On 01 Sep 2010, at 08:03, Sami Perttu wrote:
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 of
existing...
could I say then that existing relatively to Y has no meaning until Y
existence is given and defined ?
Regards,
Quentin
Hi! 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 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
.
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.
