Do you believe a definition cannot be used as a premise? If not, why not? — ucarr
A definition takes the form "I am using the word 'X' to mean such and such in some context". A premise takes the form "X is being presumed here to be the case". — noAxioms
I suppose with some careful wording, a statement can be used as either. The closest example I could think of was the fallacy of using a definition as a premise (actually as a conclusion), resulting in Anselm's ontological argument.
Give me an example of a definition being used as a premise. — noAxioms
Consider: I will use E1 to develop a chain of reasoning that evaluates to a conclusion negating the possibility of predication standing independent from existence. — ucarr
That would be great. Nobody else has tried. You're saying that if definition E1 is used (I think Meinong is using it), then EPP must be the case, something Meinong denies. — noAxioms
Eternal universe uncaused is my starting point. — ucarr
By 'eternal', do you mean unbounded time (everlasting), or do you mean that time is part of the universe (eternalism)? Either way, it is uncaused. If it's caused, we're not including the entire universe, just part of it. — noAxioms
It isn't objective if it is confined to being public, repeatable, measureable. That's an empirical definition (E2). It exists relative to an observer. Putting the word 'objective' into a subjective description does not make it objective. — noAxioms
I read E1 as, "Existence is a part of all parts of objective reality." — ucarr
But then you go and describe a subjective reality. As far as I can tell, there is no test for something objectively existing or not objectively existing. Any test would be a relational test, a subjective one. — noAxioms
Death is the ending of life which is what you are really calling existence. — philosch
There is neither beginning nor ending of existence. For this reason, no life ever knows death. Why do we not fully know either the world or ourselves; eternity cannot be analyzed whole. — ucarr
The above quote is wrong (logically invalid) if you stick with the generally accepted meanings of words. You are by syllogism, inferring that "existence" and "life" are interchangeable and that "death" and "non-existence" are also interchangeable, and they are not synonymous. Your first premise, "there is no beginning nor ending of existence" is actually interesting and worthy of the philosophical debate. I'm not sure what my position is on that premise but it's certainly interesting. Your conclusion is "for this reason, no life ever knows death", simply does not follow from the first premise unless you hold "being alive" as equal to "existing". They are not the same thing without bending the rules of language. Your above argument or assertion is of the form... — philosch
Premise 1. "A" has no beginning and no end
Conclusion: From premise 1 (for that reason) "B" never knows "C".
Where;
A = existence
B = Life or being alive (either definition works)
C = Death or the end of A, (either definition works)
It's not valid logic period. The conclusion clearly does not follow from the premise. — philosch
That B never knows C is not due to non-existence, but rather due to the bounded infinity of individualized life. — ucarr
Again this may be poetic but it's not true rationally. Normal, logical, philosophical discussion and argument demand a consensus, a shared or agreed upon set of definitions. I was not "alive" 400 years ago. If you want to change the definition of what "always" means or what "alive" means then feel free, that's all you've been doing in your arguments......mixing, fuzzing and altering definitions in a poetic way to make grandiose un-provable assertions which is not philosophy.You, philosch, have always been alive, and you've never been dead. — ucarr
You had to have added the following second premise; A = B and C = end of A
You now get:
P1 - A has no beginning or end
P2 - A = B
Conclusion : B has no end (C)
The second premise makes the logic valid but that just render's the conclusion as a partial restatement of the first premise using different labels and it is trivial. However without the second premise the logic is invalid so the conclusion is false. A does not equal B without altering standard, accepted meanings. — philosch
Existence is defined as the quality of being real. Life or living things exist, but so do things that are not alive. Now you might get cute and start question whether or not a rock is alive or real but that's just playing with generally accepted meanings. Also by definition, life is a distinct quality of organic matter and the organic "things" that possess that quality, clearly lose that quality upon death, so "a" life has an end. Take a human being as something that exists. It's aliveness had a beginning and it has an end. The body still exists after the quality of life has ended, as long as standard definitions are being adhered to. Your above quote is in error. — philosch
This is the essence of my objection to your arguments. Words matter and the rules of logic matter. If we start letting the accepted meanings of words become malleable or squishy then we get malleable or squishy philosophy. — philosch
As far as being a solipsist, I am not. The assertion that the only thing we can be certain exists is our own consciousness has not been proven. I don't support that position even theoretically. IMO, everything you perceive through your senses is real by definition, including your consciousness meaning everything your perceive exists. I simply stated in so many words that you can only experience a subjective reality, your perspective or context limits you from experiencing (absolute) objective reality. I'm not stating whether objective reality exists or not, only that you cannot experience it if it does, because your conscious experience is filtered through your senses. I can say unequivocally that a rock exists but I cannot "know" the object state of the rock's reality, I can only know the subjective reality of the rock that I experience. — philosch
