Love the argument, Tom; but I have to say I agree with Pierre-Normand that what you have shown is that the totality of facts is uncountable, not that it is impossible. — Banno
There are various versions of 'the world is the totality of so-and-so' — quine
As such, it is certainly vulnerable to being shown to be contradictory or incoherent, but since there does seem to be a world, and we do talk about it both as a totality and as fragmentary facts, it is so fundamental to discourse that it might well be easier to dismantle set theory if it proves to be in contradiction with such a statement. — unenlightened
You will need to dismantle Relativity as well as Set Theory, not to mention reason if you want to maintain a "totality of facts". — tom
Wittgenstein: The world is the totality of facts.
Carnap: The world is the totality of physical objects and logical structures.
Quine: The world is the totality of physical objects and mathematical objects.
Lewis: The world is the totality of things in possible worlds.
Armstrong: The world is the totality of states of affairs. — quine
I actually prefer to dismantle reason, over dismantling the world. That talk and theory and reason is in the end inadequate to the world is relatively unproblematic; we can always just shut up about what cannot be said. And that seems preferable to trying to excise it from the world. — unenlightened
Thus the statement, "The world is the totality of facts." is not a fact, but a definition, a linguistic affair, for or against which factual evidence cannot be brought. — unenlightened
Yes. If talk proves talk wrong, stop talking. If talk proves the world wrong, talk differently. — unenlightened
So, what is it? Metaphysics or no metaphysics? — Question
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.