I see a problem with the implied claim that people choose what exists, yes! — fdrake
Things don't appear because we so choose. — Banno
But our thinking doesn't make it so. Things don't appear because we so choose. All that is happening here is the choice of topic. — Banno
Purpose or context choose the domain - therefore purpose and context choose what exists? — fdrake
The difficulty I see with epistemic logic is that belief is a relation between a statement and an individual. But it's not just Tolkien who believes Frodo walked into Mordor. Hence my argument that statements about Frodo continue despite the demise of the author. — Banno
Surely, Tolkien didn't believe in Frodo the same way we believe the cup is still on the counter after we walk out of the room, no? — Shawn
So breakfast need not include Paris. — Banno
What stops Santa Claus existing if people talk that way? — fdrake
(G) Gollum is more famous than Gödel. — Free Logic » 5.4 Logics of Fiction
What was used, what mentioned? — Banno
In {eggs, bacon}
Paris = London = porridge — bongo fury
obvious baloney such as
the domain of non-existents.
— Snakes Alive — bongo fury
"Paris", "London" and "porridge" were used, in order to mention, in this case, nothing. — bongo fury
existence is not treated as a predicate in logic. That is, there is no simple way to parse. "Xtrix exists". — Olivier5
Simply put, it's about the concept, Hobbits. — Sam26
This would seem to be the case in order to make sense of the statement, "Hobbits do not exist." In other words, for a claim to have meaning it must be about something, but since Hobbits don't exist, what could the statement be about? Simply put, it's about the concept, Hobbits. Thus, existence is not something individuals possess, but is rather, a way of expressing something about concepts. — Sam26
a member of an imaginary race similar to humans, of small size and with hairy feet, in stories by J. R. R. Tolkien.
Also as mentioned previously, that something exists cannot be the conclusion of an argument in free logic. Free Logic does not permit the expression of existence conditions.
So here we have the best attempt to formalise existence as a predicate for individuals. And it cannot be used to infer that some particular individual exists.
In particular, the logic shows that such arguments rely on question-begging.
Of the arguments of this type, two are of particular interest:
Any necessary being exists (argument for God)
I think therefore I am (Descartes)
Hence, another change of title for this thread. — Banno
I think, therefore I am — René Descartes
Consider, for example, the obviously valid inference:
I think.
Whatever thinks exists.
∴ I exist.
Its natural formalization in free logic is Ti, U(x)(Tx⊃E!x). But this form is invalid. To obtain the conclusion, we must first deduce Ti⊃E!i by specification from the second premise and then use modus ponens with the first. But since the logic is free, specification requires the question-begging premise E!x.
It's as if Being is tied up with the structure of and ideas in lingua itself. We can't talk about the former without going into the intricacies (those pertinent) of the other. — TheMadFool
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.