You have an understanding that puts "subjective" brackets around knowledge. Why do you not put these same brackets around your birth and your death? By your own words, you cannot know the "(absolute) objective reality" of their presence. — ucarr
"when death becomes an objective reality for you it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you" is of the form; When A (death) becomes B(an objective reality) of (-) C (you), A won't become a B - C because C no longer exists. That is not quite correct. B in this argument, is dependent on C by definition. Remove C and of course B ceases as well. So A becomes the B-C for an instant and then C and B-C or now non-existent. So what, it's trivial. — philosch
If there is an objective reality we can never perceive or realize it because we are completely bounded by our own senses including our consciousness. — philosch
B in this argument, is dependent on C by definition. Remove C and of course B ceases as well. — philosch
A, in the context of a given C is by definition the "end" of that C and anything dependent on that C. — philosch
I didn't over generalize anything. I specifically stated if the existence of a thing is dependent on the existence of something else and the first thing ceases to exist, then by the rules of logic so des the existence of the dependent thing. In this context of the argument you setup, the dependence is absolute. — philosch
When death becomes an objective reality for you, it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you. — ucarr
The dependence of a child's life on it's parent's life is a non sequitur as existence and being alive are not the same thing as I previously argued and a child's existence is not absolutely dependent on the parents continued existence. It's a different argument altogether. — philosch
That B never knows C is not due to non-existence, but rather due to the bounded infinity of individualized life. — ucarr
Na, I don't buy anything you say here. Bounded infinity doesn't make any sense at all, it's not infinity if it is bounded....again by definition. — philosch
Individualized life? Again just some words strung together in poetic fashion. Writing and speaking do not specifically enjoin you to alter the common words of language to suit your own sensibilities unless you are writing or speaking poetically, in which case anything goes. Philosophical and scientific writing and argumentation and debate demand the coherence of accepted meanings to allow for meaningful information exchange. — philosch
I'm going to assert; "No light bulb ever knows darkness". Um, I can play around with this statement but ultimately it's of little use. It becomes nothing but an exercise in semantic gymnastics. It is poetically useful and that's it. I believe that is what is driving your writing. — philosch
Again this may be poetic but it's not true rationally. Normal, logical, philosophical discussion and argument demand a consensus, a shared or agreed upon set of definitions. I was not "alive" 400 years ago. If you want to change the definition of what "always" means or what "alive" means then feel free, that's all you've been doing in your arguments......mixing, fuzzing and altering definitions in a poetic way to make grandiose un-provable assertions which is not philosophy. — philosch
Your understanding of the conservation of information is un-informed. The notion that your individuality is preserved is a gross misunderstanding of that law. It's quantum information that is theoretically preserved in that law, not macro scale emergent properties such as consciousness and memory. You may pose some other theory about the preservation of consciousness after death but the conservation of information that has been proposed as a physical law does NOT do it. — philosch
You have an understanding that puts "subjective" brackets around knowledge. Why do you not put these same brackets around your birth and your death? By your own words, you cannot know the "(absolute) objective reality" of their presence. — ucarr
Well now that is true. I stand by the fact you cannot know anything for absolute. I have held dear friends as they took their last breath and all I can say with absolute certainty is they are no longer present in my subjective reality. Something has dramatically been lost or changed state. We collectively call that transformation death. It is real in so far as anything else I can know is real. No amount of conjecture changes that level of real experience. The rest is the poetry of our collective reality, never to be fully grasped or understood, as I've stated, we cannot escape the limitations of our context. (Not withstanding any altered states of consciousness of which just deepens the conjecture and mystery that we are.) But these statements do not invalidate the practical aspects of reality, birth and death and so forth. — philosch
That's just giving a synonym, pretty vague if 'being real' is not subsequently defined.Existence is defined as the quality of being real. — philosch
I still don't know what kind of time is asserted to not exist.The OP [of the Ontology of time topic] started with little assumption and open mindedness on the definitions, because it is known to be historically abstract and contentious topic. It was looking for good arguments from different angles for exploration, which could offer us better understanding on the concept of time, and possible solid definitions and conclusions. — Corvus
It would indeed be contradictory.It is a logical contradiction to say that we don't know the true nature of the apple, but we do we know that the true nature of the thing-in-itself is an apple. — RussellA
Those are mental perceptions, hardly qualities of the apple itself. The only quality of the apple I'm interested in is whether or not it exists, and which definition of exists is being used when justifying the assessment one way or another.For example, suppose the true nature of a thing-in-itself is being green, but this thing-in-itself has been labelled pink.
