. Whats worse, we teachers often have a bank of clips and so on designed to be shown to students, which make it clear to anyone who is speaking the garbage here.

EDIT to make links work, and sort out messed quotes

[Luis Dias]

Actually, I am here countering your scepticism.

Skeptical of skepticism. Do I then count as skeptic of your skepticism of skepticism? Let's hear your own skepticism of my skep... fuck this is boring work!

You opened the thread with negative claims about metaphysics.

About uttering metaphysics, not about metaphysical utterances.

These claims were founded upon your scepticism about the actual reality/existence of anything, including (by necessity) those objects that constitute the empirical world. That is, your position that the world is just "apparent" entails an existential doubt about those things that constitute 'the world'. Inferentially, this necessarily means that those things are reducible to something else - since they cannot BE themselves, lest we'd be equating them to actual existence/reality.

I think an History of an Error by N as posted by Jerôme actually answers this paragraph. There's no apparent reality nor any "true world". There's only the world.

Actually, I have said that it has to be something else, or ‘nothing’ - which still entails an ontology.
This must be the case, because if something is not A, then it has to be something that is not A, or nothing at all. A matter of logic.

Why should the "True World" conform to your all too human logic? Because it would be "preposterous" to think otherwise? Ah! And here we go again, and again with this shenanigan. In here we have a clue about the tautologicalnessness (ahhh, NE, where are you?) of metaphysics: they prove what they assume. The world has to be logical because we've defined it to be so!

[quot€]You see, the only way to be sceptical about existence/reality, is to be completely sceptical to the point that you don’t say anything definite about what the empirical world is (or is not). And then, the only conclusion that you could draw, would be that “I have no idea about what is OR IS NOT real/existing. Therefore, I shall make no judgements about metaphysics.”. [/quote]

But that's what Jerôme has argued: you can't do metaphysics (therefore, you can't judge metaphysical utterances). That's the fucking point.

As I‘ve said, if you tell me that A is not A, then an ontology can be inferred about A. That is, telling me that A is not A is an ontological statement in itself.

No one told you that A is not A. We are telling you that such questions are a dead end, unworthy of our time.

If A does not exist, then A cannot cause B. A can only cause B if A actually exists. Just simple logic.
That is, if A and its ‘siblings’ do not exist, then none of the apparent events occurring within the empirical world can be attributed to any of them.

"Just simple logic". And knights do 1 square to a side and then 2 squares to the perpendicular. And they jump. We all know this, thus metaphysics is true! I can't believe this shit. You're going in circles, jamest, no one here is really doubting your prowess in logic.

… Consequently, any and all events must be caused by something which itself is not an empirical entity, since none of those events can be attributed to anything within the fishbowl of the empirical world.

Of course, you have no empirical evidence to back this up! It's made up shit. And this is the trouble of metaphysics: it gives the speaker the impression that he can make shit up without consequences. Like being thrown a rock after uttering that rocks are an illusion. Ask Zeno about it, he got a real headache with that sort of shenanigan.

[jamest]

...Actually, I have said that it has to be something else, or ‘nothing’ - which still entails an ontology.
This must be the case, because if something is not A, then it has to be something that is not A, or nothing at all. A matter of logic.

Or you can take the Pyrrhonist approach and suspend all judgement on any metaphysical issue. No ontology.

But that is not what either you or Jerome have done. For instance, in a previous post, you said:

"I don't doubt my experience; I just don't try to extract anything metaphysical out of it. Rather, I don't try to fabricate anything metaphysical from it."

Here, just like Jerome - though using different words - you distinguish between experience and 'reality'. That is, by inference, you are saying that what you categorise as 'experience' is not itself synonymous with reality. This is an ontological claim similar to A is not A, as before. Infering then, that A is something else, or nothing at all.

If you want to take your position to its extreme and suspend all judgement on any metaphysical issue, then this disarms you, completely, regards participating in this discussion. That is, you would have zero reason to doubt metaphysics, nor to praise it. That is, I don't see how you can contribute anything meaningful to this discussion?

This applies to Jerome too, of course, who in spite of stubbornly claiming to embrace such a position as you yourself claim to hold, persists in making all manner of judgements about metaphysics; not least of which - in another forum - was that it had been "demolished".

