On 10-03-2021 18:41, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that
which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a
possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no
difference, and hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.
So everything that does not exist is something that cannot possibly
exist. But does that mean in the future or just now. If it means
_just now_ then it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what
it is." and has no useful content. But if it means now and the
future, even confined to the near future, it's false.
When you talk about something you must define it. The temporal
position of an object is part of its definition (identity). So when
object X can exist at time t, then it must exist at time t. It's
trivial, just an example of the law of identity.
To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car
parked in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this
moment, a blue car would be parked there instead? Then the blue
car would be a possible object that obviously doesn't exist." Um,
no. A red car can't be blue; that would be a contradiction, a
violation of the law of identity, and hence impossible. A blue car
might be parked in front of my house in a different possible world
but then we are talking about a different world, and not really
about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that
other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is
not a proof that it doesn't exist.
c.f. Russell's teapot.
c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't exist
The question is what is the difference between a possibly existing
object and a "really" existing object? The fact that you don't see
something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does exist
either. Or even that it's (nomologically) possible.
I am not saying that something exists. I am not even saying that
something is possible (identical to itself). I am just saying that if
something is possible then it exists, because I don't see a difference
between possible and "real" existence.
Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2)
changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
Brent
Then Minsky was mad:
https://youtu.be/hVJwzVD3jEs
Jason
Here the discussion about possible and real starts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVJwzVD3jEs&t=294s
This point of view makes sense, existence is relative in the sense that
everything that is possible exists and then relative to some agent X,
some other possible thing Y may not exist inside X's universe such that
X can interact with Y. But Y is also guaranteed to exist in its own
universe.
Saibal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5b4c20c2fc9b902dc6fe84133899b2d0%40zonnet.nl.