Again you discard my scenario. But you still have two causes: walking and gravel. Likewise, my injury would not have occurred had any of the four causes not have happened. So again you seem to argue support of multiple causes, but denying it all the same.When walking on wet gravel looking at a coyote, you slip. Simplifying the situation, you walk on gravel and slip. What is the cause of your slipping?
Walking and not gravel - don't slip
Walking and gravel - slip
Not walking and not gravel - don't slip
Not walking and gravel - don't slip
This presumes an epistemic definition of cause, not a metaphysical one.Backwards in time, a single effect has more than one possible cause. For example, knowing the positions of the snooker balls on a snooker table gives no knowledge about the positions of the snooker balls on the snooker table at a prior time.
Q1 The EPP principle is that there cannot be properties without being attached to something existing. How is this principle justified
— RussellA
This is true of far more than just indirect realism, and is also true of both horses and unicorns. Just saying.The Indirect Realist perceives a set of properties in the mind, such as being four legged, being maned, being hoofed, etc.
OK, the bold bit seems to be a reference to either E4. If it was E2, it wouldn't be mind independent. 'world' indicates at least a portion of our universe.The Indirect Realist believes that there is a thing-in-itself existing in a mind-independent world
You don't answer this one. You talk about indirect realists, but the question is not addressed. The question as worded is similar to Q3, especially if E4 is used.Q2 If there can be properties in the absence of something existing, how do we know that horses exist?
Short story, by switching to definition E2. I mean, what other evidence is there that unicorns appear nowhere but in a book?Q3 If there can be properties in the absence of something existing, how do we know that horses are in a different domain to unicorns
The Indirect Realist may consistently perceive in their mind the constant conjunction of the set of properties being four legged, being maned, being hoofed, not being horned, not only being in a book, etc. They can then attach the mental concept "horse" to this set of properties.
They may also consistently perceive in their mind the constant conjunction of the set of properties being four legged, being maned, being hoofed, being horned, only being in a book, etc. They can then attach the mental concept "unicorn" to this set of properties.
This is not an example of a definition. If I didn't know the meaning of the word 'symmetrical', I would not know how to use the word after reading that.Example: You can't dig up earth without creating a pile of earth and a hole that shake hands symmetrically. — ucarr
That wording sounds more like a definition, even if it's not one that is in any dictionary. But that one is not worded as a premise.This is my definition of symmetry, i.e., transformation without net change.
This is not E1 at all. It seems to suggest that a thing exists if it is material. A unicorn exists, but distance does not.Material things vis-á-vis existence describes a part/whole relationship. Existence indexes physics in that it supervenes as context into all material things
You start by presuming your conclusion directly? It is not going to in any way justify how we know what exists or not if you presume the list right up front rather than conclude it by some logic and/or evidence.Eternal universe existence uncaused is my starting point.
Why would he mention that explicitly? He published his stuff before modern physics even gave us words for the three kinds of time, and even you don't know which kind of time you're denying despite not having that excuse.What does Meinong say about the existence of time? — Corvus
Why not? Even the ancient Greek folks mentioned on the existence of time.Why would he mention that explicitly? — noAxioms
When did I say I denied anything? I have been just asking questions to various folks for their opinions and ideas, so I could compare them in order to learn more about it.even you don't know which kind of time you're denying despite not having that excuse. — noAxioms
Well, you need to have listens to, think and learn about them rather than just be narrowminded and trying to twist everything said.There are lots of you-tubes claiming time doesn't exist, but I don't watch links whose arguments are not summarized by the posters, so I don't know what they're denying or how they go about it. — noAxioms
But they also didn't know about the three kinds.Even the ancient Greek folks mentioned on the existence of time. — Corvus
That's good. What was learned? I did peek at the tail of your topic when you mentioned it. Why post links to all those time-denial videos? Do you understand any of their arguments? Do you agree? None of that was posted, so all I can presume is that you're using them to promote an opinion of denying it, without even knowing which kind is being denied. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's usually why people post links like that without discussion of them.I have been just asking questions to various folks for their opinions and ideas, so I could compare them in order to learn more about it.
