On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 9/25/2012 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 9/25/2012 4:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes. If we cannot prove that their existence is self-contradictory
Propositions can be self contradictory, but how can existence of something be
Brent, it was roger, not I, who wrote the above. But in any case I interpreted his
statement to mean if some theoretical object is found to have contradictory
properties, then it does not exist.
So you mean if some mathematical object implies a contradiction it doesn't exist, e.g.
the largest prime number. But then of course the proof of contradiction is relative to
the axioms and rules of inference.
Well there is always some theory we have to assume, some model we operate under. This
is needed just to communicate or to think.
The contradiction proof is relevant to some theory, but so is the existence proof. You
can't even define an object without using some agreed upon theory.
Sure you can. You point and say, "That!" That's how you learned the meaning of words, by
abstracting from a lot of instances of your mother pointing and saying, "That."
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