> On 10 Mar 2021, at 10:18, Tomas Pales <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.
That is close how logicians relativise existence, in some theory, to existence in a model of that theory. Now, by using both Gödel completeness (a theory has a model iff the theory is consistent) and incompleteness theorem (no theory can prove all arithmetical truth), we get that no machine can prove the existence of a model satisfying its theorem, and that is why all machine get mystical, as they do experience a reality without being able to justify its existence. Bruno, > > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f078e70-f8f1-4519-a1f7-6aa4c9be8150n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/FD66C985-C99B-4362-83D1-6D6813002788%40ulb.ac.be.