I don't because I didn't participate in that topic, and this one isn't about time specifically, especially when 'exists' has not been defined when asking if any particular thing exists or not. This topic is about the necessity of doing that, and the justifications or lack of them for the various definitions.Well, you need to have listens to, think and learn about them rather than just be narrowminded and trying to twist everything said.
I don't because I didn't participate in that topic, and this one isn't about time specifically, especially when 'exists' has not been defined when asking if any particular thing exists or not. This topic is about the necessity of doing that, and the justifications or lack of them for the various definitions. — noAxioms
Likewise, my injury would not have occurred had any of the four causes not have happened. — noAxioms
Overdetermination occurs when a single-observed effect is determined by multiple causes, any one of which alone would be conceivably sufficient to account for ("determine") the effect.
There are many problems of overdetermination. First, overdetermination is problematic from the viewpoint of a standard counterfactual understanding of causation, according to which an event is the cause of another event if and only if the latter would not have occurred, had the former not occurred.
Second, overdetermination is problematic in that we do not know how to explain where the extra causation "comes from" and "goes". This makes overdetermination mysterious.
You claim this indirect realist knows nothing about the thing, and yet he holds a belief that it exists in this way. Isn't that irrational? Is the belief just a matter of faith then?...........................All that said, identifying as a kind of realist doesn't define what is meant by 'real'. What is real? In what way is it real (R1-R6)? Some of those definitions have empirical backing and some don't. — noAxioms
This presumes an epistemic definition of cause, not a metaphysical one. — noAxioms
The only quality of the apple I'm interested in is whether or not it exists, and which definition of exists is being used when justifying the assessment one way or another...................................almost everybody uses definition E2 when the say 'exists', but then convince themselves that some other definition must also be the case. — noAxioms
You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. — ucarr
Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. — ucarr
Example: You can't dig up earth without creating a pile of earth and a hole that shake hands symmetrically. — ucarr
This is not an example of a definition. If I didn't know the meaning of the word 'symmetrical', I would not know how to use the word after reading that. — noAxioms
This is my definition of symmetry, i.e., transformation withoutnetchange.
— ucarr
That wording sounds more like a definition, even if it's not one that is in any dictionary. But that one is not worded as a premise. — noAxioms
Material things vis-á-vis existence describes a part/whole relationship. Existence indexes physics in that it supervenes as context into all material things. — ucarr
This is not E1 at all. It seems to suggest that a thing exists if it is material. A unicorn exists, but distance does not. — noAxioms
Eternal universe uncaused is my starting point. — ucarr
You start by presuming your conclusion directly? It is not going to in any way justify how we know what exists or not if you presume the list right up front rather than conclude it by some logic and/or evidence. — noAxioms
You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. This gets at my main theme: no existing thing is alone. This especially true of children who, without their ancestors, would scarcely know themselves. The general fund of existence: mass, matter, energy, space, and time have total reach WRT all existing things. — ucarr
I get what you mean by your example (bounded infinity) and I was mistaken. — philosch
Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. — ucarr
Empirical experience is different from pure logic because when a parent leaves human form, they do not cease to exist. — ucarr
If you want my opinion, Proper time exists by E2,3,4,5,6. Coordinate time exists E2,3,6 The time you mention above exists E2,3 (pretty much the same score as the tooth fairy).Present exists, but it disappears before we notice it.
Past exists in our memories only. Time follows to the future. — Corvus
Not overdeterminism because any one of my causes along would not have caused the injury. I already explained this.You are proposing Overdetermination, which is philosophically problematic. A solution to the Overdetermination problem would make a good PhD thesis.
