Clavius' Law says that "if (not-P implies P) then P" — Pfhorrest
If inventing an idea EID is possible, then that possibility Poss(invent EID) must have always existed. Since Poss(invent EID) is essentially linked to EID, it follows that EID must also have always existed. Hence, if it is possible to invent an idea, then the idea must have always existed, and can therefore not be invented. — Tristan L
That Poss(EID) and EID are essentially linked means that the wist (essence) of one involves the other, in this case the wist of Poss(EID). Poss(EID) is defined in terms of EID, so that (namely its wist) which makes Poss(EID) what it is has to do with EID. Hence, there’s a wistly link tying Poss(EID) to EID. — Tristan L
The possibility is defined in terms of the widea, so it couldn’t be what it is without the widea any more than B could be what it is without your leg (or the widea of breaking). — Tristan L
I take this to mean that the possibility of (inventing) the idea is defined in terms of the idea itself. Even if this were the case, — Luke
how this "essential link" relates to, or assists, your argument: that the possibility (of inventing the idea) has always existed, therefore the idea has always existed. How does this "essential link" of definition provide actual existence to what is merely possible? — Luke
what is merely possible — Luke
It seems your argument must apply not only to ideas, but to anything, since the possibility of any thing's existence can be defined only in terms of that thing. — Luke
Does the possible existence of unicorns also imply their actual existence? — Luke
Also, are you arguing that my leg has always been broken? — Luke
However, it does mean that the state-of-affairs and the proposition that you would break your leg has always existed, as has its negation. (Hint: it's not.) — Tristan L
how this "essential link" relates to, or assists, your argument: that the possibility (of inventing the idea) has always existed, therefore the idea has always existed. How does this "essential link" of definition provide actual existence to what is merely possible?
— Luke
Well, if something actual F is wistlily tied to something Þ through a wistly link U, then Þ must be actual too, for F is actual by premise, and U is actual since it is wistly. In my argument, Þ is a generic idea, and F is the possibility that someone might think of Þ (or any proposition about Þ for that matter). F and U are actual, so Þ is actual, too. — Tristan L
There is no such thing as a merely possible thing. All things are eternal, abstract, actual, and soothfast. Moreover, my argument for the actual existence of all ideas doesn’t even need possibility. — Tristan L
Assume that some thing x doesn’t have actual existence. Then that very (supposed) fact has actual existence (as does its negation). But this fact is defined in terms of x. Hence, x must be actual after all. — Tristan L
Does the possible existence of unicorns also imply their actual existence?
— Luke
Certainly it does.[...]
So there’s no piece of info belonging to E(g, Earth, 2020). That’s what we mean when we say that unicorns don’t exist on Earth. — Tristan L
how can the not-actual be actually thought about, and how can the not-actual actually be not-actual? — Tristan L
The existence of a piece of information is equivalent to the truth of a proposition. The falsehood of that proposition is equivalent to the existence of a piece of info belonging to the proposition’s negation. — Tristan L
It’s only the case that the corresponding piece of information, which would be concrete, thankfully doesn’t exist. — Tristan L
The word “wistlily” (“essentially”) is an adverb, while “wistly” (“essential”, German “wesentlich”) is the belonging adjective (how-word), and both belong to the nameword “wist” (“essence”, German “Wesen”). You might want to brush up your English grammar. Also, my speech is better and righter English, whereas your so-called “standard English” is sadly a pretty messed up language whichMy attempted translations of your "wistlily" language into standard English — Luke
Sorry, I still don't follow. The possibility of an idea is tied to its actualised counterpart by an essential link. — Luke
Unicorns certainly do actually exist, but also unicorns don't actually exist? — Luke
How does the "essential link" facilitate the leap from 'the idea is possible' to 'the idea is actual'. — Luke
And how do you distinguish between possible ideas and actual ideas? — Luke
If there can exist "a piece of info belonging to [a] proposition's negation", then "[t]he existence of a piece of information is ((not necessarily)) equivalent to the truth of a proposition". — Luke
The possibility of an idea is tied to its actualised counterpart by an essential link. Therefore, the idea is actual? Because the essential link is actual since it is essential? — Luke
You may also recall my more recent observation that you only draw an artificial distinction between possible and actual existence. — Luke
A fact about x exists, therefore x is actual? Sorry, I still don't accept it. E.g.:
Facts about dinosaurs exist. Therefore, dinosaurs are actual.
Facts about the extinction of dinosaurs exist. Therefore, the extinction of dinosaurs is actual.
How can it be both? — Luke
Quite easily: myth, fiction, make-believe, possibility. — Luke
Are you drawing a distinction between actual existence and concrete existence? — Luke
Unicorns certainly do actually exist, but also unicorns don't actually exist?
