numbers vs. words

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:16 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;139020 wrote:
That is what I initially thought.



I don't think fictional characters exist, like I said in many of my posts (but then I did make a post assuming they did exist for sake of argument, sigh). I don't know. I am confusing myself, and probably others. I just need to take a break.

And oddly fast thanked your post, even though I thought he thinks the fictional character does exist! Man, my head is spinning.


Yes, the ontology of fictional characters can spin heads. I think that what Quine says is true.
 
Egregias
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:25 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;139019 wrote:
Who was the former president when Andrew Johnson was the president?


I'm not going to look up any of Lincoln's predecessors to see if they were alive when Andrew Johnson was president, but if they were, they were former presidents at that time. During Andrew Johnson's presidency, however, Lincoln was dead. Lincoln was not at that time or at any subsequent time the former president, since he did not then and does not now exist. I am told that if you do not exist, you do not have properties, and being a former president sounds like a property to me.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:29 am
@Egregias,
Egregias;139030 wrote:
I'm not going to look up any of Lincoln's predecessors to see if they were alive when Andrew Johnson was president, but if they were, they were former presidents at that time. During Andrew Johnson's presidency, however, Lincoln was dead. Lincoln was not at that time or at any subsequent time the former president, since he did not then and does not now exist. I am told that if you do not exist, you do not have properties, and being a former president sounds like a property to me.


"Alive" and "Exist" do not mean the same thing. Dead people have properties. For instance, they can have the property of being a former president.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:46 am
@cws910,
kennethamy wrote:

Dead people have properties


But wouldn't that mean dead people exist, then? But we know that dead people do not exist. So, how do you reconcile this?

Are you saying dead people are abstract objects, or something?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:53 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;139052 wrote:
But wouldn't that mean dead people exist, then? But we know that dead people do not exist. So, how do you reconcile this?

Are you saying dead people are abstract objects, or something?



Dead people exist. They are not alive. (You can find them in cemeteries). I pointed out that "alive" and "exist" don't mean the same thing. When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am" he did not mean, "I think, therefore I am alive". He believed that people survived their deaths.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:58 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;139058 wrote:
Dead people exist. They are not alive. (You can find them in cemeteries). I pointed out that "alive" and "exist" don't mean the same thing. When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am" he did not mean, "I think, therefore I am alive". He believed that people survived their deaths.


What I meant by "dead people don't exist" is that the person that did exist, exists no longer. A dead person is simply a corpse, and haven't they ceased being a person (upon death)? I guess that's a whole other discussion. Or I'm just convoluting the matter.
 
Egregias
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 12:09 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;139058 wrote:
When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am" he did not mean, "I think, therefore I am alive". He believed that people survived their deaths.

Evidently, so do you.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 12:17 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;139062 wrote:
What I meant by "dead people don't exist" is that the person that did exist, exists no longer. A dead person is simply a corpse, and haven't they ceased being a person (upon death)? I guess that's a whole other discussion. Or I'm just convoluting the matter.


But whatever is the case with persons, the fact is that Lincoln was a former president, since dead people can have properties. And that was the issue. It was argued that since Lincoln does not exist, he could not have the property of being a former president, since only what exists has properties. But the first premise is false, since Lincoln does exist, he is not alive. And one does not have to be alive to have properties.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 12:30 pm
@cws910,
kennethamy wrote:

But the first premise is false, since Lincoln does exist, he is not alive. And one does not have to be alive to have properties.


Fair enough. We agree that Lincoln is dead. Now, how does he exist? Does Lincoln currently have any temporal or spatial properties? Are you going to point me to his grave site? Just for the sake of argument, suppose his corpse has entirely decomposed, and there is no more trace of what we would call a body anymore. Now, how does Lincoln exist?

Once someone is born, they exist forever, despite their death? Are you talking about what some refer to as "soul"?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 12:43 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;139077 wrote:
Fair enough. We agree that Lincoln is dead. Now, how does he exist? Does Lincoln currently have any temporal or spatial properties? Are you going to point me to his grave site? Just for the sake of argument, suppose his corpse has entirely decomposed, and there is no more trace of what we would call a body anymore. Now, how does Lincoln exist?

