On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:39:11 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
> > > On 3/10/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:15:43 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 3/10/2021 2:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: >>> >>> Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) >>> changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad. >>> >> >> As I said, possible means identical to itself. >> >> >> I know you said it, but that doesn't make it so. Is it possible that >> there is a an even number greater than 2 which is not the sum of two >> primes? Is it real? Is it possible that there is a cardinal number >> between aleph0 and aleph1? Is it real? If you flip a coin is it possible >> it will come up heads? What's the difference between "possible" and >> "necessary". >> > > If there is a contradiction in the definition of an object, that means > that the law of identity is violated and the object is not identical to > itself and hence is not possible. There is no difference between possible > and necessary in the absolute sense because every possible object exists > necessarily > > > You're avoiding the questions. Your coin coming up heads isn't an object. > Why not? It's an event, which is an object in spacetime. > Neither is the even number that is not the sum of two primes. > Numbers are properties (abstract objects). For example, number five is a property of all collections that have five members. Concrete and abstract objects go hand in hand, for example if there are concrete triangles then there is also the property (abstract object) of triangleness (triangle "in general") that all concrete triangles have. Some people think that properties are just thoughts or words but apparently they are inherently connected with the nature of concrete objects so I would locate properties "out there" similarly like concrete objects, not just in the mind. > And as Bruno pointed out "object" is not well defined. > And I replied to Bruno about that yesterday. > Is John Clark an object, or as he puts it "a verb". > He is an object in spacetime. -- 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/0eb0e9b2-8c6a-43e4-8fe2-8e6fe49ea3ebn%40googlegroups.com.
