What do you mean by "2+2=4 is true because the physical world says it is"?

In logic, "contingent" means "could have been otherwise." That the sun might not rise tomorrow is certainly possible. So it is contingently true that it will rise tomorrow. "2+2=4" could not be otherwise, 2 and 2 cannot make 3. So it is necessarily true.

You seem to think mathematical truths are dependent on the physical world to be true. This is false.

If this is NOT what you are saying, then you need to start making sense, because, so far, you are not making any sense at all.

Originally Posted by north
then prove without the physical world that we can live without any source of water for a month

Quote:

You can't. Like I said, nothing can be proved empirically, and that is an empirical claim. It is a claim that is most likely true, of course, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily true. It could so happen that some scientist invents a pill that allows you to survive without water for a month. That's certainly possible with the advances in technology.

really , so go without water for a month....
I wouldn't rely on this pill , at the moment , it will cost you your life

well its hard to argue against that two seperate rocks = 2

they are however

for without the physical , mathematics has no foundation on which to calculate anything , at all

really , so go without water for a month....
I wouldn't rely on this pill , at the moment , it will cost you your life

"Santa is nicer than Dick Cheney." True or false? To me it seems true because it doesn't seem to imply the existence of Santa. But to you it seems false because it does imply that?

Quote:

If that means anything, it means that if Santa existed, then Santa would be nicer than Cheney. And that does not imply that either Santa or Cheney exists. (Actually, I think Cheney is quite nice, and, of course I don't belief that Santa is nice at all).

---------- Post added 04-25-2010 at 08:39 PM ----------

Ahab;156451 wrote:

It is always possible to misunderstand and misuse words. Even very competent uses of English make mistakes from time to time.

But what words mean must in general be transparent to their users. We do not have to wait for philosophers and scientists to discover what we really mean by the words we use and the sentences we utter.

Then what would you call the difference between "John is eager to please" and "John is easy to please"? The grammar of the one is very different from the grammar of the other. That, of course, does not mean that competent English speakers do not understand them.

However, it is true that those who believed that when we say of something that it does not exist, we are not saying of it that it lacks a property, although competent speakers of the language (whatever language it is) believed that was true. Otherwise, they would not have argued that it was impossible for God not to exist. So, they did not understand the deep grammar of X exists.

If that means anything, it means that if Santa existed, then Santa would be nicer than Cheney. And that does not imply that either Santa or Cheney exists. (Actually, I think Cheney is quite nice, and, of course I don't belief that Santa is nice at all).

I don't think that is right. It is intuitively obvious to me that for it to be true that Cheney is such and such a way, it is necessary that Cheney exists. There must be truth-makers for propositions to be true of anything. How can propositions be true or false, if truth is not intimately tied up with really existent things that are really such and such a way?

Disanalogously, statements made about Santat Claus are not clear to me. That's why I wrestle with this.

"Santa is nicer than Dick Cheney." True or false?

Santa is neither nice nor not nice, so it's not true that Santa is nicer than Dick Cheney; however, that's not to say it's false that Santa is nicer than Dick Cheney, and the reason is the same as before; thus, the proposition, Santa is nicer than Dick Chenyey, is neither true nor false. Simply, it's not true.

When I talk of Santa, I'm not talking about the character in fiction that was created that we all also know as Santa; Ahab on the other hand is --sorta. I think there is a difference between 1) Santa and 2) the character in fiction (also named Santa.) I think Santa doesn't exist (kid's, I don't really mean it), but I do think the character in fiction exists--it exists in the only way characters in fiction can exist ... and that is within works of fiction, of course.

According to the story-operator strategy, we have to interpret sentences of fictional discourse as incomplete. A complete rendition of, for instance,
[INDENT](1) Pegasus is a flying horse.
[/INDENT]would be as follows:
[INDENT](1′) According to the story S (where "S" here and in what follows stands for the story of Greek mythology): Pegasus is a flying horse.
[/INDENT]The expression "according to the story S" is the so-called "story operator",[6] which is a sentencenot imply that there are flying horses; neither does it imply that Pegasus exists. Thus, the contradictions are avoided.[7] This looks like an elegant solution, at least as long as we confine ourselves to a particular kind of example. Unfortunately, however, it does not work equally well for all kinds of sentences of fictional discourse. Consider, for instance:
[INDENT](4) Pegasus is a character from Greek mythology.
[/INDENT]This sentence seems to be straightforwardly true; but if we put a story operator in front of it, we get a straightforward falsehood:
[INDENT](4′) According to the story S: Pegasus is a character from Greek mythology.
[/INDENT]It is not true that according to the relevant story, Pegasus is a character. Rather, according to this story, Pegasus is a living being of flesh and blood.

