On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > > On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote: > >> >> >> On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales 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. >>> >>> >>> So everything that does not exist is something that cannot possibly >>> exist. But does that mean in the future or just now. If it means *just >>> now* then it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what it is." >>> and has no useful content. But if it means now and the future, even >>> confined to the near future, it's false. >>> >>> >> When you talk about something you must define it. The temporal position >> of an object is part of its definition (identity). So when object X can >> exist at time t, then it must exist at time t. It's trivial, just an >> example of the law of identity. >> >>> >>> >>> 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, 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. >>> >>> >>> c.f. Russell's teapot. >>> >> >> c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't exist >> >> The question is what is the difference between a possibly existing object >> and a "really" existing object? The fact that you don't see something >> doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. >> >> >> That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does exist >> either. Or even that it's (nomologically) possible. >> > > I am not saying that something exists. I am not even saying that something > is possible (identical to itself). I am just saying that if something is > possible then it exists, because I don't see a difference between possible > and "real" existence. > > > Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed > the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad. > > Brent > Then Minsky was mad: https://youtu.be/hVJwzVD3jEs 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiJxADo0atFqn4fqDEPNamQ8wby52Gy%2BBcf-dXh2cyO_g%40mail.gmail.com.
