On 3/10/2021 9:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[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 <https://youtu.be/hVJwzVD3jEs>
Minsky says real is relative to "this"...not your meaning. He doesn't define what he means by possible. It's interesting that he takes as an example repeated addition and says he can't understand how there could be a world in which it doesn't exist. But only a moment before he's discussing things existing in computer games, which can only do finite arithmetic.
Brent -- 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/11f2a79b-659f-730a-c7a6-aa4c15286915%40verizon.net.