— Luke
You accuse me of confusing PossiblyExists(EID) with EID, which I clearly don’t as the former is a proposition and the latter isn’t, — Tristan L
An essential link is actual, and it links an actual thing to another thing. Hence, this other thing must be actual, too. — Tristan L
What you mean by “actual idea” seems to be... — Tristan L
Even more: Our faculty of thought isn’t very well-suited for thinking about concrete beonde, I think. Think about it: what an abstract entity is is very clear, but when you deeply think about the notion of a concrete object, you’ll see the notion become ever fuzzier and less meaningful until it melts away and evaporates in the end. — Tristan L
The possibility of an idea is tied to its actualised counterpart by an essential link. Therefore, the idea is actual? Because the essential link is actual since it is essential?
— Luke
Yes to both, as long as you replace “actualised” with “actual”. — Tristan L
For things, I’ve shown that possible existence necessarily lets actual existence follow. — Tristan L
let’s replace dinosaurs with sauropods in your example. I don’t see where the contradiction lies. Are you doubting the actualness of sauropods in earnest? — Tristan L
Here’s my account of the situation:
Sauropodhood is abstract (and thus eternal) and actual, as is the proposition than sauropodhood manifests in flesh and blood in this universe at some time. — Tristan L
This proposition became true when sauropods first evolved, so at that time, the info-piece belonging to that proposition came into being (and would stay there forever). The existence of this info-piece is what most folks likely mean when they say that sauropods exist (in contrast to unicorns, for instance), probably including you and certainly me. — Tristan L
All of this is in accordance with the fact that facts about sauropods exist. — Tristan L
Likewise, the proposition that the sauropods go extinct, that is, that after some time-point, sauropodhood no longer manifests in this universe in flesh and blood, is abstract and actual. It’s even true, so the corresponding piece of info exists. — Tristan L
As I’ve discussed above, possible existence belongs in the realm of info, not the world of things. — Tristan L
The info that sauropodhood manifests in flesh and blood on Earth in this world exists at time-points, in a possible world; the info that Alice thinks EID comes into being in her mind (again in a world at a time); but sauropodhood and EID simply are. — Tristan L
I noted the apparent contradiction in your statements that unicorns both do and do not actually exist. — Luke
I suppose by Clavius' Law, you could deduce that if black is white, then white is black, therefore white is black. — Luke
And btw how do you explain your contradictory statements that unicorns both do and do not actually exist? — Luke
In fact, you've stated that unicorns both do and do not actually exist. — Luke
I'm not doubting. I'm noting the widely accepted fact that dinosaurs (or sauropods if you prefer) are extinct and no longer actually exist. — Luke
They don't "go" extinct at some point. They are extinct. — Luke
Actually, you’ve introduced them. The moment that you even think about dinosaurs or sauropods (which you clearly did), you introduce dinosaurhood and sauropodhood, though you may be (and apparently are) not aware of it.I'm not talking about dinosaur-hood or sauropod-hood. That's something you've introduced. — Luke
Shown? Where have you shown that the possible existence of unicorns lets their actual existence follow? — Luke
For one, unicornhood certainly exists. In fact, it must exist so that the very proposition that unicorns don’t exist even makes sense.
Moreover, each individual unicorn actually exists in the sense that the property of being a unicorn with a rainbow-colored horn and through-seeable wings exists, the property of being a unicorn with a 1-metre-long horn and a scorpion-tail exists, asf. — Tristan L
Let me elaborate on the latter point further: Let OH be an arbitrary unicorn. OH possibly exists. That very fact MaybeExists(OH) that OH may exist actually exists (the same goes for its negation, the state-of-affairs that OH certainly doesn’t exist). Obviously, MaybeExists(OH) is essentially connected to OH, so this link is actual. Since MaybeExists(OH) and the link between MaybeExists(OH) and OH is actual, OH must be actual, too. This doesn’t just work for unicorns, but for all possibly existing things, and shows all of them to be actual. The same goes for NOT(MaybeExists(OH)).I could have used a property other than PossIsThoughtAbout, such as [...] the property PossiblyExists of possibly existing. — Tristan L
I'm not disputing that facts about x exists. I'm disputing your assertion that facts about x exists implies that x exists. — Luke
I doubt it. Ask most folks and I'm sure they will tell you that dinosaurs (or sauropods if you prefer) don't exist, unlike the "info-piece". — Luke
When I say "actual idea", I mean an idea that someone has actually thought about or thought up (invented). — Luke
But also something that is transferrable and that anyone (any mind) can think of/about. For example, E=mc^2. — Luke
What you mean by an actual idea seems to be particular to one mind at a given time, and so indistinguishable from an actual thought. — Luke
I'm sure if I broke my leg it wouldn't be so fuzzy or meaningless. — Luke
In response to your comment, though, if EID is not itself a proposition contained within 'PossiblyExists(EID)', then what proposition does 'PossiblyExists(EID)' express? — Luke
