On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 10:57:08 AM UTC+1 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> But what is an object?
>
Anything that is identical to itself. It also seems necessary that every
object is part of a greater object and has properties.
> We cannot really invoke “reality” as its very nature is part of the
>> inquiry.
>>
>
> I regard as reality all objects (that are identical to themselves, of
> course).
>
>
> I take x = x as a logical truth about identity. So every thing is equal to
> itself, and so, self-identity cannot be a criteria of (fundamental)
> existence.
>
Why not? Why would some objects that are identical to themselves exist and
other objects that are identical to themselves would not exist? What would
such an existential distinction even mean?
>
> But the collection of all sets equal to themselves, {x I x = x} is
> typically not a set, despite that collection is equal to itself.
>
I don't see a difference between collection and set. And there is no
collection of all collections, just like there is no biggest number.
>
> You seem to assume everything at the start, but without defining things,
> that will lead easily to inconsistencies.
>
I assume the law of identity for every object, so all inconsistencies are
thereby ruled out.
> A square circle is equal to itself, arguably.
>
No, a square circle is a circle that is not a circle, so it is not
identical to itself. It is not an object, it's nothing.
--
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/3dc2d733-2d56-45d8-9c81-82e7b4655b75n%40googlegroups.com.
