 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » Existence as the referent of true statements... |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| George Dance... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I've been recently thinking about one possible criterion of
ontological existence:
(T) Something exists iff it can be the referent of a true statement.
In the process, I wrote an argument against that as a criterion, on
which I'd appreciate any constructive feedback.
1. The square circle does not exist.
2. Assume that T is true. Then:
2a. The square circle is not a triangle.
2b. Therefore, "The square circle is not a triangle." is a true
statement. (Def. "true statement")
2c. Therefore, a true statement can be made about the square
circle.
2d. Therefore, the square circle is the referent of a true
statement. (Def. T)
2e, Therefore, the square circle exists.
3. If T is true, then the square circle exists. (2)
4. T is not true. (1,3) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris Degnen... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 17, 5:50 pm, George Dance <georgedanc... at (no spam) yahoo.ca> wrote:
[quote:3562cd27e7]I've been recently thinking about one possible criterion of
ontological existence:
(T) Something exists iff it can be the referent of a true statement.
In the process, I wrote an argument against that as a criterion, on
which I'd appreciate any constructive feedback.
1. The square circle does not exist.
[/quote:3562cd27e7]
"The 'impossible thing' does not exist."
The 'impossible thing' is a referent of a true statement.
Despite seeming to be a 'thing', (i.e. a concept), since its predicate
is that it is impossible, it has no possibility of ever being actual -
of being made or discovered - so this supposedly conceptual thing is
not valid. Impossible things do not have internally consistent
concepts and so do not exist even conceptually.
[quote:3562cd27e7]2. Assume that T is true. Then:
2a. The square circle is not a triangle.
2b. Therefore, "The square circle is not a triangle." is a true
statement. (Def. "true statement")
2c. Therefore, a true statement can be made about the square
circle.
2d. Therefore, the square circle is the referent of a true
statement. (Def. T)
2e, Therefore, the square circle exists.
3. If T is true, then the square circle exists. (2)
4. T is not true. (1,3)[/quote:3562cd27e7] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Burns... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
George Dance wrote:
[quote:de43ae09a6]I've been recently thinking about one possible
criterion of ontological existence:
(T) Something exists iff it can be the referent of
a true statement.
In the process, I wrote an argument against that
as a criterion, on which I'd appreciate any
constructive feedback.
[/quote:de43ae09a6]
Feedback: Your argument seems clear enough. Things that
do not exist can be referred to by true statements
(such as this one). This contradicts T.
I don't understand why T would be a good candidate for
a criterion of ontological existence. What would an
argument /for/ using T look like?
Is "ontological existence" just a fancier way to
say existence within (or membership in)
the universe of discourse? If that is all it means,
that we can speak of, for example, square circles,
then T is obviously true, by definition, it seems to me,
and your argument below is using a different sense of
the word "exist" -- perhaps "mathematical existence".
If the ontological universe and the universe of discourse
are different things, then "square circles" are
inevitable; that is, "the things that we can speak of"
will not coincide with "the things that exist (ontologically?)".
I don't see why we would want it otherwise. Note that
"things we can speak of which do not exist" includes
"some things that we /must/ speak of in order to learn
/whether/ they exist", such as even integers larger than
two which are not the sum of two primes.
In any case, T seems to be either obviously true or
obviously false, depending on your definition of ontological
existence. In neither case does it seem particularly
useful.
Jim Burns
[quote:de43ae09a6]
1. The square circle does not exist.
2. Assume that T is true. Then:
2a. The square circle is not a triangle.
2b. Therefore, "The square circle is not a triangle." is a true
statement. (Def. "true statement")
2c. Therefore, a true statement can be made about the square
circle.
2d. Therefore, the square circle is the referent of a true
statement. (Def. T)
2e, Therefore, the square circle exists.
3. If T is true, then the square circle exists. (2)
4. T is not true. (1,3)
[/quote:de43ae09a6] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 17, 6:50 pm, George Dance <georgedanc... at (no spam) yahoo.ca> wrote:
[quote:34c099414c]I've been recently thinking about one possible criterion of
ontological existence:
(T) Something exists iff it can be the referent of a true statement.
