On 10/27/2018 2:16 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
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.
Which high-lights the category error. Objects can't be inconsistent...so they can't be consistent either. Only their description can be consistent or inconsistent.
Brent -- 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.
