tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post9204193396834337351..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Existential ConservatismEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-2765094530836058602008-06-17T07:11:00.000+00:002008-06-17T07:11:00.000+00:00Thank you for the link to Craig, VV. This deserve...Thank you for the link to Craig, VV. This deserves more attention than I have space for here.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-64059199105629101872008-06-16T09:25:00.000+00:002008-06-16T09:25:00.000+00:00O and David,W. L. Craig has an older and great pos...O and David,<BR/><BR/>W. L. Craig has an older and great post on abstract and fictional objects here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5985Vlastimil Vohánkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12544439495032316597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-67493563859497880082008-06-12T19:41:00.000+00:002008-06-12T19:41:00.000+00:00To avoid any confusion, the propositions in the st...To avoid any confusion, the propositions in the story itself are not wrapped around by any operator, and so they are false. The 'according to' operator is brought in to explain how some of the statements we make about the story are true.<BR/><BR/>Thus<BR/><BR/>Bilbo has small feet<BR/>Bilbo is a hobbit<BR/>:. some hobbit has small feet<BR/><BR/>is valid (though, obviously, unsound).<BR/><BR/>Your point that fictional characters have some sort of existence in the mind is an old one, and the reply (Scotus, Ockham, Mill, Frege, Quine) is also old: "the idea of Sherlock Holmes" refers not to a detective, but to an idea. As for 'Sherlock Holmes', it refers to nothing.<BR/><BR/>On the Mally, he is a Satanic figure to us thins!Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-47457243154970326912008-06-12T09:51:00.000+00:002008-06-12T09:51:00.000+00:00I certainly wouldn't want to postulate parallel un...I certainly wouldn't want to postulate parallel universes full of fictional characters. On the other hand, the 'S says that p' theory, though not wrong, hardly goes very deep, being little more than quotation. In particular, from 'S says that Pa' and '(S says that) Px-->Qx' we can't conclude 'S says that Qa', even though an author, especially one of detective fiction, fully expects us to help ourselves to the conclusion that Qa holds within his fictional world. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that fictional characters and stories, symphonies, computer algorithms, architectural designs, and myriad other intellectual products do have a real existence as patterns in the minds of those who have been exposed to the concrete objects---novels, CDs, programs, drawings, and so on, which encode them. If you and I have read and absorbed some Holmes stories then there will be 'roughly isomorphic' patterns in our minds that we might as well label 'Holmes'. This seems close to what the earlier Ockham is saying about 'affections of the soul'. The problem is then to find a good way of talking and arguing about these 'objects', since classical logic doesn't seem adequate to the job. One possible way ahead is described <A HREF="http://mally.stanford.edu/theory.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. I'd be interested to hear what you make of this work.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756430578089857478noreply@blogger.com