In the process, I wrote an argument against that as a criterion, on
which I'd appreciate any constructive feedback.
1. The square circle does not exist.
2. Assume that T is true. Then:
2a. The square circle is not a triangle.
2b. Therefore, "The square circle is not a triangle." is a true
statement. (Def. "true statement")
2c. Therefore, a true statement can be made about the square
circle.
2d. Therefore, the square circle is the referent of a true
statement. (Def. T)
2e, Therefore, the square circle exists.
3. If T is true, then the square circle exists. (2)
4. T is not true. (1,3)
[/quote:34c099414c]
If you believe that ontological arguement validates existence, then
you don't need the sequence of steps, but then you must believe that a
paradox exists and that is not logical.
I do not think that 2e follows from 2d
2b could just as well have been "The square circle does not exist."
and it would be then by your reckoning both true and false
simultaneously |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| William Elliot... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, George Dance wrote:
[quote:b4c1c04d4a]I've been recently thinking about one possible criterion of
ontological existence:
(T) Something exists iff it can be the referent of a true statement.
Your imagination dances around the philosophical absurd.[/quote:b4c1c04d4a]
Thus your imaginary dancing exists.
A graviton has not yet been discovered.
Thus the graviton exists and you get the Nobel prize in physics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mrdilligent... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 11:35 am
From: Jim Burns
<<George Dance wrote:
[quote:e7d0e876fc]I've been recently thinking about one possible
criterion of ontological existence:
[/quote:e7d0e876fc]
... .
I like the argument below; it shows some real thought.
But we must take care to realize that any statement, in any medium, is
just an EXPRESSION of the mind. There is no such thing as a true
statement. The statement may express a truth in a mind, or a
falsehood, or any combination of these. A statement which expresses
something actual is a "true statement" only because the mind doing the
expresssing is thinking something actual.
Accuracy, then, lies in the mind; either it represents something
actuual, or some abbrogation of the actual, or a depraved version of
the actual, or just plain a figment of that mind's imagination, an
hallucination. And this is a matter of mental health.
To get to the example itself, there is not only no such thing as a
"square circle," there is no such thing as a circle, period. The
circle is an invention of the human mind, one which got initiated back
around the beginning of civilization.
The felled tree trunk was the first "circle" (or "cone," if you
prefer). Precivilized humans used to use them to roll heavy objects
along the ground. Then it was decided that slabs cut from the tree
trunk could do much the same for lighter objects. Trouble is, tree
trunks and the slabs cut from them are not circular; they have bumps
and angles on the outside of their perimeters. So it was decided to
plane these perimeters to one continous arc so that they would move
more smoothly along the ground.
As it always happens, though, over the years and generations, people
became used to such "wheels," and got very interested in what they
themselves had made, while forgetting that they---man---had made
them. The early Egyptian civilization intensely studied these
"circles" and came up with "pi" for calculating the perimeter of these
"circles." Thousands of years later, at about the time of Kepler, it
was assumed that the cosmos itself was made of many circles, "perfect
circles," at that.
Not true; there is not a circle anywhere to be found other than those
made by man. The sun is a lumpy blob, all planets are lumpy blobs,
and so on. It is hardly a wonder that "pi" is such an "irrational"
number.
Now that is the truth, the truth in my mind, and so the statement
which expresses it is a "true statement."
Here is the rest of Jim Burns" argument:
<<I don't understand why T would be a good candidate for
a criterion of ontological existence. What would an
argument /for/ using T look like?
<<Is "ontological existence" just a fancier way to
say existence within (or membership in)
the universe of discourse? If that is all it means,
that we can speak of, for example, square circles,
then T is obviously true, by definition, it seems to me,
and your argument below is using a different sense of
the word "exist" -- perhaps "mathematical existence".
<<If the ontological universe and the universe of discourse
are different things, then "square circles" are
inevitable; that is, "the things that we can speak of"
will not coincide with "the things that exist (ontologically?)".
<<I don't see why we would want it otherwise. Note that
"things we can speak of which do not exist" includes
"some things that we /must/ speak of in order to learn
/whether/ they exist", such as even integers larger than
two which are not the sum of two primes.
