On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:46:53 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/30/2018 2:49 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 8:14:31 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/30/2018 4:01 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:36:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> Any object can be inconsistently defined. I can define the moon by the >>> set of squared circles. >>> >> >> The set of squared circles is the empty set. The moon is not an empty >> set, it has a complex internal structure. >> >> Anyway, the word "define" has two meanings which need to be >> distinguished. "An object is *defined*" may mean: >> >> 1) "An object is *described*" (this usually means that there must be >> someone who defines/describes the object) >> >> 2) "An object is *constituted/formed*" (this doesn't require anyone to >> define the object, just as the fact that an object is composed of parts >> doesn't require a composer) >> >> >> Where did you come up with these? To define an object means to cite >> sufficient characteristics of the object so that it is distinguished from >> all other objects. It is described in the sense of 1) supra, but the >> description need not be extensive; simple ostensive definition by pointing >> suffices, which is probably how you learned the definition of "Moon". >> >> Your "definition" 2) makes no sense. Listing all the constituents of an >> object to what level? atoms? quantum fields? And how does that even >> suffice to distinguish an object from other objects with the same >> constituents? When you've tried to use your idea of "consistently defined" >> you've resorted to including all relations to other objects in the >> "consistent definition" which makes the object distinct from other objects >> but which makes the definition of an object unknowable. >> > > In the first sense, an object is defined by someone. In the second sense, > an object is defined by its properties, parts and relations. > > > But those are to numerous and uncertain to ever be known. And why would > you use the word "defined" instead of "constituted" when "defined" clearly > refers to making definite which can be done by much less than listing all > the constituents? >
I just wanted to point out two different meanings of "define" because Bruno said he could define the moon inconsistently. He could do so, by mistake or whatever he meant, but the moon cannot be defined inconsistently in the second sense (because it wouldn't exist). -- 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.
