numbers vs. words

@fast,

fast;156962 wrote:

What? Why would you think that he didn't know that?

...because based on what he accused you of, it didn't appear to me that he did know it. maybe he did, I don't care....

@fast,

fast;156962 wrote:

I do not believe, nor does anyone here believe, nor should you believe that an imaginary entity can do anything. To say that Santa is imaginary isn't an admission that an entity exists. If it doesn't exist, it can't do anything. I do realize that you and I are not referring to the same thing when we use the word "Santa," but not even the thing you're referring to does what you say it does.

I'm still a little shaky on just what you think "Santa" refers to. Kennethamy and I use the term to refer to what would be a concrete object if it exists.

What would it mean for Santa Claus to be a real person?

You are determined to insist that one can refer only to something that exists. You can go right on doing that, but it flies in the face of the fact that people correctly use words to refer to non-existent things like fictional characters. And they know that these imaginary persons don't exist.

Did you read carefully my long response to you this weekend about how you shouldn't simply assume that empty names should be treated the same? That one needs to look at the different contexts in which they are used?

Quote:

I once thought (but was mistaken) that you were referring to a character in fiction, but our previous discussion on this issue revealed that you weren't even referring to that. You have said (I think) that it refers to an imaginary being, but never can it be that an imaginary being do anything. Shoot, technically, not even a character in fiction can do something; they can be depicted as if they are doing something, but that is different.

Referring to a fictional character is referring to an imaginary person.

A fictional character is an imaginary person represented in a work of fiction. You may not agree with that, but don't you understand what it means?

Quote:

This reminds me of the mistaken some people make when they say nothing exists. When Uncle Jim used to hear people say that, he took it to mean that they were claiming that something named nothing did exist. You say that Santa isn't real, yet you still say that Santa does stuff.

He is imagined to do stuff. Just like Joyce imagined Molly Bloom cheating on her husband. Or Conan Doyle imagined Sherlock Holmes solving a crime.

If you think it is possible that Santa Claus could exist, then you must think it possible that all the things he is imagined to have done also could exist. Such as flying around in a sleigh and giving presents to all the children celebrating Christmas.

@Extrain,

Extrain;156834 wrote:

So what exactly is your objection?

As I've stated, several times, Fast claims the following:
1) to exist is to have properties, therefore, if there are properties then "like it or not" he has to accept that there is some thing which exists
2) numbers have properties, therefore numbers exist
3) fictional objects do not exist, therefore they do not have properties.
Three is unsupportable, because existence, under Fast's paradigm, is consequent to properties, properties are not consequent to existence. So, his claim includes a hidden premise and becomes:
4) fictional objects have no properties
5) (therefore) fictional objects dont exist
6) therefore fictional objects dont have properties.

---------- Post added 04-27-2010 at 06:25 PM ----------

kennethamy;156927 wrote:

Calling what I said, "nonsense" is something I could handle. But calling it "inconsistent" to boot, well, are there no limits to your viciousness?

This isn't the first time that you've responded to a post, addressed to Fast, as if it were directly addressed to you. Is he your son?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;157014 wrote:

---------- Post added 04-27-2010 at 06:25 PM ----------

This isn't the first time that you've responded to a post, addressed to Fast, as if it were directly addressed to you. Is he your son?

No, but I was so outraged by the depth of your hate that I could not restrain myself. Inconsistent, indeed! Even if fast were my son, we would not be identical.

X exists iff X is exemplified (X has properties). It is a bi-conditional.

@Ahab,

Ahab;156980 wrote:

What would it mean for Santa Claus to be a real person?

You are determined to insist that one can refer only to something that exists. You can go right on doing that, but it flies in the face of the fact that people correctly use words to refer to non-existent things like fictional characters. And they know that these imaginary persons don't exist.

By "refer to" above, do you mean "talk about"? If so, I think I may finally be onto something.

---------- Post added 04-27-2010 at 09:13 AM ----------

[QUOTE=ughaibu;157014]As I've stated, several times, Fast claims the following:
1) to exist is to have properties, therefore, if there are properties then "like it or not" he has to accept that there is some thing which exists
2) numbers have properties, therefore numbers exist
3) fictional objects do not exist, therefore they do not have properties.
Three is unsupportable, because existence, under Fast's paradigm, is consequent to properties, properties are not consequent to existence. So, his claim includes a hidden premise and becomes:
4) fictional objects have no properties
5) (therefore) fictional objects dont exist
6) therefore fictional objects dont have properties.
[/QUOTE]
To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties. That's what I say, and I say it the same way every time.