<<In any case, T seems to be either obviously true or
obviously false, depending on your definition of ontological
existence. In neither case does it seem particularly
useful.
<<Jim Burns>> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:50:02 -0700, George Dance wrote:
[quote:b523035989]I've been recently thinking about one possible criterion of ontological
existence:
(T) Something exists iff it can be the referent of a true statement.
[/quote:b523035989]
Ontologically speaking, you are off to a very poor start here by resting
conclusions or making a position with an abstraction (T). I understand
this is commonly done and why, nonetheless this is a version of
'constructive feedback'.
The fact that "The square circle does not exist" is not a self contained
self-referencing truth that can be then made as (T).
First and last, a square exists as physical definition. This physicality
holds the truth not the word as only symbol ie 'square'. Same with
circle. Since a square circle can not exist as physical, any argument to
the contrary, however designed, is either invalid, of bad design or, at
best, becomes paradox.
You can judge which of these may best apply to your position. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Burns... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
George Dance wrote:
[quote:21e2624d30]I've been recently thinking about one possible criterion of
ontological existence:
[/quote:21e2624d30]
George, I would appreciate it if you would take a few words
to explain what you mean by "ontological existence". How is
it different from "existence" (if it is)? Does zero have
ontological existence? Do you? Do married bachelors?
Does Anselm's God? Thanks in advance.
[quote:21e2624d30](T) Something exists iff it can be the referent of a
true statement.
[/quote:21e2624d30]
I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I'm not a fan
of criterion T. Nevertheless, I propose improving it to
criterion T2:
(T2) Something exists (ontologically) /if/ it can be the
referent of a statement.
I find it more reasonable that being a referent of a statement
could be /one way/ we "discover" something exists (hence, "if"),
rather than being the referent of a statement encapsulating
all that there is to say about existence ("iff"). Of course,
this doesn't get rid of "square circles".
The requirement that the statement be true seems to be redundant.
Given a statement referring to X, I think it should be obvious
that a true statement also referring to X is possible.
[quote:21e2624d30]In the process, I wrote an argument against that as a
criterion, on which I'd appreciate any constructive feedback.
[/quote:21e2624d30]
I offered my feedback in an earlier post. I had no
problem with the argument I see (I still don't), but
I realize now that I am left feeling lost at sea
because I am not sure what the argument is about.
Also, what would an argument /for/ T (or T2) look
like?
Jim Burns |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Burns... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mrdilligent wrote:
[quote:796b47e10c]Date: Sat, Oct 17 2009 11:35 am
From: Jim Burns
George Dance wrote:
I've been recently thinking about one possible
criterion of ontological existence:
I like the argument below; it shows some real thought.
[/quote:796b47e10c]
Thank you for your kind words.
[quote:796b47e10c]
But we must take care to realize that any statement, in any medium, is
just an EXPRESSION of the mind. There is no such thing as a true
statement. The statement may express a truth in a mind, or a
falsehood, or any combination of these. A statement which expresses
something actual is a "true statement" only because the mind doing the
expresssing is thinking something actual.
[/quote:796b47e10c]
I think you oversimplify here what a statement is.
In previous ages, I might have mentioned spirits or gods
as counter-examples -- today, well, what about artificial
intelligence? Even without AI, we have today many automated
processes that make "statements" that are "understood" quite
well by other automated processes. (I use scare quotes
because I anticipate objections, but, really, what is a
significant difference between machine- and human-generated
statements, other than an arbitrary boundary?)
And why is the mind doing the expressing thinking
something actual? Not because of anything in the mind
(in general) but because of what is or is not out in
the world.
[quote:796b47e10c]Accuracy, then, lies in the mind; either it represents something
actuual, or some abbrogation of the actual, or a depraved version of
the actual, or just plain a figment of that mind's imagination, an
hallucination. And this is a matter of mental health.
To get to the example itself, there is not only no such thing as a
"square circle," there is no such thing as a circle, period. The
circle is an invention of the human mind, one which got initiated back
around the beginning of civilization.
