Re: Existence as predicate

From: ZZBunker (zzbunker_at_netscape.net)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: 29 Aug 2004 21:56:44 -0700

Keynes <Keynes@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message news:<g0h4j05q12cs9loa4d5ai8h5jt2pt0pk5o@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:17:01 -0400, The Sophist <sophist@brown.edu> wrote:
>
> >Terry Firma wrote:
> >> This is an attempt at refuting Kant's claim that a thing's existence can't
> >> be a predicate:
> >>
> >> Since everything is connected ("hangs together") - there are no absolute
> >> dividing lines / there is no empty space - everything must have a *common
> >> denominator*; this common denominator must be necessary (since everything is
> >> necessary / has at least one cause); therefore general existence must have a
> >> necessary component/aspect in order to exist (therefore existence is a
> >> quality/predicate).
> >
> >Let's see. David Lewis denied that everything is connected, and while
> >his view may be false, I know of no conclusive arguments to that effect.
> > I am not sure what you mean when you say that there is no empty space.
> > However, even if everything were connected, this would not entail the
> >existence of a common denominator. Even if we assume that things must
> >share something in common to be connected, object 1 might be connected
> >to object 2 by sharing A, and object 2 might be connected to object 3 by
> >sharing B, and objects 1 and 3 might then be connected without sharing
> >anything in common. You seem to assume that things which are not
> >necessary must have causes, which seems not to be the case (popular
> >interpretations of present quantum theory deny this). Finally, even if
> >everything that existed needed to have a component in common, that would
> >not entail that this common component would be existence.
> >
> >Rather a stunning amount of mistakes for such a short argument, I must say.
>
> What is disconnected must be free of the web of causation.
>
> Causal connections of the past are considered necessary to
> produce the present. The past is all about necessity.
>
> We consider the future to be conditional and the past to
> be unconditional. This must be a flaw in our concept of time,
> because we suppose the future to be of a different nature than
> the past, and at the same time accept the past as a fossilization
> of the future (of past 'times')..

  That is not flaw. Since the *past* is not considered
  to be unconditional. *History* is considered to
  be unconditional. But we know for a scientific
  fact that the mushrooms Casteneda, and his even more idiotic
  dream-scape science adviser-publishers, advertises
  existed well-before Casteneda or even The US existed.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Existence as predicate
    ... >existence of a common denominator. ... Causal connections of the past are considered necessary to ... The past is all about necessity. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Does Exchange support ODMR?
    ... > showed lots of SMTP connections initiated that never terminated. ... or some other common factor. ... > down was delivered when the servers came up again. ... Steve Foster [SBS MVP] ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Flame Bait! Windows vs: The Unices
    ... > the existence of Word. ... WordStar might have used .doc way back then?) ... Even then it was a common enough extension that there ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Existence as predicate
    ... matter from other matter, and so everything is connected. ... > existence of a common denominator. ... Anything that exists belong to the category "existence". ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Existence as predicate
    ... > This is an attempt at refuting Kant's claim that a thing's existence can't ... existence of a common denominator. ... to object 2 by sharing A, and object 2 might be connected to object 3 by ...
    (sci.logic)