From the Wikipedia article on Overdetermination
Overdetermination occurs when a single-observed effect is determined by multiple causes, any one of which alone would be conceivably sufficient to account for ("determine") the effect. — RussellA
Got it. Anything not proven (pretty much everything) doesn't count as 'knowing', so you know nothing. So maybe we should not talk about knowing and just go with what has evidence and what doesn't, looking for plausible conclusions rather than definite ones.I believe that things exist in a mind-independent world and I can justify my belief. — RussellA
What do you mean by 'are real'? Funny that I've hammered on that question dozens of times and you still use the word without mention of which definition R1-R6 you mean.I know that my perceptions are real
Which is why they correspond to E1-E6, but you still didn't pick one.Generally, "real" and "exist" are synonyms
What happened to 'none of the above'? I certainly don't identify with any of those labels. But then, I suppose it comes down to the definition of 'realism', which is not specified in the label 'realist'.There are three theories of perception, Idealism, Direct Realism and Indirect Realism. — RussellA
You're describing E2. If it's objective, it's not relative to anything.E1 The only objective reality I know about exists in my mind
Sure, by definition. E2 is effectively solipsism or at least anthropocentrism. E2 is reality defined by perception. EPP holds since predication requires a mind in order for the predicate to be.E2 The only things I know about exist in my mind.
No, that's still E2. I think you're stuck on E2. All your comments are about what you know, and none are about the metaphysics of what is. Use logic, not perception, to analyze the mind independent ones. EPP holds under E3 by definition.E3 The only things that have predicates exist in my mind.
Which is like saying that the universe is the universe. EPP apparently doesn't hold because things in other universe also have predicates despite not existing. This has nothing to do with anybody knowing about it. Most of the definitions have nothing to do with epistemology.E4 The only objective state of this universe I know about exists in my mind, although I believe that an objective state of the universe also exists in a mind-independent world.
E4 has nothing to do with me or the universe. It has to do with causality, any causal structure. E5 applies say to the set of all possible chess states. It does not apply to the Mandelbrot set. EPP does not hold because there are things with predication (17 being prime for example) but not meeting the E5 definition. E5 requires a temporal structure.E5 I know the state that exists in my mind, and believe that it was caused by a prior state that existed in a mind-independent world.
Again E2. E6 is another mind independent definition. Hard to judge EPP on this one but I think it holds since I can form a contradiction if you posit otherwise.E6 I know the domain that exists in my mind and believe that there is another domain that exists in a mind-independent world
This is leveraging E4, not E1. All the examples are relative to our universe. Your prior definition was that it was 'material'.~E1- Existence is a part of all parts of objective reality. My premise above is an elaboration of this definition. Distance examples existence in two modes: a) distance as an interval of spacetime is a material reality; b) distance as an abstract thought is a cognitive reality. — ucarr
I have no clue how those words are to be interpreted. You wouldn't even define 'eternal' for me, even though I made it a multiple choice question.b) Existence indexes physics in that it supervenes as context into all material things; c) Existence adds the context of symmetry and conservation to an emergent thing that has properties.
Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. Do you see that this is more evidence that we are neither born nor eventually become dead. With pure logic symbols on paper, we say that if B is contingent upon A, then destruction of A logically demands destruction of B. — ucarr
then you're in no position to make your supporting claim for your argument: — ucarr
Got it. Anything not proven (pretty much everything) doesn't count as 'knowing', so you know nothing...................................I certainly don't identify with any of those labels. — noAxioms
===============================================================================This A level philosophy topic looks at 3 theories of perception that explain how we can acquire knowledge from experience, i.e. a posteriori. They are: Direct Realism, Indirect Realism and Idealism
The theories disagree over the metaphysical question of whether the external world exists (realism vs. anti-realism) and the epistemological question the way we perceive it (direct vs. indirect).
Direct realism is the view that the external world exists independently of the mind (hence, realism). And we perceive the external world directly (hence, direct)
Indirect realism is the view that the external world exists independently of the mind (hence, realism). But we perceive the external world indirectly, via sense data (hence, indirect)
Idealism is the view that there is no external world independent of minds (so it rejects realism – both direct and indirect). We perceive ideas directly.
I got a quote that suggests that Meinong is perhaps using E4 as his definition of exists — noAxioms
E1 "Is a member of all that is part of objective reality"
E2 "I know about it"
E3 "Has predicates"
E4 "Is part of this universe" or "is part of this world"
E5 "state X exists to state Y iff X is part of the causal history of Y"
E6 "existential quantification", where 51 is not prime because there exists an even divisor that is neither — noAxioms
If you want my opinion, Proper time exists by E2,3,4,5,6. Coordinate time exists E2,3,6 The time you mention above exists E2,3 (pretty much the same score as the tooth fairy).