You cannot have it both ways. Pure scepticism about metaphysics does not facilitate negative judgements about it. Why nobody here can understand that, is beyond me.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I have to agree with Jamest on this point; if you say the world isnt as it appears to be, your doing metaphysics.

First of all, I would appreciate it if you tried to use English properly. Mistakes are human, but missing apostrophes and substituting 'you're' for 'your' in the same sentence is unacceptable. Second, I haven't claimed 'the world isn't as it appears to be'..

First.
Unacceptable to who? Are you my judge?
The primary purpose of language is communication, missing an apostrophe does not obscure meaning.
Were you to charge me with a small error, I will easily accept guilt, but since you seek to set rules for what is acceptable, I hope you understand why I ‘give you the finger’.
Second. You may notice I specifically agree with Jamesh,

I like Jamesh! The Epic Jamesh. Except Jamesh is three-thirds idiot, and one thirds man..

who posts words to the effect of ‘one is doing metaphysics when one says the world is not as it seems to be’.
Not everything is about you, and your ego, Sir.

Prove it!

Do you then say the world is exactly as it appears to be or not?
I assume this is not your opinion, but will you answer this simple question?

Your question is so ridiculous phrased it's impossible to answer it without invoking the inherent ambiguity. For someone who talks about language facilitating communication, you are doing a piss-poor job at it.

Unless there is some evidence or argument to demonstrate that measurability has any metaphysical implications, then clearly, such an equivocation is unwarranted and can not - as of yet - be accepted.

Isnt the measurement problem exactly such evidence?
The two slits experiment shows an example of this; elecrons perform diffraction through two slits as normal for waves, (its considered the interference of the probability wave that gives rise to the diffraction pattern, right?). But observation or measurement of the electron stops them behaving as waves, it destroys or collapses the probability wave and so the electron behaves as a particle.
Now the point is that the measurement or observation causes an observable change in the 'empirical reality' and not a small shift; it determines the nature of the electron to be either wave or particulate in nature with entirely different empirical results!

Eeeehh. No. Please don't bring Quantum Mechanics into this discussion.

Why? its currently one of the most powerful tools for understanding which humanity possesses.
As you must know there are different ways to understand QM, which removes any solidity from your unfounded claims about my understanding of QM later in your post.

Yeah, there are multiple ways to look at my ass, too. Doesn't mean it doesn't stink when I shit. In other words, just because there are multiple interpretation doesn't mean that you bringing it up in the context of metaphysics isn't still bullshit. Any physicist will laugh at you for bringing it up in this context - and rightly so.

A throw away quip dismisses my point then, the fact that reputable modern physicists say almost exactly the same words as mystics and metaphysicians of the distant past is a matter of chance; you need not bother to actually address this at all. Only an idiot like me would consider it as the slightest bit relevant to a discussion on metaphysics, the suggestion that the ancients knew by metaphysics things we are only now proving through science.
Your casual quip really addresses that one well then.

You're full of it. And it is neither philosophy - ancient or modern - or science. It's bullshit, my dear.

You are so incredibly ignorant about science I don't know where to begin. In fact, I don't think I will..

I assume that’s you attempting to be funny, because otherwise that’s a personal insult.

Why would it be an insult to you when you have such low respect of science that you rape it for the purposes of your metaphysics?

If I were as wrong as you suggest, a couple of lines would dismiss my arguments, the 'your too dumb and I am so smart that I don’t need to answer you' line doesn’t fool anybody after high school.

It does when one of them hasn't passed primary school intellectually.

As it happens, here is a clip using exactly the same example (one observer on a train and a second on a platform) and stating exactly the same conclusion as I state ‘within separate frames of reference, such as on a moving train or on the stationary platform there can be no agreement on simultaneity of events’
The problem with telling a teacher of physics that he is incredibly ignorant of physics is that you’re quite likely to have to eat your own words. Whats worse, we teachers often have a bank of clips and so on designed to be shown to students, which make it clear to anyone who is speaking the garbage here.

You're a teacher? A physics teacher? Where? What institution would have you instructing actual human beings? I mean, honestly, I can't believe it. Second, I'm quite curious from what bank of clips you'll pull the "Here's physics confirming metaphysics, look at the slit, there, the thing in itself has been demonstrated." from.

