On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 10:49:35 PM UTC+2, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/27/2018 3:15 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 2:55:57 AM UTC+2, Brent wrote: >> >> >> Logical consistency is a relation between sentences. It's not about >> existence. The sentences might be about the existence of something, but >> that's different. Or the sentences may have variables quantified by >> existential quantifiers, but that's different too. To say logical >> consistency is needed for existence would be a category error. >> > > An inconsistent object is an inconsistently defined object. Sentences > define objects by attributing properties to them. If a sentence is > inconsistent, it says that an object has and does not have the same > property, and thus that the object is not what it is. An inconsistent > object cannot exist. > > > One wonders why you suddenly switched from talking about existence, which > is what I responded to above, and instead brought of consistency? Muddying > the waters? >
I said earlier in this thread that consistency is existence, so I am still talking about the same thing. And by the consistency of an object I mean a consistently defined object. That's how consistency applies to objects. -- 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.
