On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 10:49:35 PM UTC+2, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/27/2018 3:15 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 2:55:57 AM UTC+2, Brent wrote: >> >> >> Logical consistency is a relation between sentences. It's not about >> existence. The sentences might be about the existence of something, but >> that's different. Or the sentences may have variables quantified by >> existential quantifiers, but that's different too. To say logical >> consistency is needed for existence would be a category error. >> > > An inconsistent object is an inconsistently defined object. Sentences > define objects by attributing properties to them. If a sentence is > inconsistent, it says that an object has and does not have the same > property, and thus that the object is not what it is. An inconsistent > object cannot exist. > > > One wonders why you suddenly switched from talking about existence, which > is what I responded to above, and instead brought of consistency? Muddying > the waters? >
I said earlier in this thread that consistency is existence, so I am still talking about the same thing. And by the consistency of an object I mean a consistently defined object. That's how consistency applies to objects. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