Are you suggesting that actual existence does not belong in the "realm of info"? — Luke
They "simply are" now -- after they have happened or someone has thought them up. — Luke
Many ideas are possible, and many may go without being thought up (actualised), just as many physical arrangements are possible and many may go without being actualised. You expect me to believe that all possible ideas and physical arrangements are already actual even though many may never be actualised? — Luke
I'm sure many people have survived life without breaking a leg. — Luke
By your logic, the possibility that all possibilities will not be actualised is itself actual (and therefore, all possibilities will not be actualised). But the possibility that all possibilities will be actualised is also actual (and therefore, all possibilities will be actualised). Just like the actual existence and non-existence of unicorns, how can both be true? — Luke
the possibility that all possibilities will not be actualised is itself actual (and therefore, all possibilities will not be actualised). — Luke
Is your leg the same as the proposition that it exists? — Tristan L
I hold that actual existence belongs into both the world of the abstract and the realm of the concrete, whereas merely possible existence only belongs in the latter. — Tristan L
But the fact about the physical realm expressed by “E = mc2” has always existed, regardless of whether anyone would ever think of it. — Tristan L
I'm not disputing that facts about x exists. I'm disputing your assertion that facts about x exists implies that x exists.
— Luke
How can you dispute such a fundamental and obvious fact? Since the fact exists, and the connection between the fact and a thing which the fact is concerned with exists by the very wist of the fact, the thing must also exist. — Tristan L
Can you still not see the difference between a proposition and a belonging info-piece? For every person, the proposition that that person breaks a leg always exists. However, not for every person does the corresponding proposition ever become true (and in such a case, it becomes false when the person dies). — Tristan L
No. Is a unicorn? Or a dinosaur? — Luke
Merely possible existence is concrete and not abstract? — Luke
What is abstract then? — Luke
ideas don't exist if nobody ever thinks of them. — Luke
Yes, if a fact about x actually exists (which it does), or if a false or undetermined proposition about x actually exists (which it also does), then x actually exists. I don’t see where the problem lies. I can perfectly maintain a distinction between info and propo. Can you?Except you are arguing that if facts about x (or if the possibility of x) actually exists, then x actually exists. Therefore, how can you maintain any distinction between propositions and info-pieces, or between possible existence and actual existence? — Luke
By your logic, if my broken leg possibly exists, then my broken leg actually exists — Luke
and if unicorns possibly exist, then unicorns actually exist. — Luke
If the possibile existence of x implies the actual existence of x, then whatever possibly exists actually exists. — Luke
Given your affirmation that the possible existence of unicorns implies the actual existence of unicorns, then how can you also maintain that "no unicorns have yet (as of 2020) evolved on Earth" and "That’s what we mean when we say that unicorns don’t exist on Earth"? — Luke
If unicorns don't exist on Earth, then they don't actually exist, right? — Luke
starts from a false premise.And if they don't actually exist, then you can't affirm (without contradiction) that their actual existence is implied by their possible existence. — Luke
Please tell me, if unicorns don't exist on Earth, then what type of existence do they lack if it is not actual existence? Alternatively (or additionally), what do you mean by "the actual existence of unicorns" if not that unicorns exist on Earth? — Luke
ideas don't exist if nobody ever thinks of them.
— Luke
I have repeatedly asked you to provide justification for that unsubstantiated claim, and you have repeatedly repeated it without giving any justification whatsoever. — Tristan L
Yes, if a fact about x actually exists (which it does), or if a false or undetermined proposition about x actually exists (which it also does), then x actually exists. I don’t see where the problem lies. I can perfectly maintain a distinction between info and propo. Can you?
By your logic, if my broken leg possibly exists, then my broken leg actually exists
— Luke
No; “Luke’s broken leg” in not a technically right noun-phrase. On the other hand, “that Luke’s leg is broken” is a right name-phrase, and it refers to the proposition that Luke’s leg is broken. This proposition actually exists, though it is false. Its negation, the proposition that Luke’s leg isn’t broken, also exists, but is true. Aren’t you mixing truth up with actual existence again? — Tristan L
What we call “existence on Earth” isn’t existence at all; — Tristan L
Simply look up the word "idea" in the dictionary. — Luke
All of the above implies that my broken leg actually exists. My leg isn't broken! I don't have a broken leg that could exist anywhere. — Luke
"What we call existence isn't existence at all"? If you don't see a problem with this, then there's not much left to say. — Luke
The idea of a horse is an abstract entity as it resides in my head. — Roy Davies
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.