On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> 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 self-contradictory? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> No worries. >>>> >>>> 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." >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> >> There is still an implicitly assumed model that the two people are >> operating under (if they agree on what is meant by the chair they see). >> >> Or they may use different models and define the chair differently. For >> example, a solipist believes the chair is only his idea, a physicalist >> thinks it is a collection of primitive matter, a computationalist a dream >> of numbers. >> >> Then while they might all agree on the existence of something, that thing >> is different for each person because they are defining it under different >> models. >> > > But if they are different then what sense does it make to say there is a > contradiction in *the* model and hence something doesn't exist. It means a certain object (which is defined in a model) does not exist in that model. A model in one object is not the same as another object in a different model, even if they might have the same name, symbol, or appearance. "2 in a finite field", is a different thing from "2 in the natural numbers". The "chair in the solipist model" is different from the "chair in the materialist model". A chair made out of primitively real matter is non-existent in the solipist model. I don't see how you can escape having to work within a model when you make assertions, like X exists, or Y does not exist. What is X or Y outside of the model from which they are defined and exist within? Jason That's why it makes no sense to talk about a contradiction disproving the > existence of something you can define ostensively. It is only in the > Platonia of statements that you can derive contradictions from axioms and > rules of inference. If you can point to the thing whose non-existence is > proven, then it just means you've made an error in translating between > reality and Platonia. > > Brent > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to > everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ > **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> > . > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