[/quote:796b47e10c]
When you say that there is no such thing as a circle, you
are campaigning for a particular sense of "existence", perhaps
the one in which you and I exist and Sherlock Holmes never has.
However, there are other senses of "exist" which also have
their uses. In particular, there is one for which square
circles do not exist but round circles do.
I think your campaigning would be more effective if you
would outline the advantages of your sense of "exist"
being the sole sense used, rather than just asserting
that it is so.
[quote:796b47e10c]
The felled tree trunk was the first "circle" (or "cone," if you
prefer). Precivilized humans used to use them to roll heavy objects
along the ground. Then it was decided that slabs cut from the tree
trunk could do much the same for lighter objects. Trouble is, tree
trunks and the slabs cut from them are not circular; they have bumps
and angles on the outside of their perimeters. So it was decided to
plane these perimeters to one continous arc so that they would move
more smoothly along the ground.
As it always happens, though, over the years and generations, people
became used to such "wheels," and got very interested in what they
themselves had made, while forgetting that they---man---had made
them. The early Egyptian civilization intensely studied these
"circles" and came up with "pi" for calculating the perimeter of these
"circles." Thousands of years later, at about the time of Kepler, it
was assumed that the cosmos itself was made of many circles, "perfect
circles," at that.
Not true; there is not a circle anywhere to be found other than those
made by man. The sun is a lumpy blob, all planets are lumpy blobs,
and so on. It is hardly a wonder that "pi" is such an "irrational"
number.
[/quote:796b47e10c]
This is a reasonable history of the concept of "circle".
It seems to me that something very like this is true.
We will not see a true circle anywhere, you point out.
But your same story points out why we developed the concept
of circle. How do you suppose that we will manage
without it?
By the way, "pi" can also be called transcendental, which
I find even more suggestive.
[quote:796b47e10c]
Now that is the truth, the truth in my mind, and so the statement
which expresses it is a "true statement."
[/quote:796b47e10c]
What you have expressed agrees with what is in your
mind (I will grant), /but/ that is usually taken to
mean you are not lying, /not/ that what you say is true.
If you disagree with me, I need only point out that
this is the truth in /my/ mind. If you do not concede
the point to me (and I hope you do not, really), then
our impasse can only be resolved out in the world we
hold in common.
Jim Burns |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mrdilligent... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Date: Sun, Oct 18 2009 11:55 am
From: Jim Burns
<<(I use scare quotes
because I anticipate objections, but, really, what is a
significant difference between machine- and human-generated
statements, other than an arbitrary boundary?)>>
You are a smart man to have anticipated objections! I hope I
delineated (in a simplified way, of course) the difference between
machine and living organism (such as man), and therefore the
difference between their "statements."
To my thinking, a statement can only be generated by a living
organism. A living tree can make its own statement, but an artificial
tree cannot; it can only be a HUMAN statement about the human self.
That said, humans can make statements in many media: language, of
course, and mathematics; also drawing or painting or scupting; also in
the choice of clothing one wears, the car one chooses to drive, and so
on. A human can make statements even in the food he cooks!
<<And why is the mind doing the expressing thinking
something actual? Not because of anything in the mind
(in general) but because of what is or is not out in
the world.>>
Yes, of course, to a degree. It can also think about existential
issues (inside his skin) and express these mind-contents in
statements. But without a MIND, there could be no thinking, even
though there could be what is or is not out in the world.
[quote]To get to the example itself, there is not only no such thing as a
"square circle," there is no such thing as a circle, period. The
circle is an invention of the human mind, one which got initiated back
around the beginning of civilization.
[/quote]
<<When you say that there is no such thing as a circle, you
are campaigning for a particular sense of "existence", perhaps
the one in which you and I exist and Sherlock Holmes never has.
However, there are other senses of "exist" which also have
their uses. In particular, there is one for which square
circles do not exist but round circles do.>>
I am not campaigning for anything, unless it be the simple, and oft-
overlooked, truth. As for the word _existence_, it is a badly
misused as well as overused word. In the field of philosophy over the
generations, it has been tangled into the most tightly interwoven
knots.
