On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 10:27:35 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
> > > On 3/11/2021 9:44 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1 Bruce wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:52 AM Tomas Pales <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 in reality as a whole. >>> >> >> >> That is known as 'begging the question' in that you have assumed the >> result that it is necessary for you to prove. In other words, you have a >> circular argument. >> > > I don't have much of an argument for claiming that there is no difference > between possible and "real" existence. I just can't even imagine any > fundamental difference, I don't know what it would even mean. > > > Is there a dog in your room? Is it possible for a dog to be in your > room? Do you understand those two questions? > Sure. And these are the answers: There is no dog in my room at this moment. It is impossible for a dog to be in my room at this moment. Why is it impossible? Because it would be a contradiction if a dog was in a room where it is not. Like I said in a similar example, it might be possible in a different world but not in this one. -- 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/163c15eb-46f7-46ff-95f1-ca1dd6e540a1n%40googlegroups.com.