E1 thus far is meaningless and I cannot assign that to anything. — noAxioms
Here's a very basic example of the error you are making;
A = B
B = C
Therefore A = C.
This is logically valid in all cases.
It's sometimes true and most of the time false as a truth claim.
For the above argument to be true, A has to actually be equal to B and B has to actually be equal to C .
This is true in all cases. If A is related to B but not exactly equal to B then the conclusion is false even though the logic is valid. If B is related to C but not identical, then the conclusion is false. — philosch
The logic is valid. The conclusion is still false. The reason is that the premise's are false. There's nothing more to it then that. Your interchanging of the meanings of words has lead you down this fallacious path. — philosch
Sounds like combining them would create contradictions, not just convolution.E1 to E6 can be interpreted from the position of Idealism, from the position of Direct Realism and from the position of Indirect Realism. Each interpretation will be different. Any interpretation of E1 to E6 that is based on a combination of Idealism, Direct Realism and Indirect Realism will become unnecessarily convoluted. — RussellA
I looked up the SEP page on 'action theories of perception' and got all kinds of options, many of which are not mutually exclusive. I didn't read enough to figure out which one(s) seems to match how I think of it. Your items were not on any of the lists, and are more theories of mind and/or ontology, but apparently you find pages that do list them under 'perception'. All three are realist views, and I'm not a realist (E1), but I could be a realist under E5 in that I acknowledge that certain things relate to other things. E5 explicitly confines this to a causal relation. See my response to Corvus below for more detail.If you don't identify with either Idealism, Direct Realism or Indirect Realism, which theory of perception are you using?
Please read the disclaimer in the OP if you still have to ask that.By the objective state of this universe in E4, do you mean the domain of the mind or the domain of the mind-independent?
Which is consistent with my disclaimer, and which eliminates E2 and narrows things down to 5 possibilities instead of 6.I understand that Meinong uses "exist" to refer to the domain of the mind-independent.
What needs clarification then is your notion of 'time'. I said nothing so ambiguous as any of the definitions being applicable or not to time. I listed three very well known and very different kinds of time, all three of which are heavily defined, used, and discussed in literature, and are not obscure at all. Hence my ability to render a meaningful opinion about how the various definitions of 'exists' might apply to each or not.I am not sure if E1,4,5,6 make sense or are meaningful for existence of time, when they are made up of abstract and obscure concepts which need clarification. — Corvus
That's E1, which I did not list for anything, since I do not identify as a realist. As for what it means, that is unclear. The meaning needs to be clarified by anybody who asserts it, but from my standpoint, a thing that has this property is indistinguishable from a things that doesn't have it, but is otherwise identical. I cannot say that of any of the other 5 definitions. The other 5 are all meaningful in some way, and a distinction can be drawn.For instance, what do you mean by "part of objective reality"?
If somebody asserts E1 existence, then at least a partial meaning would be nice.Are we supposed to be able to understand and grasp the full meaning of objective reality?
The universe that has you in it, as opposed to different universes that don't.What is "this universe"?
The bounds of 'this universe' is left to the user. Some define it to be only the visible universe, or only 'this world'. If so confined, then other visible universes or worlds become a multiverse of sorts (Tegmark listed four kinds of multiverse, the first and third of which are mentioned here). But at one's choice, these can be considered to all be just 'the universe'. Type 4 is more of an E1 definition: All that exists or all that is real. I find that pretty meaningless.How far and how much "this universe" supposed to cover, or be?
This has to do with the E5 definition (causal definition). It is an utterly explicit relational definition that only works with structures with temporal causation. X and Y are system states. Let's say X is a meteor. Y is a moon crater. State X is prior to state Y since it takes time for state X to evolve into a world including state Y.. Since state Y is a function of state X, then X can be said to exist in relation to state Y."the causal history"? What do you mean by that?
No, it has nothing to do with time. 35 is not prime because (∃x) (x is non-trivial factor of 35). That's straight up existential quantification, and an example that makes no reference to time."existential quantification"? Surely that is not time itself is it?
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.