Re: Is "existence" a predicate?
- From: holden_owen@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 14, 9:36 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:47:21 -0700 (PDT), sanchopanch...@xxxxxx wrote:
Hello,
I have read somewhere that "existence" wouldn't be a predicate in the
way e.g. "having a leg" is a predicate. Does anyone have a good and
actual reference on that or liks me to tell why?
A predicate is supposed to divide the universe into two classes,
the things that satisfy the predicate and the things that don't.
Existence doesn't do this, because _everything_ exists!
Yes, everything exists. If you want to claim otherwise you
have to prove the existence of something that does not exist,
and that's going to be hard.
The way language is used it often sounds like it's talking about
things that do not exist, but that's just a problem with the way
language is used.
Thanks,
S.
David C. Ullrich
I don't agree.
If we allow 'things' to include described objects as well as existent
objects,
then there are non-existent things, For example the described object,
the present king of France,
does not exist.
There is no primary predicate (property) that is true of the present
king of France.
ie. ~EF(F(the present king of France)) means that it does not exist.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is "existence" a predicate?
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Is "existence" a predicate?
- References:
- Is "existence" a predicate?
- From: sanchopancho80
- Re: Is "existence" a predicate?
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Is "existence" a predicate?
- Prev by Date: Re: robinson arithmetic is not incomplete
- Next by Date: Re: All panduks are green
- Previous by thread: Re: Is "existence" a predicate?
- Next by thread: Re: Is "existence" a predicate?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
