tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post113864563466750102..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videturEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-1138751607810201482006-01-31T23:53:00.000+00:002006-01-31T23:53:00.000+00:00Just a quick comment, Ocham. First, I presume that...Just a quick comment, Ocham. First, I presume that you meant (2) to read "There are possible unicorns." Second, I don't dispute that (1) does not imply (2). What I dispute is the charge that I'm affirming (2) in the sense that (2) would be ordinarily understood.<BR/><BR/>As ordinarily construed, (2) says that there exist (in the domain of actuals) such things as 'possible unicorns'. I reject that as misleading. What I want to say is that in certain abstract conceptual contexts (e.g., mathematical logic, possible worlds semantics, etc.) we can use (∃x) to quantify over possibilia. Hence "there is", in the sense represented by (∃x), does not always imply "is actual".<BR/><BR/>For example, a mathematician might say "That polynomial has three imaginary roots", thereby quantifying over complex numbers. But nobody, so far as I am aware, thinks that there can in reality be complex quantities of anything (e.g., 1+3i potatoes). The quantification is over conceptual or intentional objects, not real objects.Alan Rhodahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249445756676302273noreply@blogger.com