|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Jerry KrausJerry Kraus Date: Nov 17, 2006 08:40
In a posting on Google Groups mathematical logic group, "Is Existence a
property of something?",
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/7c2c191a9925e2d/b9b88c1f41e106ac...#b9b88c1f41e106ac
I suggested the possiblity that "existence", despite its important
mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
meaning. I've lately been exploring this notion in a debate on a
Chinese philosophy site, in Chinese, and I think some of the linguistic
and cultural aspects of the discussion there may actually have some
mathematical implications. See,
http://groups.google.com/group/cultstudy/browse_thread/thread/277c9464d12ee7c0/0e067f4c76225f99...#0e067f4c76225f99
Bearing in mind the work of Hilbert, suggesting that self-consistency
is the basis of mathematical existence, and Godel's uncertainty
theorem, effectively undermining the concept of mathematical
consistency itself, a broad-based philosophical analysis may be of
interest.
|
| Show full article (2.60Kb) |
|
| | 7 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Nov 17, 2006 10:49
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> In a posting on Google Groups mathematical logic group, "Is Existence a
> property of something?",
>
Here is a strong set of versions of the "Existence is not a Predicate"
argument. How would CHinese philosophy deal with these arguments?
There is no universally accepted theory of what the word existence
means. The dominant (though by no means universal) view in
twentieth-century and contemporary Anglo-American philosophy is that
existence is what is asserted by statements of first-order logic of the
form "for some x Fx". This agrees with the simple and commonsensical
view that, in uttering "There is a bridge across the Thames at
Hammersmith", or "A bridge crosses the Thames at Hammersmith", one
asserts the existence of a bridge across the Thames at Hammersmith. The
word "existence", on this view, is simply a way of describing the
logical form of ordinary subject-predicate sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
|
| Show full article (8.20Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Brian FletcherBrian Fletcher Date: Nov 17, 2006 12:26
> In a posting on Google Groups mathematical logic group, "Is Existence a
> property of something?",
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/7c2c191a9925e2d/b9b88c1f41e106ac...#b9b88c1f41e106ac
>
>
> I suggested the possiblity that "existence", despite its important
> mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
> meaning. I've lately been exploring this notion in a debate on a
> Chinese philosophy site, in Chinese, and I think some of the linguistic
> and cultural aspects of the discussion there may actually have some
> mathematical implications. See,
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/cultstudy/browse_thread/thread/277c9464d12ee7c0/0e067f4c76225f99...#0e067f4c76225f99
>
> Bearing in mind the work of Hilbert, suggesting that self-consistency
> is the basis of mathematical existence, and Godel's uncertainty
> theorem, effectively undermining the concept of mathematical ...
|
| Show full article (3.86Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TimTim Date: Nov 18, 2006 16:46
There is no blindspot; there is no indicator; right of way is vague.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mikegordgemikegordge Date: Nov 18, 2006 16:54
Tim wrote:
> There is no blindspot;
Yes there is, its the wool in front of your eyes from all those fucking
ewes ewe think about fucking Tim, ewe queer leftist commie cunt, fuck
off idiot.
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mikegordgemikegordge Date: Nov 18, 2006 17:12
Tim wrote:
> You got me beat there,
Nah no need to, you're beating yourself and ewe're good at it
obviously, e.g. ewe've been told to shear your sheep and ewe think that
means getting others involved, it doesn't you dopey leftist cunt,
whoooops phhhhsssssssssssssst m-a-a maaa's calling ewe better run now.
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SphereSphere Date: Nov 18, 2006 17:38
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> In a posting on Google Groups mathematical logic group, "Is Existence a
> property of something?",
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/7c2c191a9925e2d/b9b88c1f41e106ac...#b9b88c1f41e106ac
>
>
> I suggested the possiblity that "existence", despite its important
> mathematical implications, is, effectively, a concept with no specific
> meaning. I've lately been exploring this notion in a debate on a
> Chinese philosophy site, in Chinese, and I think some of the linguistic
> and cultural aspects of the discussion there may actually have some
> mathematical implications. See,
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/cultstudy/browse_thread/thread/277c9464d12ee7c0/0e067f4c76225f99...#0e067f4c76225f99
>
> Bearing in mind the work of Hilbert, suggesting that self-consistency
> is the basis of mathematical existence, and Godel's uncertainty
> theorem, effectively undermining the concept of mathematical
> consistency itself, a broad-based philosophical analysis may be of ...
|
| Show full article (3.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: mikegordgemikegordge Date: Nov 18, 2006 22:52
Tim wrote:
>
> Yo,
Pathetic absolutely pathetic, obviously didn't sleep too well did ewe?
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