I once asked a physicist friend of mine if he thought the existence of
God could be analytically proven by set theory; I had in mind a kind
of "Venn diagram" of three circles one of which God (and the universe)
existed but did not crosspartition with human mind; another of which
God was a figment of human imagination which did not crosspartition
with the first set (but did not preclude the first set, either), and
the third a crosspartitioning of the first two sets---something like
that. That was before _existence_ had become such a completely bunged-
up word used by all people, not just a tiny handful of zaney
academics.
Now I have a very different, but very complex, understanding of
existence, with or without the word _existence_. Too complex to lay
out here. But to be simple, does a unicorn exist? No, it does not
and never did exist. Even the brickabrack and toys shaped like a
unicorn does not render the unicorn existence; these are just glazed
clay figurines (which do exist), or stuffed cloth shapes, or
whatever. Sherlock Holmes never existed; he "is" a fictional
character in books, which do exist.
Circles---and all items of human technology, from the first
prehistoric adzes---do exist, but as man's technology, not as
cosmoterrestrial reality. Unicorns and Sherlock Holmes are not
included in man's technology, as humanly delightful as they may be.
We come next to ideas: Do they exist? Yes, some as delusions, some
as distortions of reality (man-made or cosmoterrestrial), some as
facts about man-made reality and some as facts about cosmoterrestrial
reality. What we ostentatiously call "mathematics" is an overall
idea, and as such exists---as each of the above categories, depending
on the idea. But the existence of ideas are METAPHYSICAL. Not made
of a quark's worth of matter.
So physical things exist, and metaphysical entities exist. Assaying
the truth of the first set is pretty easy; not so with the second
set. This is where Kevin's professor's "logical certainty" comes in
handy.
<<I think your campaigning would be more effective if you
would outline the advantages of your sense of "exist"
being the sole sense used, rather than just asserting
that it is so.>>
I would like to think that my outlining here and elsewhere is
OBJECTIVE, and not subjective or partial to any cultural convention.
So if I seem to "assert," it is either for the sake of simplicity (the
thought details that go into such a conclusion are myriad), or it is
because it hasn't occurred to me that the reader may not have gone
through equivalent analyses.
.. . .
<<This is a reasonable history of the concept of "circle".
It seems to me that something very like this is true.
We will not see a true circle anywhere, you point out.
But your same story points out why we developed the concept
of circle. How do you suppose that we will manage
without it?>>
I never placed a value judgement for or agaist the circle; only
pointed out that it does not exist (in cosmoterrestrial reality). Or
on the computer/robot. I seek merely to point out the basically
simple, if oft-overlooked, truth.
But, indeed, the circle is VERY useful when properly used! So is pi
for figuiring out the diameters of roundish blobs. So is the
computer, and the robot, too! Hammers are useful, too, when properly
used. But suppose the hammer came to be solely a decorative hanging
on a household wall? Suppose all people used hammers as wheapons to
bludgeon living organisms to death? There are MISuses of these
tools. The misuses are more probable when people do not understand
the truths about them.
<<By the way, "pi" can also be called transcendental, which
I find even more suggestive.>>
Explain please?
Pleasure to talk with you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James Burns... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I'm posting this separately. It doesn't really contribute to
the main topic, and I suspect my main response will not need
to be made longer, anyway.
mrdilligent wrote:
[...]
[quote][Jim Burns wrote:]
By the way, "pi" can also be called transcendental, which
I find even more suggestive.
Explain please?
[/quote]
You were talking about the lack of physical true circles.
You mentioned that 'pi' is irrational, which suggested to you
(I gather) the craziness of the things-that-would-be-circles.
Or possibly how badly the things-that-really-are-circles
fit into the physical universe.
I was just returning your serve, pointing out that 'pi' is
also transcendental -- which is very suggestive of something
that exists in a higher realm, and this higher realm is
very suggestive of the 'realm' where some say mathematical
objects such as 'pi' exist.
Of course, none of these suggestions made by looking at
the non-technical definitions of technical words should
be taken seriously. 'Pi' is irrational because there are
no integers p an q such that 'pi' = p/q. 'Pi' is
transcendental because, and only because, there is no
poynomial with integer coefficients, of finite order,
for which 'pi' is a root.