One may call sentences like "Pegasus is a flying horse" or "Hamlet hates his stepfather" "internal sentences of fictional discourse", in distinction from external sentences of fictional discourse, like "Pegasus is a character from Greek mythology" or "Hamlet has fascinated many psychoanalysts". The story operator strategy can be applied to internal sentences only and thus fails as a general solution to the problem of fictional discourse.

"How can we talk about Pegasus? To what does the word 'Pegasus' refer? If our answer is, 'Something,' then we seem to believe in mystical entities; if our answer is, 'nothing', then we seem to talk about nothing and what sense can be made of this? Certainly when we said that Pegasus was a mythological winged horse we make sense, and moreover we speak the truth! If we speak the truth, this must be truth about something. So we cannot be speaking of nothing."

I agree that necessarily, for Cheney to be nice, Cheney exists. Where did I deny that? And the same goes for Santa. But I did not say anything inconsistent with that either, so far as I can tell. Of course I don't believe that "for it to be true that Cheney is such and such a way, it is necessary that Cheney exists". But I don't suppose you do either.

Ahab,
While I say that Santa is neither nice nor not nice, I also hold (in addition to that) that the Santa character that is depicted as being nice is also neither nice nor not nice. Santa doesn't exist, and things that don't exist cannot be nice, so Santa is not nice. The Santa character (that does exist btw; after all, it was created) is also not nice, for created characters cannot be nice (although they can be depicted as being nice-and being depicted as being nice isn't the same thing as actually being nice); hence, notice that my reasoning is different for one as opposed to the other: where one is Santa (a person that does not exist) and the character in fiction (a character that does exist).

Santa Claus is a creation of someone's imagination. That is the Santa that is depicted in a work of art - be it a picture or a story or a movie or a play. And it is that imaginary being we refer to when we correctly use the name 'Santa Claus'.
Am not sure why you want to make two Santas when everyone else thinks there is only one.:perplexed:

My concern is with the claim that people cannot refer to an imaginary person because it doens't happen to fit a particular philosophical theory of reference.

Sorry, I ain't buying into the notion that philosophers are the overseers for correct usage.

This is false. Cauality is not sufficient to distinguish "two types" of existence.

A: referring term
B: a term that refers

You think that A is logically equivalent to B, but you're mistaken. A is stronger than B. B implies A, but A doesn't imply B.

Well, my claim wasn't limited to causality, was it?

"Puking" is a verb, just as "referring" is a verb. Therefore, referring terms are referring. And so long as a term is referring it is always referring. Analogously, so long as Susie is puking, Susie is always puking. This is the most consistent interpretation of the lexical meaning, and it is tautologously true.

Santa Claus is a creation of someone's imagination. .

If Santa were any kind of creation, then Santa would exist, since necessarily what has been created exists. But, Santa does not exist. Therefore, Santa is not a creation of any kind. QED

Someone thought him up or imagined him and gave him the name 'Santa Claus'. And people use that name to refer to Santa.

But there is no "him" at all. Therefore, no one could have given anyone the name of "Santa". It is not like a christening, you know. There is no Santa. (I am beginning to sound like a Scrooge, I know). And there is no Santa to refer to (there I go again, I hope I am not making a little kid cry). As I said, if Santa had been created he would exist.

If it's not a person, it's not a him.

People are male or female. Santa doesn't exist, so Santa isn't a person, and because Santa isn't a person, Santa isn't male. It's not so that he is depicted as a male. What is so is that something is depicted as a male.

Strange then that you know who I am referring to.

I agree completely that Santa Claus is not real. That doesn't prohibit people from using his name to refer to him.