It's been said in these forums, and (though I'm not an authority) it seems right to me, that abstract logical facts are demonstrate — Michael Ossipoff
Abstract implications can be about propositions that are about hypothetical things. .... — Michael Ossipoff
.No, not how you'd say they're demonstrated. What you think the ontological source of them is
.--basiscally, where do you think it comes from?
.”Abstract implications can be about propositions that are about hypothetical things.” .... — Michael Ossipoff
.
So you're thinking that aboutness is in . . . some person-independent abstract realm or something?
None. None needed. I’m not saying that any of it is real or existent in any context other than in their own inter-referring context. — Michael Ossipoff
And where is "their own inter-referring context"? — Terrapin Station
I haven't the faintest idea what you're saying in most of that, unforunately. — Terrapin Station
It's meaningless to speak of objective existence or objective real-ness.
Existence or real-ness means something only in and with respect to a specified context.
Believing in such a thing as objective existence and real-ness is a common error of academic philosophers and people at this forum.
This physical world, the setting for our experience, is undeniably real and existent in its own context and in the context of our lives, and it would be meaningless to say that it's objectively existent. — Michael Ossipoff
.I agree with this: ". . . [Existence or real-ness] means something only in and with respect to a specified context,"
.the physical world in question is the objective world
.Also, that's not really addressing what I was trying to get you to address.
Objective existence is the opposite of only-contextual existence. — Michael Ossipoff
Maybe you're conflating two different meanings for "objective":
1. More than contextual
2. Unbiased or based on observation — Michael Ossipoff
You believe things exist that you can't describe? — Terrapin Station
But I was talking about a claim that something is real &/or existent in some context other than its own — Michael Ossipoff
Can something - anything - exist outside its own context? I can't parse that, I'm afraid. — Pattern-chaser
Can something - anything - exist outside its own context? I can't parse that, I'm afraid. — Pattern-chaser
Of course it can. The country of France exists in the larger context of Europe, to give a spatio-geographical and cultural and historical example. — Michael Ossipoff
The country of France exists in the larger context of Europe, to give a spatio-geographical and cultural and historical example. — Michael Ossipoff
That looks to me like you're simply observing that contexts can be nested. France exists in its own context, and within Europe (...the world, solar system, galaxy, etc :wink: ). I don't think anything can exist outside its own context. — Pattern-chaser
why not? Can´t a person deduce that, if a universe can form for no good reason, anything else can happen too? Including entities capable of producing new universes. — DiegoT
Interesting question! :up: :smile: Do I think existing-things are constrained by my ability to describe them? No. Do I therefore think that there could be things out there, real things, that I am incapable of describing? Yes. — Pattern-chaser
So doesn't France exist in the European context, in addition to its own context? — Michael Ossipoff
That looks to me like you're simply observing that contexts can be nested. France exists in its own context, and within Europe (...the world, solar system, galaxy, etc :wink: ). I don't think anything can exist outside its own context. :chin: — Pattern-chaser
That's a different idea, though--it's more agnostic or neutral. I mean "positively" or "actively" believing in something that one can't describe. — Terrapin Station
Interesting question! :up: :smile: Do I think existing-things are constrained by my ability to describe them? No. Do I therefore think that there could be things out there, real things, that I am incapable of describing? Yes. — Pattern-chaser
Right, the idea of "I believe that P" or "I believe 'in' x," where one cannot describe P or x, is incoherent. — Terrapin Station
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.