tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post5852480249008965228..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: The meaning of MeinongEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-39707219811897265572009-11-19T19:36:20.167+00:002009-11-19T19:36:20.167+00:00And thank you. A further note - be careful about ...And thank you. A further note - be careful about defining the universe as a set with only one member. 'The set containing only the universe' refers to the set containing the universe. But 'the universe' refers to the single element contained in that set.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-4465235212681699772009-11-19T03:51:07.249+00:002009-11-19T03:51:07.249+00:00Thank you.Thank you.uzzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02494141255401096538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-17245505273503365022009-11-18T03:03:44.862+00:002009-11-18T03:03:44.862+00:00Thank you for this awesomely good response. It con...Thank you for this awesomely good response. It confirms my ill-informed opinion, too. I defined 'the universe' as a set with only one member, so I used the universal quantifier. Also 'no gods' is the set of all gods, whatever that means, so the universe, Gaia, or whatever, is a member of that set, and it takes a universal quantifier. I wrote it as <br /><br />no G is E<br />all U is G<br />no U is E <br /><br />My detractors keep saying "the universe can't be god, because god doesn't exist"; they seem to be assuming existential import where I am not. Does that sound right?uzzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02494141255401096538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-50970067088163363792009-11-17T20:20:25.277+00:002009-11-17T20:20:25.277+00:00Greeting, Uzza.
In traditional logic, a singula...Greeting, Uzza. <br /><br />In traditional logic, a singular proposition like 'Socrates walks' 'God is good' or in your example 'the universe is [a] god' is interpreted as a universal proposition. Thus<br /><br />no god exists<br />every universe is a god<br />:. no universe exists<br /><br />This is a syllogism in the first figure, 'Celarent', and is perfectly valid, so long as we interpret 'exists' as a predicate.<br /><br />However, whether 'exists' is a predicate in Aristotelian is a good question. <br /><br />In modern logic the syllogism above is valid<br /><br />not for some x, god(x)<br />forall x, universe(x) implies god(x)<br />:. not for some x, universe(x)<br /><br />However, the problem in modern logic is whether the definite description 'the universe' should be interpreted as a universal proposition (or something on the lines of Russell's theory of descriptions) or whether it is a singular term like 'Socrates'. If a singular term, then there is a problem because the conclusion would have to be expressed as <br /><br />not for some x, x = u<br /><br />which is contradictory.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-20833084464054350912009-11-17T07:28:07.223+00:002009-11-17T07:28:07.223+00:00This may be off topic, and if so I apologize, but ...This may be off topic, and if so I apologize, but we've been arguing over a similar thing. This syllogism of mine;<br /><br />no gods exist <br />the universe is god <br />so, the universe doesn't exist<br /><br />My debaters say you cannot make a syllogism that has contradictory premises. Who's right?uzzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02494141255401096538noreply@blogger.com