Once someone is born, they exist forever, despite their death?


Lincoln exists in 1860 is true. And he now has the property of existing in 1860. It has been, and it will always be true that Lincoln exists in 1860. Truth is timeless. It is also true that Lincoln is alive in 1860, now, in 1266, and in 2409. Of course, it is not true that Lincoln is alive in 2010. All properties are indexed to time.

I don't think that there is such a thing as existing in a certain way. So I don't understand the question, how does X exist. (Unless you are talking about his state of health).
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 12:55 pm
@cws910,
kennethamy wrote:

Lincoln exists in 1860 is true. And he now has the property of existing in 1860. It has been, and it will always be true that Lincoln exists in 1860. Truth is timeless. It is also true that Lincoln is alive in 1860, now, in 1266, and in 2409. Of course, it is not true that Lincoln is alive in 2010. All properties are indexed to time.


It is also true that Lincoln is alive in 1266 and in 2409?

Everything which has existed, will always exist?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 12:58 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;139089 wrote:
It is also true that Lincoln is alive in 1266 and in 2409?

Everything which has existed, will always exist?


No, those are false. But what is true in 1266 is that Lincoln is alive in 1860.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 01:05 pm
@cws910,
I still don't see how that means Lincoln exists in 2010.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 01:16 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;139093 wrote:
I still don't see how that means Lincoln exists in 2010.


He doesn't, of course. But in 2010 it is true that he exists in 1860. He has always existed in 1860.
 
Egregias
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 01:44 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Lincoln exists in 1860 is true. And he now has the property of existing in 1860. It has been, and it will always be true that Lincoln exists in 1860.

There is no matter of material fact at issue here. As a matter of language usage, the above just doesn't look right.

edit: The likes of ughaibu would argue that in 1204 (as you would put it) Lincoln does not exist in 1860. I would phrase that "in 1204 it was not true that Lincoln would exist in 1860". But I and you disagree with him on that, don't we?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 06:15 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;139016 wrote:
I don't know what kind of objects fictional characters are.
Fictional objects, and as most maths is fiction, if you know what mathematical objects are, then you know what some fictional objects are.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:52 pm
@cws910,
What properties does addition have?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 10:54 pm
@jack phil,
jack;139467 wrote:
What properties does addition have?


It can be correct, or it can be incorrect.
 
Ahab
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 12:44 pm
@fast,
fast;138945 wrote:
I really don't like your use of the word, "representation," but if you insist on using it, I might concede that it's a representation of what Scooby Doo would be if there was a Scooby Doo,

Yet you have no problem with the word "depict". A depiction is a representation of what is depicted.
In any case, I don't mind using your preferred word "depict". But please bear in mind that I am using it in its standard sense of being a representation of something.

If I imagine a creature or thing that does not exist, I can depict that imagined creature with words or a drawing. I can describe it to an artist and based on that description (a depiction in words), she can draw a picture of it. She could then ask me, 'Is this an accurate drawing? Is this what you imagine this creature to be?" And I could let her know whether or not it was what I had imagined.
I don't quite understand why you should find this troubling.



Quote:

but as it stands, Scooby Doo (the actual dog) does not exist, and the only thing that I can think of that can be representative of nothing would be things like drawings of circles with nothing in it. A pluff of the Scooby Doo character might can be said to represent the Scooby Doo character, but I don't see how a pluff of the Scooby Doo character can represent Scooby Doo (the dog).


I'm not familiar with the word "pluff". And the dictionary results don't seem to fit into the context. I would be interested in learning what you mean by it.

Why would you think that the depiction of an imaginary creature would be a depiction of nothing? The artist who depicted my imaginary creature (which does not exist) did not make a depiction of nothing. She made a depiction of what I had imagined.




Quote:

The real underlying issue is the failure to understand why it's false to say that Scooby Doo is a cartoon character when much of the world would say it's true. To see this, let's make a cartoon character based on you, and let's call it Ahab. All of a sudden Ahab is a cartoon character? I don't think so. There is Ahab (which in this case does exist), and there is the cartoon character Ahab [not to be confused with the cartoon character, Ahab (notice the comma) --which implies that Ahab is a cartoon character].


