On 01 Sep 2010, at 08:03, Sami Perttu wrote:

## Advertising

On Sep 1, 1:08 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:Ok... But what is the ontological status of the Y ?What you're saying is that there is no universal meaning ofexisting...could I say then that existing relatively to Y has no meaning until Y existence is given and defined ? Regards, QuentinHi! I'm trying to remove this universal ontological status altogether. Once it's gone, everything exists almost trivially, as it shouldn't be hard to find the Y. For instance, X exists in the singleton set { X }.

`In which theory of set? I would say that the term "existence" has a`

`meaning relative to the theory you are chosing.`

I suspect that "exists" in the absolute sense grew out of the relative sense "exists in the world", until it became the center for a whole area of philosophical inquiry. I no longer see the absolute sense as meaningful. My motivation was to find a good justification for theses such as: mathematical existence guarantees existence in general.

`There is no mathematical foundation of the whole mathematics, so`

`mathematical existence is a very vague notion.`

`Arithmetical existence is clearer if you accept elementary arithmetic`

`(like in prime numbers exist).`

Bruno

--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.