On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
> > > On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which >> is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly >> existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and >> hence all possible objects exist, necessarily. >> >> >> So everything that does not exist is something that cannot possibly >> exist. But does that mean in the future or just now. If it means *just >> now* then it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what it is." >> and has no useful content. But if it means now and the future, even >> confined to the near future, it's false. >> >> > When you talk about something you must define it. The temporal position of > an object is part of its definition (identity). So when object X can exist > at time t, then it must exist at time t. It's trivial, just an example of > the law of identity. > >> >> >> To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car parked >> in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue car >> would be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible object >> that obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that would >> be a contradiction, a violation of the law of identity, and hence >> impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a different >> possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and not >> really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that >> other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a >> proof that it doesn't exist. >> >> >> c.f. Russell's teapot. >> > > c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't exist > > The question is what is the difference between a possibly existing object > and a "really" existing object? The fact that you don't see something > doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. > > > That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does exist > either. Or even that it's (nomologically) possible. > I am not saying that something exists. I am not even saying that something is possible (identical to itself). I am just saying that if something is possible then it exists, because I don't see a difference between possible and "real" existence. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f078e70-f8f1-4519-a1f7-6aa4c9be8150n%40googlegroups.com.
