I do not think statements/sentences are true or false, or are synthetic or a priori or analytic etc. It is propositions that are that. Some people think that sentences/statements are the bearers of truth/falsity, but I don't. That gets one into all kinds of trouble and confusion.

Given that it is propositions that are bearers of truth/falsity, then both the propositions you talk about are contingent, unless you think that the universe itself is a thing and thus "something exists" is true. But you'd need to clarify what "universe", "world", "thing" means in that case. Everything depends on definitions. Is it possible that there is no universe? Maybe. That depends on definitions.

Surely no statement exists in an empty universe, but is it true that no statement could be stated in such a universe? I don't think so. But in my view even though no statement has ever been made in such a universe, some things are still true or false. Propositions exist even in empty universes. (I think universes have to do with contingent facts/objects, and propositions are non-contingent.



I don't know what Kant's view was but I think all pure mathematical propositions are analytic.

"Empty universe" seems oxymoronish.

If it's empty, how can it be a universe? Empty universes don't exist, because, well, they're empty. Something needs to exist for a universe to exist.

Are we just trying to play with words here? Let's get out of the sandbox.

I think it is a matter of having a misconception (or a kind of picture) of a universe as a container with either something in it, or nothing in it.

If a universe is defined in terms of its laws of nature, then there can be no empty universe. How could be tell whether there were one, two, or three, and how could we tell whether one universe was the same as a different universe? What would be the difference between there being one or two empty universes (except in words)?

It's not a container. "Universe" is simply a term we use to conceptually understand all the space that we currently think exists. And it still expands to this day: Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's nothing to expand into, except itself. There is no container.

I guess if there were a universe that only had space, but no matter, we could call that an empty universe. Just like we could call a sock drawer with no socks in it, empty. Still, I don't really understand the point, and it's really a rough analogy since the universe isn't a container like a sock drawer. I think the concept just confuses.

I guess you're getting into some sort of Multiverse theory. I don't know exactly how they differentiate or conceptualize other universes (namely how one universe doesn't "blend" into the other). Sorry, can't help you.

I did mention, I think, that the container picture was a misconception, but that I think that is the misconception that those who think there are empty universes have. When I call it a "misconception" I am not endorsing it. On the contrary.

If there are propositions in an empty universe, then how is that universe empty? Particularly if, as I think, there can be no empty universes since there is no principle of individuation, or criterion of identity for such a universe. As Quine said, "no entity without identity".

Maybe, but I would not like to have to argue that.

"Empty universe" seems oxymoronish.

If it's empty, how can it be a universe? Empty universes don't exist, because, well, they're empty. Something needs to exist for a universe to exist.

Are we just trying to play with words here? Let's get out of the sandbox.

Sorry, didn't mean to make it appear you were endorsing it. Perhaps I should have just explained why I believe it's a misconception without quoting that first part.

Either way, when you type "empty universe" what are you conceptualizing? Or were your prior questions just to poke fun at the misconception?

That depends what "empty universe" means.

If the universe 'contains' only space-time but no things besides that, it seems to me that it can rightfully be called empty.

Well, as I said, I don't think there can be an empty universe, since it would be impossible to distinguish one from another, and impossible to count them. And unless something is distinguishable, and countable, it is not conceptualizable. So, I cannot be conceptualizing anything that is an empty universe.

Absolutely, it does.
Yes, I noted that later. However, I think that's still a misnomer. Because, there's nothing with which to be empty. There is no container. So, what exactly is empty? Nothing, because there would be nothing in an empty universe. Empty universe is a confused notion. Unless, of course, you conceptualize the universe is a container. In that case, we could rightfully call the universe empty, just as we could rightfully call a water jug empty. But that's not how the universe is, from the information we currently know, so why go down that path? I can conceptualize that the sun is made of red marbles, too, but why would I?

This has nothing to do with epistemology.

It doesn't, you're right. I'm derailing the thread.

If you would like to speak to me in further detail concerning the matter, let's take it to another thread.