I am not making an argument, but if you can turn it into one, then by all means, do so. What I am doing (when I say what I say) is explaining something, and what I'm explaining is what it means (what it means, I say) to say of something that it exists. It's not much unlike espousing a definition for "existence."

But yes, if X has properties, then X exists. If X exists, then X has properties. If, if, if I say. If.

What is the problem?

@fast,

fast;157047 wrote:

By "refer to" above, do you mean "talk about"? If so, I think I may finally be onto something.

Yes, obviously he means something of that sort. He cannot mean what it ordinarily means, "pointing someone out", as he believes non-existents can be referred to, but, of course, non-existents cannot be pointed out.

@fast,

fast;157047 wrote:

By "refer to" above, do you mean "talk about"? If so, I think I may finally be onto something.

If I say, 'Santa has a white beard and wears black boots' I am talking about Santa. I'm certainly not talking about Rudolph. So my statement is in reference to Santa and not to Rudolph.

Is this helpful?

@Ahab,

Ahab;157056 wrote:

If I say, 'Santa has a white beard and wears black boots' I am talking about Santa. I'm certainly not talking about Rudolph. So my statement is in reference to Santa and not to Rudolph.

Is this helpful?

But the question is whether when you talk about X you need be referring to X. "Talking about X" does not imply that X exists, but referring to X does imply that X exists. I can talk about The Fountain of Youth, but why say that when I do so, I am referring to The Fountain of Youth?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;157052 wrote:

Yes, obviously he means something of that sort. He cannot mean what it ordinarily means, "pointing someone out", as he believes non-existents can be referred to, but, of course, non-existents cannot be pointed out.

If we can distinguish between Santa and Rudolph, why can't each be 'pointed out'?

@Ahab,

Ahab;157058 wrote:

If we can distinguish between Santa and Rudolph, why can't each be 'pointed out'?

Because neither exists to be pointed out. How would you point them out?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;157057 wrote:

But the question is whether when you talk about X you need be referring to X. "Talking about X" does not imply that X exists, but referring to X does imply that X exists. I can talk about The Fountain of Youth, but why say that when I do so, I am referring to The Fountain of Youth?

If I refer to an imaginary person I am not implying that she exists. It is already known that she doesn't exist.

You keep presuppoing existence for reference.

---------- Post added 04-27-2010 at 06:38 AM ----------

kennethamy;157059 wrote:

Because neither exists to be pointed out. How would you point them out?

How do you know that Rudolph is not the same as Santa? All that is necessary is that we be able to specify who or what we are talking about.

@fast,

fast;157047 wrote:

if X has properties, then X exists. If X exists, then X has properties. If, if, if I say. If.

What is the problem?

I've explained the problem, dozens of times.
Take some object like bigfoot, orang pendek, Nandi bears, or similar, and assume that the only special properties that they have are those attributed to them, all their other properties are general properties for similar animals. It is either the case that such animals inhabit this world or it is not, but in either case the set of properties are the same. If it can be definitely shown that Nandi bears inhabit this world, I assume that you'll agree that they exist, but as their properties are exactly the same if they dont inhabit this world, then you're committed to their existence anyway, unless you adjust your position in one of the following ways:
1) give up the idea that properties confer existence, this means giving up, or changing the justification for, your claim that numbers exist
2) adopt the position that legendary animals exist
3) in case of 2, accept that there are different modes of existence, as quite clearly the existence of legendary animals is not the existence of real animals, regardless of whether or not their properties are identical.

@Ahab,

Ahab;157060 wrote:

If I refer to an imaginary person I am not implying that she exists. It is already known that she doesn't exist.

You keep presuppoing existence for reference.

---------- Post added 04-27-2010 at 06:38 AM ----------

How do you know that Rudolph is not the same as Santa? All that is necessary is that we be able to specify who or what we are talking about.

It is not true that Rudolph and Santa are not the same. X is identical with Y, implies that X and Y both exist. In fact a standard way of expressing that X exists in first order predication is that X is identical with X. But neither Santa nor Rudolf are self-identical since neither has properties so it makes no sense to say they are self-identical.

@ughaibu,

[QUOTE=ughaibu;157066]I've explained the problem, dozens of times.
Take some object like bigfoot, orang pendek, Nandi bears, or similar, and assume that the only special properties that they have are those attributed to them, all their other properties are general properties for similar animals.[/QUOTE]

Fine, I'll take bigfoot for example. Now, what's this part about assuming they have properties? Why would I do such a thing? You don't think Bigfoot has the property of being hairy do you? Well, I suppose you might if you think it exists, but if you don't think it exists, you shouldn't be so taken in by the mantra that bigfoot has properties just because people think they have described it. If it doesn't exist (hence, if there is nothing there for the describing), then no one is describing bigfoot, and if there is no bigfoot, it has no properties (hence, they are mistaken when they ascribe properties to what they think exists), and if something doesn't have properties, then no matter how many properties you can muster to mistakenly attribute to it, it still doesn't exist.

