tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post3715949967406986371..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Circularity of the thin conception: Maverick repliesEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-62160079000196067382012-05-28T13:25:50.547+00:002012-05-28T13:25:50.547+00:00>>"some men are not men" discussio...>>"some men are not men" discussions (which, as far as I'm concerned, you still have not completely addressed).<br /><br />Give me time, Anthony.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-343105326624884152012-05-28T13:10:57.252+00:002012-05-28T13:10:57.252+00:00"He says 'Ed and I agree that ...', s..."He says 'Ed and I agree that ...', so he does say that."<br /><br />Well, he says that for one particular, rather simple, example.<br /><br />You don't agree on what exactly that equivalence means, as evidenced by our prior "some men are not men" discussions (which, as far as I'm concerned, you still have not completely addressed).Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-77710866635550652882012-05-27T07:05:29.970+00:002012-05-27T07:05:29.970+00:00>>f Vallicella does say 'some' and &...>>f Vallicella does say 'some' and 'exists' statements are logically equivalent<br /><br />He says 'Ed and I agree that ...', so he does say that.<br /><br />I think his claim has a lot to it. It's just his way of getting there, i.e. his argument, that I struggle with.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-37220417705682645402012-05-27T05:06:45.220+00:002012-05-27T05:06:45.220+00:00Dear Ockham,
If Vallicella does say 'some'...Dear Ockham,<br /><br />If Vallicella does say 'some' and 'exists' statements are logically equivalent--i.e. have the same logical content--it is hard for me to see how you could be wrong. <br /><br />What would you have thought if Vallicella had instead chosen to say 'material equivalence' instead of 'logical equivalence'? I think Vallicella's argument about general existence presupposing the singular existence of individuals has something to be said for it; it needs to be addressed. Best.awatkins909https://www.blogger.com/profile/04272494240109130737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-33760066790500478882012-05-26T19:37:44.432+00:002012-05-26T19:37:44.432+00:00I am going with my mathematical instincts; mathema...I am going with my mathematical instincts; mathematical functions require a mapping and a domain, and I understand why this is so. In contrast, I do not see why logical operators would be different, and thus prima facie it requires some explanation. Keep in mind that as long as we describe algebraic functions as mapping, we need not think of math as implying computability, which is not required in logic.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-44258239963282296942012-05-26T18:56:27.033+00:002012-05-26T18:56:27.033+00:00>>Is "equivalence" a well-defined ...>>Is "equivalence" a well-defined operator without a domain?<br /><br />Semantic equivalence, yes?Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-55418517233487587052012-05-26T14:02:40.131+00:002012-05-26T14:02:40.131+00:00Is "equivalence" a well-defined operator...Is "equivalence" a well-defined operator without a domain?khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-47230914160379561822012-05-26T13:45:45.949+00:002012-05-26T13:45:45.949+00:00Oh right, I see. Second alterntive involves haecc...Oh right, I see. Second alterntive involves haecceity properties. Both Bill and I agree on that. We disagree on whether they are possible, of course.<br /><br />On the first alternative, 'getting it backwards', more later.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-67194384785010001492012-05-26T13:42:26.443+00:002012-05-26T13:42:26.443+00:00>>Is "Prime numbers exist" logical...>>Is "Prime numbers exist" logically equivalent to "Some number is prime"?<br /><br />yes (setting aside the subtlety of the plural).<br /><br />>>I couldn't understand your first alternative, but after reading the response I think he is right that you have it backward.<br /><br />Sorry, what first alternative? What have I got backwards?Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-37461568787728834742012-05-26T13:38:04.268+00:002012-05-26T13:38:04.268+00:00Is "Prime numbers exist" logically equiv...Is "Prime numbers exist" logically equivalent to "Some number is prime"?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-70961852118551727172012-05-26T13:26:39.798+00:002012-05-26T13:26:39.798+00:00I'm getting better at this. I properly predic...I'm getting better at this. I properly predicted that Vallicella would object to your second alternative as requiring haecceity properties.<br /><br />I couldn't understand your first alternative, but after reading the response I think he is right that you have it backward.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.com