[FBM]

Here, just like Jerome - though using different words - you distinguish between experience and 'reality'. That is, by inference, you are saying that what you categorise as 'experience' is not itself synonymous with reality. This is an ontological claim similar to A is not A, as before. Infering then, that A is something else, or nothing at all.

No, it's really not. It's a statement that one has refused to declare any knowledge on the subject. Experience may be synonymous with reality; it may not. We don't know. Hence, Pyrrhonian skepticism.

You cannot have it both ways. Pure scepticism about metaphysics does not facilitate negative judgements about it. Why nobody here can understand that, is beyond me.

Again, you're conflating Academic skepticism with Pyrrhonian skepticism. A careful Pyrrhonian skeptic wouldn't claim any knowledge on metaphysical questions. I haven't made any negative judgements about either reality or metaphysics.

[jamest]

Hello Luis. We just need NE now, and that other guy with the dodgy tash.

You opened the thread with negative claims about metaphysics.

About uttering metaphysics, not about metaphysical utterances.

Like I said, Jerome's claims have been "uttered" upon a metaphysic, albeit an unspecified one.

These claims were founded upon your scepticism about the actual reality/existence of anything, including (by necessity) those objects that constitute the empirical world. That is, your position that the world is just "apparent" entails an existential doubt about those things that constitute 'the world'. Inferentially, this necessarily means that those things are reducible to something else - since they cannot BE themselves, lest we'd be equating them to actual existence/reality.

I think an History of an Error by N as posted by Jerôme actually answers this paragraph. There's no apparent reality nor any "true world". There's only the world.

How can there ONLY be the world? And if there is ONLY the world, then why don't you realise that you've just made a definite statement about existence as a whole? Man, you guys are doing a great job of destroying your own "absolute scepticism". I really don't have to try very hard.

Actually, I have said that it has to be something else, or ‘nothing’ - which still entails an ontology.
This must be the case, because if something is not A, then it has to be something that is not A, or nothing at all. A matter of logic.

Why should the "True World" conform to your all too human logic?

More implicit ontology - how do you know that I actually am human? How do you know that logic is created by ‘humans’? How do you know that logic is nought more than a reflection of perceived order?

Man, I don’t know what you are, but it sure aint no sceptic.

As I‘ve said, if you tell me that A is not A, then an ontology can be inferred about A. That is, telling me that A is not A is an ontological statement in itself.

No one told you that A is not A. We are telling you that such questions are a dead end, unworthy of our time.

If you aren’t telling me that A is not A, then don’t tell me anything. Because, as I’ve just explained to FBM, pure scepticism about metaphysics does not facilitate negative judgements about it.

If A does not exist, then A cannot cause B. A can only cause B if A actually exists. Just simple logic.
That is, if A and its ‘siblings’ do not exist, then none of the apparent events occurring within the empirical world can be attributed to any of them.

"Just simple logic". And knights do 1 square to a side and then 2 squares to the perpendicular. And they jump. We all know this, thus metaphysics is true! I can't believe this shit. You're going in circles, jamest, no one here is really doubting your prowess in logic.

Again, if you want to counter my logic, then you have to do so with more than an ontological claim about its “all too human origins”.

… Consequently, any and all events must be caused by something which itself is not an empirical entity, since none of those events can be attributed to anything within the fishbowl of the empirical world.

Of course, you have no empirical evidence to back this up!

Why would I need empirical evidence to back-up a metaphysical claim? What a strange statement.

Ask Zeno about it, he got a real headache with that sort of shenanigan.

Zeno was essentially right if we consider the distinction between tangible existence and intangible concepts such as infinity. But alas, let us not be sidetracked!

[jamest]

Here, just like Jerome - though using different words - you distinguish between experience and 'reality'. That is, by inference, you are saying that what you categorise as 'experience' is not itself synonymous with reality. This is an ontological claim similar to A is not A, as before. Infering then, that A is something else, or nothing at all.

No, it's really not. It's a statement that one has refused to declare any knowledge on the subject. Experience may be synonymous with reality; it may not. We don't know. Hence, Pyrrhonian skepticism.

We don't know? Is that the same as we CANNOT know?

I actually think that we can know, but I don't want to go into that right now. I haven't finished my attack.

You cannot have it both ways. Pure scepticism about metaphysics does not facilitate negative judgements about it. Why nobody here can understand that, is beyond me.

