On 2/28/2022 4:08 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:15:39 AM UTC+1 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



    On 2/28/2022 1:29 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

    On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 9:47:21 PM UTC+1
    meeke...@gmail.com wrote:



        On 2/28/2022 2:47 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
        > The structure of every object should be reducible to a pure
        set, which
        > is a set of sets of sets etc., down to empty sets. So in
        principle we
        > could check the consistency of the structure by defining it
        as a pure
        > set. But due to Godel's second incompleteness theorem we
        can't do even
        > that because it is impossible to prove that set theory is
        consistent.
        > But our inability to prove the consistency of an object has
        no impact
        > on whether the object is consistent and thus whether it
        exists. We
        > just know that if an object is not consistent it cannot
        exist because
        > it is nonsense.

        To say an object is consistent is nonsense.  It just means
        the object is
        not self-contradictory.  But objects aren't propositions. So
        already
there's a category error.

    I said what it means that an object is consistent. It means that
    it is identical to itself, or in other words, it has the
    properties it has. No square circle.

    Which, if I understand correctly, means every object is
    tautologically consistent.


Every existent object is what it is. A square circle is not what it is, so it can't exist.

    You refer to the properties of the object.
    But those are mostly relational and we invent them, like my car
    that is
    insurable.  They are no "of the object" per se.


What else do we invent? The whole world around us?

    If you limit "the world" to it's description, yes.


But only consistent descriptions correspond to the world, so in this sense the world is consistent.

I didn't say it wasn't.  I was just pointing out that this is based on the premise that the world exists.  So it is invalid to infer from "this world has a consistent description" that "all world's with consistent description exist".

And having a consistent description is not really that helpful. Before quantum mechanics everyone was sure that it was true of the world that nothing could be in two different places at the same time.  It was/just/ logic.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e093224-a653-a00a-fe1e-6422d832532f%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to