tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post1325520883362823133..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Something existsEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-81701814787365022582012-05-17T00:57:38.895+00:002012-05-17T00:57:38.895+00:00>> Probably, but then he would have to prove...>> Probably, but then he would have to prove that multiple instantiation was an essential or necessary part of a concept.<br /><br />David said multiply instantiable, not multiply instantiated.<br /><br />Anyway, I'd love to hear any alternate theories. At least, ones which don't involve magic.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-62617065853388237172012-05-16T15:50:09.767+00:002012-05-16T15:50:09.767+00:00>>Ed, do you think perhaps that part of the ...>>Ed, do you think perhaps that part of the problem for Bill is that he sees concepts as multiply instantiable, or 'repeatable' as he puts it, in essence? 'Singular concept' is then oxymoronic, unless we can somehow see 'singular' as alienans.<br /><br />Probably, but then he would have to prove that multiple instantiation was an essential or necessary part of a concept. <br /><br />I think one of his posts made that very argument, but I havent' looked for it (all help welcome, of course).Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-50073203443285370702012-05-16T10:35:51.370+00:002012-05-16T10:35:51.370+00:00Ed, do you think perhaps that part of the problem ...Ed, do you think perhaps that part of the problem for Bill is that he sees concepts as multiply instantiable, or 'repeatable' as he puts it, in essence? 'Singular concept' is then oxymoronic, unless we can somehow see 'singular' as alienans.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-47731793867351123892012-05-15T16:29:02.484+00:002012-05-15T16:29:02.484+00:00I don't see what's wrong with "For so...I don't see what's wrong with "For some/all x, x = x."<br /><br />Granted, this doesn't answer the question of how to add time into the mix, which is the problem with trying to translate "You still exist!" into formal logic. But I don't think that's the question.<br /><br />Anyway, is my comment that he is equivocating not clear? Bill accepts the distinction between "exists presently" and "exists simpliciter". If he is not equivocating, which one is he using?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-31240653224523749282012-05-15T15:25:52.290+00:002012-05-15T15:25:52.290+00:00>>What am I missing?
You seem to be missing...>>What am I missing?<br /><br />You seem to be missing the point of Bill's post. Perhaps I haven't understood your point, though.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-23204646740829481672012-05-15T11:23:46.453+00:002012-05-15T11:23:46.453+00:00So don't do that?
Really, I'm not sure wh...So don't do that?<br /><br />Really, I'm not sure what you mean, though.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-60992277164060260952012-05-15T09:32:52.463+00:002012-05-15T09:32:52.463+00:00The problem is the same if we restrict 'exists...The problem is the same if we restrict 'exists' to your 'exists presently'.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-37893473341621645162012-05-15T02:54:19.935+00:002012-05-15T02:54:19.935+00:00Bill seems to be equivocating on "exists"...Bill seems to be equivocating on "exists". In part 1, he says that "There is no such propositional function as 'x exists.'" So in part 1, he is using exists=exists-simpliciter.<br /><br />But in part 2, he talks about "when Tom ceases to exist". In part 2, he is using exists=exists-presently.<br /><br />The solution, it seems, is quite simple. Something exists-simpliciter is "For some x, x=x". Something exists-presently is "For some x, x exists-presently".<br /><br />What am I missing?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.com