So, the logic of modally dependent counterfactuals does not reconcile with predicate logic?

Thus, to say under a unitary logic that encompasses all types of logic under one conceptual schema, that a counterfactual "obtains" or is "instantiated" is redundant.

Thoughts?

To expand, we can say that certain counterfactuals occupy a type of logical space (modal logic).

Then to assert a different type of logic (predicate logic) of assigning an existential quantifier to a counterfactual would be to assert that logical space as real wrt. to the logical space of modal logic AND predicate logic.

Hence, can we do that or is it incoherent to assign one logical space of predicate logic to another, of say a counterfactual (modal logic)?

I'm still pondering over how existential quantification works for counterfactuals.

Anyone?

I see Wittgenstein's language game approach as the best explanation of language, including proper names. — andrewk

Could you elaborate on this point?

@csalisbury, have you heard of Ketamine? There are some clinics that administer it to MDD patients. It's the next big thing, like "aspirin", but for depression.

Haha, I agree. I have no idea what I should do. I suppose I'll stay here in this safe space.

Calling out someone as "crazy" hardly ever produced any good and just is a sign of cowardice.

But, returning to the topic. I think this all points towards a conception that Platonism might be true.

Thoughts?

Yeah, no apologies and another mentor on the same forum thought I was on drugs, and basically affirmed what the other mentor thought about me. I'm going to stick to my safe abode here on these forums from now on.

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it (figuratively and literally). Every document has a timestamp on it, thus why not assume the same when you invoke "duration" or "period" into a sentence?

"Sameness" might be the issue here.

The issue wouldn't arise if time was instantiated linguistically into the sentence. Would it?

Had he said, "Maybe a psychologist." I would understand. But, "psychiatrist" pretty much narrows it down to him thinking I need to take something for posting what I posted.

What is this?

Wow. People really do hate philosophy at times. But then what happened to Socrates again? — sign

Yeah, I don't even know what to make of his quip. Was it in good faith or what?

I just got told on a physics forums to go see a psychiatrist for posting the OP.

Here's the dialogue:

Hi Q-1,

In regards to your thread/post: How do you explain this process?
Q-1 said:
When an author decides to write a book and create fictional entities like Harry Potter, or Homer from The Illiad, where do these fictional entities exist? In what substrate or form do they exist in?

Does this point towards some form of idealism on the part of the imaginative process of writing a fictional work or even if you want to take a Platonist view "operations on syntactical and grammatical rules of numbers and logic"?

Yes, I mean to imply, that we don't have to send out probes near even horizons to establish particle velocity of matter in that area. This can be done through the laws of physics and mathematics.
Seriously? I can't tell if you're just trolling or honestly believe what you wrote above. Do you really have so little understanding of the process that writers go through when they create fiction?

Your thread is locked, as it serves no legitimate purpose at this site.

Please view our forum rules guidelines for more information.

Thanks for your understanding and participation at Physics Forums!

Mark44
Mark44, 20 minutes ago ReportReply
18 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Mark44 said: ↑
Seriously? I can't tell if you're just trolling or honestly believe what you wrote above. Do you really have so little understanding of the process that writers go through when they create fiction?

I think there's some misunderstanding. What did I do wrong here?
Q-1, 18 minutes ago ReportReply
17 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Can my thread be moved to the Sci-Fi area?
Q-1, 17 minutes ago ReportReply
15 minutes ago
Mark44
Mark44
31,608 / 3,642
Insights Author
Staff: Mentor
Q-1 said: ↑
I think there's some misunderstanding. What did I do wrong here?
What you posted is nonsense. What do "operations on syntactical and grammatical rules of numbers and logic" have to do with how an author creates characters in a work of fiction? Not to mention event horizons and particle velocity.

Do not post such meaningless stuff at this site again.
Mark44, 15 minutes ago ReportReply
14 minutes ago
Mark44
Mark44
31,608 / 3,642
Insights Author
Staff: Mentor
Q-1 said: ↑
Can my thread be moved to the Sci-Fi area?
No.
Mark44, 14 minutes ago ReportReply
11 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Mark44 said: ↑
What you posted is nonsense. What do "operations on syntactical and grammatical rules of numbers and logic" have to do with how an author creates characters in a work of fiction? Not to mention event horizons and particle velocity.
Well, if we posit that Superman is the same as Clark Kent, then where do these fictional entities exist? On paper? In the mind?
Q-1, 11 minutes ago EditReportReply
8 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Whether I want to post about this "nonsense" or not is beyond my capacity. These are merely questions that are bothering me. If you want to tell me that my thoughts are unwelcome here; please point me in the right direction where I may be better able to analyze them.

