> On 10 Mar 2021, at 10:18, Tomas Pales <litewav...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FD66C985-C99B-4362-83D1-6D6813002788%40ulb.ac.be.