Again, you're conflating Academic skepticism with Pyrrhonian skepticism. A careful Pyrrhonian skeptic wouldn't claim any knowledge on metaphysical questions. I haven't made any negative judgements about either reality or metaphysics.

Well, as I've said, it's difficult to understand how such a stance would enable you to contribute anything more to this discussion.

[FBM]

We don't know? Is that the same as we CANNOT know?

No, it's not. It's precisely the distinction between Pyrrhonist skepticism (we don't know but might someday) and Academic skepticism (we can't know). Until you get this distinction straight, we're just going to keep repeating this conversation.

I actually think that we can know, but I don't want to go into that right now. I haven't finished my attack...Well, as I've said, it's difficult to understand how such a stance would enable you to contribute anything more to this discussion.

Well, for example, teaching you about the difference between Academic and Pyrrhonist skepticisms seems like a worthwhile contribution.

[jamest]

Okay, consider me taught. Perhaps now you can divert your tutoring to Jerome et al.

[SpeedOfSound]

Ah, so you guys are over here!

Thanks, Samsa, for your help.

(Is it true that RDF is gonna blow itself up? I really think the looks and design of this site is shitty as hell! It hurts my fucking eyes).

Sooooo... what's up? What are the realists and idealists up to?

You have brown on brown and avatar troubles? You can change to prosilver2 and shut those off. Do that and this site is like RDF. Except it works.

[Little Idiot]

I have to agree with Jamest on this point; if you say the world isnt as it appears to be, your doing metaphysics.

First of all, I would appreciate it if you tried to use English properly. Mistakes are human, but missing apostrophes and substituting 'you're' for 'your' in the same sentence is unacceptable. Second, I haven't claimed 'the world isn't as it appears to be'..

First.
Unacceptable to who? Are you my judge?
The primary purpose of language is communication, missing an apostrophe does not obscure meaning.
Were you to charge me with a small error, I will easily accept guilt, but since you seek to set rules for what is acceptable, I hope you understand why I ‘give you the finger’.
Second. You may notice I specifically agree with Jamesh,

I like Jamesh! The Epic Jamesh. Except Jamesh is three-thirds idiot, and one thirds man..

Oh no I hit h instead of t in Jamest, how terrible, that proves it, I have no valid argument to make.

who posts words to the effect of ‘one is doing metaphysics when one says the world is not as it seems to be’.
Not everything is about you, and your ego, Sir.

Prove it!

Why bother, you are not interested in ant ideas apart from your own.

Do you then say the world is exactly as it appears to be or not?
I assume this is not your opinion, but will you answer this simple question?

Your question is so ridiculous phrased it's impossible to answer it without invoking the inherent ambiguity. For someone who talks about language facilitating communication, you are doing a piss-poor job at it.

So thats 'no, i wont anser a simple question. I thought so

Unless there is some evidence or argument to demonstrate that measurability has any metaphysical implications, then clearly, such an equivocation is unwarranted and can not - as of yet - be accepted.

Isnt the measurement problem exactly such evidence?
The two slits experiment shows an example of this; elecrons perform diffraction through two slits as normal for waves, (its considered the interference of the probability wave that gives rise to the diffraction pattern, right?). But observation or measurement of the electron stops them behaving as waves, it destroys or collapses the probability wave and so the electron behaves as a particle.
Now the point is that the measurement or observation causes an observable change in the 'empirical reality' and not a small shift; it determines the nature of the electron to be either wave or particulate in nature with entirely different empirical results!

Eeeehh. No. Please don't bring Quantum Mechanics into this discussion.

Why? its currently one of the most powerful tools for understanding which humanity possesses.
As you must know there are different ways to understand QM, which removes any solidity from your unfounded claims about my understanding of QM later in your post.

Yeah, there are multiple ways to look at my ass, too. Doesn't mean it doesn't stink when I shit. In other words, just because there are multiple interpretation doesn't mean that you bringing it up in the context of metaphysics isn't still bullshit. Any physicist will laugh at you for bringing it up in this context - and rightly so.

Classic
First you say 'unless there is evidence blah blah ...'
Then as soon as someone makes a tentative possible offering; note the question 'isnt and question mark in my original quote "isnt the measurement problem exactly such evidence?"
Then you respond like this to a reasonable QUESTION.
If science is not a possible source for such evidence, you really are not open to a discussion of evidence at all, are you?