Thank you.
Q-1, 8 minutes ago EditReportReply
7 minutes ago
Mark44
Mark44
31,608 / 3,642
Insights Author
Staff: Mentor
Q-1 said: ↑
Well, if we posit that Superman is the same as Clark Kent, then where do these fictional entities exist? On paper? In the mind?
The same place that any fictional characters exist -- in the mind of the author, who subsequently puts them on paper (or a computer document).
Mark44, 7 minutes ago ReportReply
6 minutes ago
Mark44
Mark44
31,608 / 3,642
Insights Author
Staff: Mentor
Q-1 said: ↑
Whether I want to post about this "nonsense" or not is beyond my capacity. These are merely questions that are bothering me. If you want to tell me that my thoughts are unwelcome here; please point me in the right direction where I may be better able to analyze them.
Maybe a psychiatrist...
Mark44, 6 minutes ago ReportReply
4 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Mark44 said: ↑
The same place that any fictional characters exist -- in the mind of the author, who subsequently puts them on paper (or a computer document).
OK, I understand. But, as more and more people read about Superman or Clark Kent and begin to tell each other stories about them to one another, then where do these ideas collectively reside in? A form of web of beliefs shared among people who are acquainted with what "Superman" or "Clark Kent" "denote"?
Q-1, 4 minutes ago EditReportReply
3 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Mark44 said: ↑
Maybe a psychiatrist...
So, you're telling me that I ought to go see a psychiatrist? On what grounds are you saying this?

Wow!

If a philosopher decides to classify such fictional entities in categories, is he not in the same situation as the author? In what sense and where do the ontological categories of the philosopher exist? How does ontology exist? What is the 'form' of the 'form' itself? Can the form be mental? But the mental is itself a form. The form or the meaning-charged sign or the concept is maybe what avoids the what-is-it of philosophy while making it possible. — sign

Yes, all good questions or a roundabout way of saying the same. What else do you think?

Yes, indeed.

That which we cannot talk about must pass over in silence.

And to add:

In that silence, "work" is done.

I like your psychological touch to the intent or "reason" why the Tractatus was written for Wittgenstein. I wonder what other members think?

Anyway, that was not my point. — Pussycat

What was your point?

I never would have thought of Wittgenstein as a misogynistic fool. Thanks for the highlight of my day.

That can all be true.

Most likely. Wittgenstein dearly loved Pinsent.

I dont know. Some historicism I see

It starts out on page 114, in the attachment:

So,

I think we left off here:

2.22 The picture represents what it represents, independently of its truth or falsehood, through the form of representation.

What is "the form of representation"?

But I think you missed the preface, and even before the preface, not Russells comments but W's. Well, what do you have to say about that? — Pussycat

I don't know. Please elaborate.

I could accompany you but as I am new, we would have to take it from the beginning. I studied and analysed the Tractatus, sentence by sentence, up to the start of chapter 3, so I could post all this here, but I have to translate it first since they are in greek! :) — Pussycat

That's fine. Let me know when you want to begin?

Then what would Kripke say?

one thing. — Banno

So, how does existential qualification/quantification work for counterfactuals?

if the name has successfully referred to a discreet individual? — Banno

What does "discreet individual" mean?

I really want to return to this book. Anyone care to accompany me?

It is the beetle in the box, that drops out of the conversation because nothing can be said about it even to oneself. — unenlightened

But, it can be shown.

Whoa. Let me think over this. Preliminarily, what does a memory denote then?

Good, so memories are metaphysical?

So, let me posit some thoughts. Idealism is true.

Namely, those memories occupy no spatiotemporal location. They exist in the mind. Whatever that denotes.

First, memories do not refer to anything if they're not present-to-mind. — Terrapin Station

What does that even mean?

Unless this is a lesson in how not to write an OP, please expand. — Baden

I'm just wondering about other's thoughts on The Man in the High Castle. I think I will watch it.

You just would need to make a commitment to sit down every day and read however many pages, concentrating on one thing at a time until you finish it. — Terrapin Station

Well, to my case, the Naming and Necessity reading group is doing well with the grace of Banno. Schopenhauer is a difficult beast to tackle so, I'm doing slowly on that. The Philosophical Investigations thread is doing alright, though quite haphazardous. What am I doing wrong here?

Good reason to start 20 different reading groups at the same time. — Terrapin Station

I can't help it. Curiosity, you know?

I didn't want to lead this reading group; but, follow it.

All I'm saying is if that's the case maybe be a bit more conservative in your involvement in these things. — Baden

Ok, I'll refrain from starting new group readings. I'm awash in Schopenhauer's WWAR and others as it already stands.