numbers vs. words

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 10:45 am
@Egregias,
Egregias;138300 wrote:
Yes, it's an easy question when it comes to the physical world.

Except by nominalists.


Well, do you think abstract objects exist? And if so, can you provide me a convincing argument? I am reading my ass off, and I haven't found one yet. But I will continue my research.
 
Ahab
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 10:47 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;138293 wrote:
As for what you said personally: We call things which do not exist fictional. Such as Rudolph.


Rudolph is an imaginary creature. Becuase he is depicted in a work of fiction we can also call him a fictional character. Or if he is depicted in a cartoon we can also call him a cartoon character.

But those works of fiction and cartoons are representations of what we conceive Rudolph to be.

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 08:50 AM ----------

Zetherin;138297 wrote:

So what do you think we are doing? Do you think we are applying imaginary properties to an imaginary character, or are we applying properties to our concept of that imaginary character? And, is there a difference?


The properties are simply part of what we conceive this imaginary being to be. How can you imagine something that doesn't have what we call properties?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 10:51 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;138297 wrote:
Wait, I can't tell if you just agreed or disagreed with me.
Among abstract objects are propositions, for realists these exist timelessly and without location. The proposition "Rudolph exists" exists, according to realists about abstract objects. As far as I know, the only motivation for claiming that abstract objects are real is to be able to claim that all propositions about the future are true now. As I reject determinism, I have no problem with propositions about the future lacking truth values.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 10:54 am
@cws910,
Ahab wrote:

But those works of fiction and cartoons are representations of what we conceive Rudolph to be.


This means we have a concept of Rudolph, even though he does not exist. I think this is true.

Quote:

The properties are simply part of what we conceive this imaginary being to be. How can you imagine something that doesn't have what we call properties?


The imagined thing would have imagined properties. You can imagine millions of characters, but that does not mean they exist. And Only things which exist have properties.
 
Egregias
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 10:59 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;138301 wrote:
Well, do you think abstract objects exist? And if so, can you provide me a convincing argument? I am reading my ass off, and I haven't found one yet. But I will continue my research.

I repeat: I don't believe there is a matter of fact that bears upon that question.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 11:05 am
@Egregias,
Egregias;138307 wrote:
I repeat: I don't believe there is a matter of fact that bears upon that question.


Either abstract objects exist, or they do not. Wouldn't you agree?
 
Egregias
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 11:08 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;138306 wrote:
The imagined thing would have imagined properties. You can imagine millions of characters, but that does not mean they exist. And Only things which exist have properties.
You are speaking of physical, concrete existence. Rudolph, it is agreed by all, does not exist in the physical universe. He does exist in a certain universe of discourse, one inhabited as well by Dasher, Dancer, and Olive, the other reindeer. To barge in and insist that he does not exist is to break the rules of the [ahem] language game being played, and is most inappropriate.

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 10:12 AM ----------

Zetherin;138310 wrote:
Either abstract objects exist, or they do not. Wouldn't you agree?

If we could agree what "exist" meant in the context of abstract objects, I would agree.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 11:14 am
@Egregias,
Egregias;138313 wrote:
You are speaking of physical, concrete existence. Rudolph, it is agreed by all, does not exist in the physical universe. He does exist in a certain universe of discourse, one inhabited as well by Dasher, Dancer, and Olive, the other reindeer. To barge in and insist that he does not exist is to break the rules of the [ahem] language game being played, and is most inappropriate.


No sane person sincerely believes Rudolph exists. If this is being inappropriate in accord with your language game, then I can safely and childishly say, your game sucks.

Quote:

If we could agree what "exist" meant in the context of abstract objects, I would agree.


It would mean the same as anything else that exists. We aren't changing how the word is used.
 
Egregias
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 11:40 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;138317 wrote:
No sane person sincerely believes Rudolph exists. If this is being inappropriate in accord with your language game, then I can safely and childishly say, your game sucks.

It would, indeed, be highly inapproprate to play said game in this forum. I have not said that Rudolph exists.
Quote:
It would mean the same as anything else that exists. We aren't changing how the word is used.

Per Merriam-Webster
"to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist>"

Not really helpful, is it?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 11:50 am
@cws910,
Egragias wrote:

Per Merriam-Webster
"to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist>"

Not really helpful, is it?


There can of course be discussion about what it means to say something exists. In fact, there was a recent thread focusing on this exact thing. But that does not mean that depending on what is being referred to, the meaning of the word changes. My concept of my house, and my house, both exist. When I say they both exist, I am saying they are both real. The only difference is the former is mind-dependent, and the latter is mind-independent.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 12:24 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;138280 wrote:
So, there is a fictional object with that property.


Yes, in a manner of speaking. But, fictional objects are not objects. The point is, of course, that there is no such thing as Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer. There are various ways of saying this. One way is to say that there is a fictional object of some kind, and I don't mind as long as you have your tongue in your cheek. Of course, we could analyze the notion of a fictional object. One thing is clear, fictional objects are not part of the furniture of the world. The notion they are offends what Russell called, "our robust sense of reality".
 
