Re: Existence as predicate
From: Mark Earnest (mark45_at_SPAMLESSairmail.net)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: Peter Olcott: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: Peter Olcott: "Re: [PO] halting problem: existence proofs"
- Maybe in reply to: Immortalist: "Re: Existence as predicate"
- Next in thread: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: Existence as predicate"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:00:32 -0500
Nothing exists. Because nothing has learned to be yet.
"Terry Firma" <tarald.a@online.no> wrote in message
news:txmYc.3877$WW4.54154@news4.e.nsc.no...
> 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).
>
>
- Next message: Peter Olcott: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: Peter Olcott: "Re: [PO] halting problem: existence proofs"
- Maybe in reply to: Immortalist: "Re: Existence as predicate"
- Next in thread: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: Existence as predicate"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|