On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 9:47:21 PM UTC+1 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 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. I said what it means that an object is consistent. It means that it is identical to itself, or in other words, it has the properties it has. No square circle. > 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. > What else do we invent? The whole world around us? -- 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/64ff8df0-14ce-4af6-b353-6484bb9192c6n%40googlegroups.com.