Egregias
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 12:27 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;138323 wrote:
My concept of my house, and my house, both exist. When I say they both exist, I am saying they are both real. The only difference is the former is mind-dependent, and the latter is mind-independent.

Many reasonable people would say concepts are not real.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 12:28 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;138330 wrote:
One thing is clear, fictional objects are not part of the furniture of the world. The notion they are offends what Russell called, "our robust sense of reality".
The same goes for abstract objects.
 
Ahab
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 12:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;138330 wrote:
Yes, in a manner of speaking. But, fictional objects are not objects. The point is, of course, that there is no such thing as Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer. There are various ways of saying this. One way is to say that there is a fictional object of some kind, and I don't mind as long as you have your tongue in your cheek. Of course, we could analyze the notion of a fictional object. One thing is clear, fictional objects are not part of the furniture of the world. The notion they are offends what Russell called, "our robust sense of reality".


Well, for that matter, abstract objects are not objects either.

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 10:37 AM ----------

Egregias;138331 wrote:
Many reasonable people would say concepts are not real.

I think what they are trying to say is that abstracta should not literally be understood to be objects.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 12:40 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;138333 wrote:
The same goes for abstract objects.


Except that there is a strong argument that abstract objects need to be posited to make sense of concrete objects. Plato's argument was of that kind (although I am not saying it was a strong argument).
 
Egregias
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 12:49 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;138342 wrote:
Except that there is a strong argument that abstract objects need to be posited to make sense of concrete objects.

Is this evidence of their existence?
Quote:
Plato's argument was of that kind (although I am not saying it was a strong argument).

Whose argument is the strong one, then?
 
Ahab
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 03:21 pm
@fast,
fast;138231 wrote:
Let me say this then:

If unicorns did exist, they would have horns, but because there are no unicorns, there are no unicorns with horns.


I don't think we depict uniconrs has having horns because of the fact that if uniconrs existed they would have horns. After all, we depict Rudolph the Reindeer as flying and talking. If there were a Rudolph the Reindeer in the flesh it could not fly or talk. And if he could do so despite our natural laws, it would make no sense to call Rudolph a reindeer because he wouldn't meet our criteria for calling him a reindeer. We could change the meaning of "reindeer" but would we?

I think we depict a unicorn as having a horn because that is what we conceive a unicorn to be. If we imagine a creature how can we help but attribute properties to that which is imagined? How could we talk about something that has no properties? Wouldn't that be just to talk about nothing?

Interestingly, the same thing applies to numbers. How could we talk about numbers unless we gave them properties? I'm not claiming that we should then conclude that numbers are phantasms of our imagination in the way that a unicorn is. After all, the latter is mainly for entertainment while the former helps us to represent the world we live in.

But it seems to me at least to seriously weaken your claim that simply attributing a property to something gives it existence. I would look elsehwere for a criteria of existence.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 03:56 pm
@Egregias,
Egregias;138347 wrote:
Is this evidence of their existence?

Whose argument is the strong one, then?


Yes, just as the fact that germ theory explained disease and its spread is excellent evidence of the existence of germs.

Plato's argument for positing abstract entities is not as strong as Quine's. But they both are the same kind of argument.

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 05:01 PM ----------

Ahab;138376 wrote:

But it seems to me at least to seriously weaken your claim that simply attributing a property to something gives it existence. I would look elsehwere for a criteria of existence.


Unless something exists, a property cannot be attributed to it, since, in that case, there would be nothing to which to attribute the property. "Nothing has no properties" Descartes.

As Quine wrote, "To be, is to be the value of a variable", which is logical lingo for, to exist is to have a property.
 
Ahab
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 06:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;138386 wrote:




Unless something exists, a property cannot be attributed to it, since, in that case, there would be nothing to which to attribute the property. "Nothing has no properties" Descartes.

As Quine wrote, "To be, is to be the value of a variable", which is logical lingo for, to exist is to have a property.


I have no quarrel with the claim that if something exists it has a property. After all, I just pointed out above that we cannot even imagine imaginary things without attributing properties to them. And it is because of the latter that I see little use in saying somthing like, "Look, N has a property so it exists."
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 06:54 pm
@Ahab,
Ahab;138460 wrote:
I have no quibble with the claim that if something exists it has a property. After all, I just pointed out above that we cannot even imagine imaginary things without attributing properties to them. And it is because of the latter that I see little use in saying somthing like, "Look, N has a property so it exists."


Well, we may, of course, ascribe properties to imaginary things, but since those have to be imaginary properties. it does follow from the fact that N has a property that it exists. Whether that argument is of use, I cannot tell. But that argument, whether or not it is of use, is certainly a valid argument. In fact, in the predicate calculus, it is called, the rule of existential generalization. You can check it here:

Tutorial- Existential Generalization
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 09:35:52