A throw away quip dismisses my point then, the fact that reputable modern physicists say almost exactly the same words as mystics and metaphysicians of the distant past is a matter of chance; you need not bother to actually address this at all. Only an idiot like me would consider it as the slightest bit relevant to a discussion on metaphysics, the suggestion that the ancients knew by metaphysics things we are only now proving through science.
Your casual quip really addresses that one well then.

You're full of it. And it is neither philosophy - ancient or modern - or science. It's bullshit, my dear.

When I say 'A says the same as B' this is not supposed to be either philosophy or science, its a simple observation. If you can refute the obseravtion, then you show me to be wrong. You could go on from proving me wrong to accuse me of talking bullshit. But your inability to answer my points time after time shows that it is actually you producing BS in this exchange between us. I must have pissed you off real bad to make you respond like this; I used to think of you as an articulate guy.

You are so incredibly ignorant about science I don't know where to begin. In fact, I don't think I will..

I assume that’s you attempting to be funny, because otherwise that’s a personal insult.

Why would it be an insult to you when you have such low respect of science that you rape it for the purposes of your metaphysics?

I am quite aware of the diference betwen Physics and metaphysics. However your implication that science can not be used to provide material for metaphysics to consider is very very silly. Its called meta-PHYSICS for a reason you know.

If I were as wrong as you suggest, a couple of lines would dismiss my arguments, the 'your too dumb and I am so smart that I don’t need to answer you' line doesn’t fool anybody after high school.

It does when one of them hasn't passed primary school intellectually.

Why the personal insult? Why imply that I failed school, which is obviously a lie? What do you gain from it other than momentary ego food?
I had hoped to engage in a worth while discussion with you and other people, but I can see you are intent on repeatedly dragging our exchange into petty insults, lies and basically wasting my time untill I stop attempting to engage you. Well, if that counts as some kind of victory to you, let me be the first to congratulate you on a job well done.

As it happens, here is a clip using exactly the same example (one observer on a train and a second on a platform) and stating exactly the same conclusion as I state ‘within separate frames of reference, such as on a moving train or on the stationary platform there can be no agreement on simultaneity of events’
The problem with telling a teacher of physics that he is incredibly ignorant of physics is that you’re quite likely to have to eat your own words. Whats worse, we teachers often have a bank of clips and so on designed to be shown to students, which make it clear to anyone who is speaking the garbage here.

You're a teacher? A physics teacher? Where? What institution would have you instructing actual human beings? I mean, honestly, I can't believe it. Second, I'm quite curious from what bank of clips you'll pull the "Here's physics confirming metaphysics, look at the slit, there, the thing in itself has been demonstrated." from.

I have no need to prove to you my credentials, unless we begin to exchange in a manner more befitting adults.
I do not use Physics to prove metaphysics; that would dumb. It is a common point I have used many times that the laws of physics do not prove metaphysics, despite claims by materialists or physicalist to the effect that Physics supports their position.
What I did, as you will see if you take time to actually read my post is that I suggested it may be a source of evidence for metaphysics, not proof of anything.

I take it that you not actually resonding to my point of physics is that you conceed that I was right, my physics was right, and I am not incredibly ignorant of physics, which means you were wrong to say I was?
If you dont accept this, then pull out some physics of your own and show why I made an error and am so ingnorant. Were I in a position of having made an error, I would acept the error and say so, but thats because I consider my self to be honourable, what about you?
Put up or shut up, buddy

[Matthew Shute]

We just need NE now, and that other guy with the dodgy tash.

Who, me?

I'm clean-shaven, at the moment, alas. It's nice to see everything as it should be, with Jerôme on the left and you on the right:



Or, perhaps:



And still no argument for how we are to access metaphysics? You're still merely sceptical of the scepticism.

[FBM]

We just need NE now, and that other guy with the dodgy tash.

Who, me?

I'm clean-shaven, at the moment, alas. It's nice to see everything as it should be, with Jerôme on the left and you on the right:



Or, perhaps:



And still no argument for how we are to access metaphysics? You're still merely sceptical of the scepticism.

I see you found the smilies to your liking.

[Luis Dias]

Hey hi, Matt! I see the community is regrouping.

[Matthew Shute]

Hi Luis!

So, did NonErgodic also make it over here?