John,
Possibilities may be real, but they do not exist untill they become
actual. Thus a token.
There always is the Scylla and Charybnis between understandability and
logic. But claiming existance to possibilities just does not hold.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 17.10.2017 05:48:
This thread is getting hung up on words. I recommend Peirce's
advice to look for the "purposive actions" that would follow
from any options that anyone is debating.
Let's consider the two words 'real' and 'existence'.
Quine is not one of my favorite philosophers, but I like his
dictum: "To be is to be the value of a quantified variable."
Consider the following sentence from a recent note:
I don't think that a 'thing' is real in itself, It is existential,
but its attributes, its modal nature, can be real - if that modal
nature includes Thirdness, which is to say, includes generals or
habits.
My recommendation is to translate that sentence (or any other sentence
that is under consideration) to logic (pick whichever version you
like). That process of translation is a purposive action.
Then look at which words in that sentence get mapped to quantified
variables. Each of them refers to something that the speaker would
be committed to say exists.
By that test, many sentences that talk about possibilities and
generals will cause those words to be mapped to quantified variables.
Therefore, they refer to something that exists. But that existence
might not be in the physical world. However, Peirce talked about
"real possibilities". So they might exist in some possible realm.
Next problem: Do signs exist? In the real world or in some
realm of possibilities?
To answer that question, I'd look at Peirce's simplest triad:
Mark, Token, Type.
To analyze that triad, I would use the sentence "Every mark is
something perceptible that is classified as a token by some type."
By Quine's dictum, a translation of that sentence to logic would
assign quantified variables to 'mark', 'token', and 'type'.
Therefore, all three refer to something that exists. Mark and
token refer to something perceptible. Therefore, they exist
in the physical world. But type would refer to a possibility.
Therefore, it exists in some realm of possibilities.
I don't know whether the people who used those sentences would
agree with me. But unless I hear some very persuasive arguments,
I'll assume the above answers.
John
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
