On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:01 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 2:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I don't try to escape that. > > > What is X or Y outside of the model from which they are defined and > exist within? > > > The whole point of having a model is that X and Y refer to something > outside the model. The model is a model *of* reality, not reality itself. > So when you prove "X and ~X" in the model you may have proved X doesn't > exist or you may have shown your model doesn't correspond to reality. > > Okay. I think we are in agreement then. The main idea is to make a model of reality and test it by seeing how well the model's predictions for observations match our observations. Jason -- 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.
