On 10/30/2018 4:01 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:36:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Any object can be inconsistently defined. I can define the moon by
the set of squared circles.
The set of squared circles is the empty set. The moon is not an empty
set, it has a complex internal structure.
Anyway, the word "define" has two meanings which need to be
distinguished. "An object is /defined/" may mean:
1) "An object is /described/" (this usually means that there must be
someone who defines/describes the object)
2) "An object is /constituted/formed/" (this doesn't require anyone to
define the object, just as the fact that an object is composed of
parts doesn't require a composer)
Where did you come up with these? To define an object means to cite
sufficient characteristics of the object so that it is distinguished
from all other objects. It is described in the sense of 1) supra, but
the description need not be extensive; simple ostensive definition by
pointing suffices, which is probably how you learned the definition of
"Moon".
Your "definition" 2) makes no sense. Listing all the constituents of an
object to what level? atoms? quantum fields? And how does that even
suffice to distinguish an object from other objects with the same
constituents? When you've tried to use your idea of "consistently
defined" you've resorted to including all relations to other objects in
the "consistent definition" which makes the object distinct from other
objects but which makes the definition of an object unknowable.
Brent
When I say that an object is consistently or inconsistently defined, I
mean defined in the second sense. That's the existential/ontological
sense. An inconsistently defined object is not identical to itself, it
is not what it is, it does not have the properties it has. Such an
object is nonsense, it cannot exist, it is not really an object, it is
nothing. The definition of an object in the first sense is
true/accurate iff it corresponds to the definition of the object in
the second sense.
- and this I mean in the absolute sense, regardless of theory: an
object that is not identical to itself is inconsistent in any
theory. Such an object cannot exist. All other objects can exist
somewhere.
You are not using the (logical) terms in their standard meaning.
It is hard to follow. I don’t undersetand what you mean by object.
Sorry, by "object" I mean anything that exists. Not nothing.
With mechanism, the axiom of infinity leads to an inflation of
predictions, which is not what we are experiencing
That may mean that we live in a finite mathematical structure. Still,
that doesn't rule out the existence of infinite mathematical
structures. If they are consistent, why wouldn't they exist?
--
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
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto: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.
--
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.