[QUOTE]It is either the case that such animals inhabit this world or it is not, [/QUOTE]Correctamundo!

[QUOTE]but in either case the set of properties are the same. [/QUOTE]So says you! I am not making this blunder. You are. You, you, you. Not me. I suppose you think unicorns have properties too. Granted, others have said such things, but I'm not letting their mistakes, nor am I letting your mistake, change what I know to be the case, which is that unicorns do not have properties.

Unicorns do not have horns. Bigfoot doesn't have hair. Santa doesn't wear boots.

@fast,

fast;157089 wrote:

what's this part about assuming they have properties? Why would I do such a thing?

Because doing so exposes the problem with your position.

@ughaibu,

[QUOTE=ughaibu;157092]Because doing so exposes the problem with your position.[/QUOTE]
And what problem might that be? Repeatedly telling me that you have explained it doesn't cut it. If you're gonna deliver, bring something with you, for as it stands, you seem to be objecting just because you can. What is THE problem? I can't explain your confusion if you keep silent about what you think the problem is.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;157068 wrote:

It is not true that Rudolph and Santa are not the same. X is identical with Y, implies that X and Y both exist. In fact a standard way of expressing that X exists in first order predication is that X is identical with X. But neither Santa nor Rudolf are self-identical since neither has properties so it makes no sense to say they are self-identical.

I'm talking about the rules of use for the words in our natural language: English.

If someone says that Santa is the same as Rudolph he is mistaken. Santa drives a flying sleigh. Rudolph is one of the reindeer pulling that sleigh.

In our language we differentiate between Santa Claus and Rudolph. We attribute different properties to each of them. If we see a picture of Santa Claus we know it its not a picture of Rudolph. Santa Claus and Rudolph are identifiable.

Of course, this is what we imagine Santa doing and Rudolph doing. After all they are imaginary beings.

---------- Post added 04-27-2010 at 08:30 AM ----------

fast;157089 wrote:

Unicorns do not have horns. Bigfoot doesn't have hair. Santa doesn't wear boots.

If people didn't attribut these properties to those imaginary creatures, we would not be able to differentiat them.

Are you claiming that unicorns don't have real horns, that Bigfoot does not have real hair and Santa doesn't have real boots?
Everyone who understands the concept of imaginary beings know that.

@Ahab,

[QUOTE=Ahab;157100]If someone says that Santa is the same as Rudolph he is mistaken.[/QUOTE]If someone says that, then what they mean is that there is a difference between the depictions of two different characters; hence, the character Santa is not the same as the character Rudolph.

Strangely enough, if a person literally means what one says when one says "Santa is the same as Rudolph," then I could only interpret that to mean that there is no difference (or at least no point in making a difference) between two non-existent entities.

[QUOTE]Santa drives a flying sleigh.[/QUOTE]If I am to take that literally, then the proposition expressed would be false, for neither Santa nor do flying sleighs exist, but if you mean just what I think most would mean by that, which is that such an event is depicted as actually happening (within a play or show), then I wouldn't object to the message.

[QUOTE]Rudolph is one of the reindeer pulling that sleigh.[/QUOTE]You can't literally take your finger and point to Rudolph, so although you can point out, you can't point to. Referring terms don't point out. They point to. Well, they 'try'.

@fast,

fast;157106 wrote:

If someone says that, then what they mean is that there is a difference between the depictions of two different characters; hence, the character Santa is not the same as the character Rudolph.

Why is a tree depicted differently than an orange? It is because they don't have identical properties.

Santa and Rudolph are depicted differently because their creators decided which properties to attribute to them.

We depict fictional characters the way that we do because that is how they are imagined to be.

Quote:

Strangely enough, if a person literally means what one says when one says "Santa is the same as Rudolph," then I could only interpret that to mean that there is no difference (or at least no point in making a difference) between two non-existent entities.

It depends a great deal on the context in which one says that. One could mean that Santa and Rudolph are both imaginary creatures. In other words, they are the same kind of thing.

If there were no point in differentiating between Santa and Rudolph then why give them separate names? Why attribute different properties to them?

@Ahab,

Ahab;157125 wrote:

If there were no point in differentiating between Santa and Rudolph then why give them separate names? Why attribute different properties to them?

Eh, who are "they"? You are just begging the question; assuming what is at issue.

Philosophy Forum

numbers vs. words

Quick Links

My Account

able2know