I don't understand your quibbling over the use of a comma in this case.
'The senator, Ted Kennedy' and 'The senator Ted Kennedy' both refer to the same senator we call Ted Kennedy.
And 'the cartoon character Ahab ' and 'the cartonn character, Ahab" both refer to the cartoon character we call Ahab. The cartoonist decided to call that character Ahab because he is basing the character on me. He could have called him "John" or "Tom".

The character Ahab can be said to depict me in the sense that it is based on me. But it most likely is not going to be an accurate depiction of me or of my life.

I am in agreement with you that the cartoon character, Ahab, and the real Ahab, me, are not the same. A depiction should not be confused with what it is depicting.


Quote:

Some people will have no clue that the cartoon character is based on you, and like most people, they'll start talking in shorthand and start referring to the cartoon character Ahab as Ahab and say things like Ahab is a cartoon character. I know what they mean. They are simply talking in shorthand and using the term, "Ahab" to refer to what they are talking about (which is the cartoon character Ahab). But, both you and I know that Ahab is not a cartoon character.

It is irrelevant whether or not they know that the cartoon character is based on me. Even if they know, they are still going to call it Ahab and they are going to call me Ahab. A name can be applied to an infinite number of people or things. Even to imaginary people.


Quote:

Now, let's say that Ahab was actually a product of the imagination. Ahab (in this instance) would be imaginary, but it would not therefore be a cartoon character. Next, let's say a cartoon character is created (based in part from what is imagined) and made apart of an elaborate cartoon that features the cartoon character Ahab (not to be confused, of course, with Ahab). All of a sudden, because of the creation of the story line which includes the character and its fictional traits, the fictional character Ahab now exists, which is not of course to say that Ahab exists. Remember, Ahab is not real, as there is no walking talking Ahab.


I am in complete agreement with you that simply because we create an imaginary creature and call him Ahab that it would not therefore be a cartoon character. The cartoon character Ahab is only created if we decide to go ahead and depict him in a cartoon. And as you clarified for me in an earlier post, we could also qualify that character as a fictional character in order to indicate that it is a depiction of an imaginary person called Ahab.

I also agree that a cartoon character could be based in part on what was imagined. But I would add that the character could aslo be based simply on what was imagined. As in my example above, the cartoonist creating the character could make an accurate depction of this imaginary person.


Quote:

So, basically, you don't exist. Very Happy So, I'm with Fido and also think I've had enough of this thread.


You are, of course, free to continue posting in this thread or not posting. I simply wanted to try and clarify my position.

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 12:05 PM ----------

fast;138961 wrote:


Rudolph has no properties. The number three does.


How does somebody make a depction of Rudolph unless they know the properties of Rudolph?

How can someboy make a calculation using 3 unless they know its properties?

Our language is a norm of representation. We cannot represent things without attributing properties to them. But we have the ability to represent things that we all agree don't exist.

I am in agreement with you that it is correct to say that numbers exist. But I don't think we mean the same thing by that assertion.
 
Ahab
 
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2010 03:56 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;139058 wrote:
Dead people exist. They are not alive. (You can find them in cemeteries). I pointed out that "alive" and "exist" don't mean the same thing. When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am" he did not mean, "I think, therefore I am alive". He believed that people survived their deaths.


That's interesting. When someone dies. their bodies continue to exist for a time. And it is quite right that their bodies can be found in cemeteries. But over time those bodies usually pass out of existence too.

People can certainly claim that someone exists after their death. But no dead person that I have ever encontered could think.

Lincoln did exist at one time. But he does not exist now, as far as we can know. I doubt that his body still exists. It is pobably just a pile of dust now.

---------- Post added 03-14-2010 at 03:02 PM ----------

kennethamy;139095 wrote:
He doesn't, of course. But in 2010 it is true that he exists in 1860. He has always existed in 1860.


I believe the correct expression is :"It is true that Lincoln existed in 1860."

I is unclear what "He has always existed in 1860." means. Are you trying to say he was in existence throughout the whole year of 1860?

A sentence without meaning cannot express a true proposition.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 02:29:18