On 3/10/2021 2:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 4:38 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
On 3/10/2021 9:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto: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 <https://youtu.be/hVJwzVD3jEs>
Minsky says real is relative to "this"...not your meaning. He
doesn't define what he means by possible. It's interesting that he
takes as an example repeated addition and says he can't understand
how there could be a world in which it doesn't exist. But only a
moment before he's discussing things existing in computer games,
which can only do finite arithmetic.
He said his preference would be to get rid of the word 'real' and only
speak of 'possible', because exist doesn't add anything (except for
the case of relative existence within the universe, like the button in
his shirt).
In other words, except for the only case that makes sense.
But thinks it's a useless concept to speak of other possible universes
being 'real', and prefers only using possible in that context.
Whether he thinks possibility by itself is enough for existence is not
clear, but he suggests it when he says we could be part of the logical
possibilities of a program that was never turned on.
But is it possible to turn the program on? If it was not turned on, and
possible=necessary then it was necessarily turned off and could not
possibly be turned on. In which case it was possible, was it?
Brent
--
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/9a54bbcc-6f69-00e1-90c2-6d3e6992287a%40verizon.net.
