> On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:03, Tomas Pales <litewav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which is > identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly existing > object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and hence all > possible objects exist, necessarily.
But what is an object? I agree that Unicorn can exist, in the mind of some people, or in a dream, but most would say that Unicorn do no exist, because being fictional is part of their definition. Or take a square circle, or a dog which is also a cat… The interesting things is what is the minimal amount of things that we have to assume in a theory so that we can derive the existence of all appearances, and of the laws to which they obey? How to get consciousness, how to get the appearance of matter and of physical laws. Assuming Mechanism, it can be proved that any Turing universal machinery will do the job, and that makes Mechanism testable: drive physics and compare with the observation. What must be searched is to relate the different notion of existence that we are willing to make sense of. > > To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car parked in > front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue car would > be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible object that > obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that would be a > contradiction, a violation of the law of identity, Why? A red can which is blue can be identical with itself. All odd natural number solution to 2x = x + 1 are equal to itself, despite not existing. Your self-identity criteria is too weak for being a criteria of existence. > and hence impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a > different possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and > not really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that > other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a proof > that it doesn't exist. OK with this. Bruno > > On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 6:34:51 AM UTC+1 Jason wrote: > I wrote up my thoughts on the question of "Why does anything exist?" > > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/ > <https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/> > > I thought members of the list might appreciate some of the references > included in it. My thinking on this question has of course been greatly > expanded and influenced through my interactions with many of you over the > past decade. > > I welcome any feedback, thoughts, corrections, or questions regarding > anything written. > > Sincerely, > > Jason > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d5489a4-9c5b-42d4-b8cd-12386afcef88n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d5489a4-9c5b-42d4-b8cd-12386afcef88n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/DB5E2695-2032-4425-84B6-CE2860495B94%40ulb.ac.be.
