On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales 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. > > > Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed > the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad. > > Brent > Then Minsky was mad: https://youtu.be/hVJwzVD3jEs Jason -- 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/CA%2BBCJUiJxADo0atFqn4fqDEPNamQ8wby52Gy%2BBcf-dXh2cyO_g%40mail.gmail.com.