If we want to show that 'pi' is either irrational
or transcendental in some non-mathematical sense, we
must look somewhere other than to the near-random
coincidences of word choices made by writers who
were thinking about something else entirely at the time.
Jim Burns |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James Burns... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mrdilligent wrote:
[quote]Date: Sun, Oct 18 2009 11:55 am
From: Jim Burns
(I use scare quotes
because I anticipate objections, but, really, what is a
significant difference between machine- and human-generated
statements, other than an arbitrary boundary?)
You are a smart man to have anticipated objections! I hope I
delineated (in a simplified way, of course) the difference between
machine and living organism (such as man), and therefore the
difference between their "statements."
[/quote]
Perhaps you have, in other threads or on other occasions.
However, I would encourage you to re-read your previous post,
the only other post of yours that I see. Perhaps you thought
you had done so one more time, but I do not see it.
The closest I see to what I was looking for is your "But we
must take care to realize that any statement, in any medium,
is just an EXPRESSION of the mind." I didn't see any support for
this, and I attempted to provide counter-examples.
You made clear, and you make clear again below, that you
believe there is a fundamental difference to be found here.
If I may paraphrase you, the difference between statements with
machine and human origins is one of 'provenance', just as a
cabinet could, in principle, be indetectably similar to an
actual antique but, lacking the proper history, can only be
an imitation.
What I am having trouble finding is the reason this provenance
is important in the case of the statements. (Without this explanation,
it looks like an arbitrary boundary, to me, as I believe
I mentioned before.) In the case of antiques or fine art or
historical documents there are specific reasons "identical"
is nonetheless regarded as "not as good".
[quote]To my thinking, a statement can only be generated by a living
organism. A living tree can make its own statement, but an artificial
tree cannot; it can only be a HUMAN statement about the human self.
That said, humans can make statements in many media: language, of
course, and mathematics; also drawing or painting or scupting; also in
the choice of clothing one wears, the car one chooses to drive, and so
on. A human can make statements even in the food he cooks!
And why is the mind doing the expressing thinking
something actual? Not because of anything in the mind
(in general) but because of what is or is not out in
the world.
Yes, of course, to a degree. It can also think about existential
issues (inside his skin) and express these mind-contents in
statements. But without a MIND, there could be no thinking, even
though there could be what is or is not out in the world.
[/quote]
This exchange started as an investigation into the nature
/true/ statements. You have asserted that a mind is necessary
to make a statement (I am still reserving judgment on that).
However, even granting that, isn't a mind insufficient for
/true/ statements?
[quote]To get to the example itself, there is not only no such thing as a
"square circle," there is no such thing as a circle, period. The
circle is an invention of the human mind, one which got initiated back
around the beginning of civilization.
When you say that there is no such thing as a circle, you
are campaigning for a particular sense of "existence", perhaps
the one in which you and I exist and Sherlock Holmes never has.
However, there are other senses of "exist" which also have
their uses. In particular, there is one for which square
circles do not exist but round circles do.
I am not campaigning for anything, unless it be the simple, and oft-
overlooked, truth.
[/quote]
I have trouble accepting that.
When you say "there is no such thing as a circle", then
you are giving meanings to your words that are not commonly
used. Given their words' usual meanings, sentences such as
"There are circles." or "Circles exist." are utterly
uncontroversial.
If you are not proposing to change the meaning of some
fairly basic words, such as "exist", then you must be talking
gibberish instead.
[quote]As for the word _existence_, it is a badly
misused as well as overused word. In the field of philosophy over the
generations, it has been tangled into the most tightly interwoven
knots.
[/quote]
Perhaps the problem is that it is used in many different ways.
[quote]I once asked a physicist friend of mine if he thought the existence of
God could be analytically proven by set theory; I had in mind a kind
of "Venn diagram" of three circles one of which God (and the universe)
existed but did not crosspartition with human mind; another of which
God was a figment of human imagination which did not crosspartition
with the first set (but did not preclude the first set, either), and
the third a crosspartitioning of the first two sets---something like
that. That was before _existence_ had become such a completely bunged-
up word used by all people, not just a tiny handful of zaney
academics.
