On 2/28/2022 2:47 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
The structure of every object should be reducible to a pure set, which is a set of sets of sets etc., down to empty sets. So in principle we could check the consistency of the structure by defining it as a pure set. But due to Godel's second incompleteness theorem we can't do even that because it is impossible to prove that set theory is consistent. But our inability to prove the consistency of an object has no impact on whether the object is consistent and thus whether it exists. We just know that if an object is not consistent it cannot exist because it is nonsense.
To say an object is consistent is nonsense. It just means the object is not self-contradictory. But objects aren't propositions. So already there's a category error. You refer to the properties of the object. But those are mostly relational and we invent them, like my car that is insurable. They are no "of the object" per se.
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/a968af89-f8f1-395f-b08e-208b03685956%40gmail.com.
