[Tuukka] > One such predicate would be "everything that exists". We might > define this predicate to have a certain property, such as that of being > physical. In this case we would have constructed an ontology known as > physicalism.
Tuukka, In "everything that exists is physical" (x)Px (x) "everything that exists" is a quantifier & P "physical" is the predicate. [Tuukka] > Let's say a physicalist encounters an idealist, who asserts, that > "everything that exists" is mental, and speaks of mental objects. In > this case the physicalist would make a logical error, if he would speak > of mental objects, like the idealist, with the implicit assumption that > they are speaking of the same thing. In the language of SOQ, the > physicalist would be using nonrelativizably the concepts that refer to > the mental objects. He would detach them from their context. So the physicalist is making a logical error in using a predicate nonrelativizably. Do you have an example where using a predicates nonrelativizably is not a logical error? Craig Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
