I didn't read through it yet, but from your abstract, I disagree with taking existence and logical consistency to be identical. I'm fine with saying that existents are logically consistent with respect to how you're defining logical consistency, but I don't agree that the two are identical. — Terrapin Station
What we imagine, exists in our minds, as thoughts or mental images. But if we imagine that some thing exists in some place in external reality where it doesn't exist, then this thing is not consistent. It may seem consistent to us because we don't know all the details of that thing or of its environment. But the thing is inconsistent, because we attribute it existence where it doesn't exist. — litewave
Reality is made up of our perceptions. If we want to change our reality, we need to first change our own perceptions. Once we change our perceptions, we change our reality. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Existence in its most general sense is identified with the principle of logical consistency: to exist means to be logically consistent. — litewave
The essence of the principle of logical consistency is that every thing is what it is and is not what it is not. — litewave
Do abstract objects (the form of square) exist? — Chany
Do unicorns, in some ontologically relevant sense, exist? — Chany
How can a physical object be logically anything? Logic applies to statements, not things. — T Clark
I don't know what that means. Is a four-sided triangle not what it is or is it what it's not? — T Clark
It would mean for the moon not to be a moon. Of course, that's an absurdity and that's why such inconsistent "things" cannot exist.What would it mean for the moon not to be what it is? — T Clark
It almost sounds like you're saying that existence is dependent on consciousness, but I don't think that's what you mean. — T Clark
What we imagine, exists in our minds, as thoughts or mental images. But if we imagine that some thing exists in some place in external reality where it doesn't exist, then this thing is not consistent. It may seem consistent to us because we don't know all the details of that thing or of its environment. But the thing is inconsistent, because we attribute it existence where it doesn't exist. — litewave
If they are consistent, they exist. Apparently not on our planet. — litewave
You're using "it" there as if the thing in question exists and has properties. It doesn't beyond something we're imagining. So it doesn't have an inconsistent set of properties a la "it exists and it doesn't." — Terrapin Station
But if you suppose that the unicorns exist in a place, for example on our planet, where the conditions are inconsistent with their existence (the requisite genes have not evolved here), then the concept of unicorns existing on our planet is inconsistent.The concept of unicorns is logically coherent. — Chany
You would have to embrace multiverse theory and say that every single possible world is a real world, as real and concrete as the actual world. — Chany
This leads to a contradiction, as it is also logically coherent (possible) that only the actual world exists and that the other possible worlds do not exist (or if they do exist, as mental objects only). — Chany
First sentence is an assertion. Why should I accept that to be is the same thing as logical conherence? — Chany
You define the thing as "existing where it doesn't exist"; — litewave
You defined the unicorn as existing in external reality (according to an imagination) — litewave
So you made no claim about a unicorn existing in external reality? Then there exists just a picture of a unicorn in your mind. It is consistent and exists as a mental thing. — litewave
What doesn't exist is the extramental/objective unicorn.The idea of the unicorn is logically consistent insofar as it goes though. — Terrapin Station
If the idea requires environmental conditions that are inconsistent with the existence of a unicorn then the idea is inconsistent. — litewave
Only if you're conflating an objective unicorn with a subjective idea of a unicorn. — Terrapin Station
An inconsistent idea is a collection of thoughts/qualia that doesn't refer to anything in reality. — litewave
What would be inconsistent about that? You must be defining "inconsistent" in some unusual way. — 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.