On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 4:57 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
*> If “0 things exist” is true, I don’t see how “0 things exist” can > exist.* > If if “0 things exist” is true then “0 things exist” exists, so if its true then it's not true. If its not true then something exists. And from that we can conclude that something is rotten in the state of Denmark , or rather in the sate of Nothing. > >* * > *It is clear that the theory “nothing exist” is refuted by anyone claiming > to believe that theory.* > There is no doubt something exists everybody believes that its true, the existential question is why its true. *> It can be true, but it does not need to be expressed to be true.* Expressed? I don't see what communicating something to others has to do with it unless you think a fact doesn't exist unless somebody knows it. And besides, you seemed to need to express it because you just did. *> I think we should distinguish well between “being true” and existence.* If there is a difference between “being true” and existence then either: 1) Some things are true but don't exist. In other words some things are logically consistent but are self contained and have nothing to do with physics or physical reality in general. Or in still other words some mathematical stories are fictional and much of modern abstract mathematics has no deeper meaning than a Harry Potter novel and the fanfiction stories that spawn off from it. 2) Some things exist but aren't true. In other words paradoxes can actually exist and all Reductio ad absurdum proofs are rendered invalid. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