Now I have a very different, but very complex, understanding of
existence, with or without the word _existence_. Too complex to lay
out here. But to be simple, does a unicorn exist? No, it does not
and never did exist. Even the brickabrack and toys shaped like a
unicorn does not render the unicorn existence; these are just glazed
clay figurines (which do exist), or stuffed cloth shapes, or
whatever. Sherlock Holmes never existed; he "is" a fictional
character in books, which do exist.
Circles---and all items of human technology, from the first
prehistoric adzes---do exist, but as man's technology, not as
cosmoterrestrial reality. Unicorns and Sherlock Holmes are not
included in man's technology, as humanly delightful as they may be.
[/quote]
I wonder why you exclude unicorns and Sherlock Holmes. They are
surely components of stories -- arguably our first technology
and perhaps still our most important technology (though totally
lacking in 21st century flash, of course).
[quote]We come next to ideas: Do they exist? Yes, some as delusions, some
as distortions of reality (man-made or cosmoterrestrial), some as
facts about man-made reality and some as facts about cosmoterrestrial
reality. What we ostentatiously call "mathematics" is an overall
idea, and as such exists---as each of the above categories, depending
on the idea. But the existence of ideas are METAPHYSICAL. Not made
of a quark's worth of matter.
So physical things exist, and metaphysical entities exist. Assaying
the truth of the first set is pretty easy; not so with the second
set. This is where Kevin's professor's "logical certainty" comes in
handy.
[/quote]
You have gone into considerable detail now, letting me
know what your conclusions are. I called what you are doing
"campaigning" because I did not see, and still do not see,
how you arrived at your conclusions--and so I made an analogy
with political campaigns that are long on "Vote for John
Smith!" but short on why I should vote for John Smith.
You can always excuse yourself from explanations, of course.
However, if you do that, you will pretty much guarantee that
your conclusions will remain only yours.
[quote]I think your campaigning would be more effective if you
would outline the advantages of your sense of "exist"
being the sole sense used, rather than just asserting
that it is so.
I would like to think that my outlining here and elsewhere is
OBJECTIVE, and not subjective or partial to any cultural convention.
So if I seem to "assert," it is either for the sake of simplicity (the
thought details that go into such a conclusion are myriad), or it is
because it hasn't occurred to me that the reader may not have gone
through equivalent analyses.
[/quote]
With that in mind, would you now outline the advantages of
your sense of "exist" being the sole sense used? Please,
give whatever you consider advantages: moral, mathematical,
anything.
[quote]This is a reasonable history of the concept of "circle".
It seems to me that something very like this is true.
We will not see a true circle anywhere, you point out.
But your same story points out why we developed the concept
of circle. How do you suppose that we will manage
without it?
I never placed a value judgement for or agaist the circle; only
pointed out that it does not exist (in cosmoterrestrial reality).
[/quote]
The usual next step, upon finding that something does not exist,
is to stop using it, stop referring to it, whatever. That doesn't
require a value judgment.
If we are to continue to use the circle in much the same way
as we have been, how would you characterize the difference
-- in how we treat them -- netween existent and non-existent
things?
[quote]Or on the computer/robot. I seek merely to point out the basically
simple, if oft-overlooked, truth.
But, indeed, the circle is VERY useful when properly used! So is pi
for figuiring out the diameters of roundish blobs. So is the
computer, and the robot, too! Hammers are useful, too, when properly
used. But suppose the hammer came to be solely a decorative hanging
on a household wall? Suppose all people used hammers as wheapons to
bludgeon living organisms to death? There are MISuses of these
tools. The misuses are more probable when people do not understand
the truths about them.
[/quote]
Jim Burns |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mrdilligent... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Date: Mon, Oct 19 2009 5:07 pm
From: James Burns
<<I'm posting this separately. It doesn't really contribute to
the main topic, and I suspect my main response will not need
to be made longer, anyway.
<<mrdilligent wrote:
[...]
[quote][Jim Burns wrote:]
By the way, "pi" can also be called transcendental, which
I find even more suggestive.
