You did not say that at all. You said I was making fun of you.
You are, but that is not my main concern.
What problem does "empty world" solve?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
And what does it tell us about possible worlds except that an empty world is not a possible world, because the notion makes no sense?
You see, this is exactly the problem i have about your style. You keep thinking that asking a question advance your case. This is just deceptive in that it presuppose that you need to prove in the first place. This is like a little game for you.
You need not say anything, and then you will not miss the opportunity to keep quiet.
Do you mean empty world does make sense?( i am playing your game). I can play your game as well. I can ask a question by presuppose what i need to prove, because it is so much mort smarter by not actually using my brain.
Have a nice time talking to yourself, because i have no intention to talk to you again.
---------- Post added 08-09-2009 at 12:27 AM ----------
Answer this: Do you consider the EW to be an object, something that would fall under the heading of 'noun'? Or do you consider it to simply be a logical definition with no noun behind it? I would consider the empty set to be the latter (since it makes no philosophical sense to refer to it as an object, Mathematical Platonism is still platonism).
I argue that EW amounts to a 'limit' (as in a mathematical limit). I could call the EW the intersection of all possible worlds (since each world would have an ontological opposite).
Ontology is the study of "what exist". The basic question is "what actually exist". The epistemology is how do you know something exist, or to find justification for our ontogical claims. Every refering names N, refers. In other worlds, 'N' is a name, and N is a object. The existence of N is asserted in our ontology. Why do i go to all the bother of saying all this? Because i stipulated the word 'nothing' as a name that refers to EW. EW is of course asserted as part of my ontolgy. I postulated EW as a object which allows me to refer to it by a name( ie: 'nothing'). I could refer to EW using something else, but that is no good if i want to solve the question: 'why there is something rather than nothing?'.
Now, you can ask why i use the word 'nothing' in this way? Because i have a particular purpose in using it that way. I am well awear that condition certain conditions, the logical form of 'nothing' act as the logical constant 'not'. I don ` t use it that way, because i don` t have a particular use for it in the context of the present discussion.