On 9/7/2011 4:47 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Does the existence of said universals act as a guarantor of the definiteness of the
properties of the universals? As I see it, existence per say is neutral, it is merely
the necessary possibility to be.
?? "necessary possibility" = necessity ??
We seem to be stuck with thinking that 3p = not-1p. What if 3p is the invariant over 1p
instead? I.e. the objective world is what all observers hold as mutually
non-contradictory, a sort of intersection of their 1p's.
I think that is essentially right. From an operational point of view, objective =
I worry that in our rush to toss out the subjective and illusory that we are discarding
the essential role that an observer plays in the universe. Is it any wonder why we have
such a 'hard problem' with consciousness because of this?
OTOH, it is incoherent to say that the Universals = 'what the nominals have in
common' since we cannot prevent nominals that can entirely contradict each other. A
possible solution to this is to consider how communication between observers works out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at