Explain please?
[/quote]
<<You were talking about the lack of physical true circles.
You mentioned that 'pi' is irrational, which suggested to you
(I gather) the craziness of the things-that-would-be-circles.
Or possibly how badly the things-that-really-are-circles
fit into the physical universe.>>
It was a pun, of course.
<<I was just returning your serve, pointing out that 'pi' is
also transcendental -- which is very suggestive of something
that exists in a higher realm, and this higher realm is
very suggestive of the 'realm' where some say mathematical
objects such as 'pi' exist.>>
I think of the so-called "higher realm" as metaphysical. This "higher
realm" exists abundantly on earth in all critters' affairs, including
man's, as for example, all mathematics, to which there is, as I said,
not a quark's worth of matter (unless you consider the chalk, pencil,
or pixels, etc. used to express a mathematical statement). Not all
metaphysical entities exist on earth, of course; like matter, a great
deal of metaphysics exists in the universe itself, as unknown as it is
to us.
While we are at it (and not so off-topic as you may think), matter
occupies space. Thus physics deals primarily with matter-in-space.
But that which is "outside" of the parameters of physics---
metaphysics---does NOT occupy space. Now an important feature of this
fact is overlooked: metaphysics does not exist spatially OUTSIDE of
space, either. Space, and time as humans conceive it, are simply
irrelevant to matter-in-space, to space in general. Antidualists fail
to consider this; they believe that metaphysics and physics cannot
coexist side by side---in SPACE!
Judging from the origin of coinage---by a Scholastic in the Middle
Ages---the term _metaphysics_ refers to that which has NO mass-
energy, He assigned Aristotle's miscellaneous writings on PHILOSOPHY
and IDEAS to the new coinage he had made as a title for them. Now
just think of all the metaphysical entities we daily deal with that
are legitimately metaphysical and actual. Why, a mere shopping list
or notions of what to wear today are metaphysical! This brings us to
physics, which may CONCERN matter, but the IDEAS that we consider
important about matter are not physical! They, too, are metaphysical.
<<Of course, none of these suggestions made by looking at
the non-technical definitions of technical words should
be taken seriously. 'Pi' is irrational because there are
no integers p an q such that 'pi' = p/q. 'Pi' is
transcendental because, and only because, there is no
poynomial with integer coefficients, of finite order,
for which 'pi' is a root.
<<If we want to show that 'pi' is either irrational
or transcendental in some non-mathematical sense, we
must look somewhere other than to the near-random
coincidences of word choices made by writers who
were thinking about something else entirely at the time.>>
Again, my calling pi "irrational" was an (appropriate IMO) pun. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Just one comment perhaps to jog more thought: as mentioned earlier under
different words was the idea of a human having a history, and an
anticipated future, and certain death - limited lifetime. Human memory
is not perfect - it gently revises the past, interprets the present, and
anticipates a future and a demise, all of which shape how we make
'truth', for better or worse - it is all too human.
Consider an imaginary machine that uses perfect boolean logic for
decisions regarding justice. How would it determine givens, inputs, the
assumptions of a case? How would it interpret justice? (Keep in mind
that legal scholarship rarely uses the word justice, but addresses it
sideways in order to avoid death by definition, corruption.)
Remember _Les Misérables_ and inspector Javert who was the justice
machine. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <4ADCE904.7060100 at (no spam) osu.edu>, James Burns <burns.87 at (no spam) osu.edu>
wrote:
[quote]You were talking about the lack of physical true circles.
You mentioned that 'pi' is irrational, which suggested to you
(I gather) the craziness of the things-that-would-be-circles.
[/quote]
We usually consider irrational numbers as the Ancient Greeks did:
incapable of being represented using construction (the compass and
straight edge - and in modern terms, a compass alone). IOW, fractional.
[quote]If we want to show that 'pi' is either irrational
or transcendental in some non-mathematical sense, we
must look somewhere other than to the near-random
coincidences of word choices made by writers who
were thinking about something else entirely at the time.
[/quote]
Ah, as John Jones takes Pi. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:47 am
|
|