@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.