tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7167492656415476017..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Space, Time, and LogicVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42985186230915472572021-02-19T05:10:25.038-07:002021-02-19T05:10:25.038-07:00OK. Thank you for engaging with this. Has helped m...OK. Thank you for engaging with this. Has helped me get some ideas clearer. Much appreciated. DBDavid Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6257525102663848902021-02-18T19:03:39.247-07:002021-02-18T19:03:39.247-07:00Well it seems you're making nothing out of som...Well it seems you're making nothing out of something. That's a switch.<br /><br />This is most likely the reason we're talking past each other. I suspect this is a good place to stop.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63943059120380139562021-02-18T17:03:08.939-07:002021-02-18T17:03:08.939-07:00The adjective 'fictional' is applicable to...The adjective 'fictional' is applicable to books and films and statements given to the police, but not to people. You could look into the biography of every person that ever was and you would find that at no time were they ever fictional.<br /><br />The unit square and Phoebe appear to be counterexamples to Parmenides, then. There is nothing there yet we can talk about them.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70127311800454101552021-02-18T12:25:24.189-07:002021-02-18T12:25:24.189-07:00But I have no sister-in-law.
In this case your fi...<b>But I have no sister-in-law.</b><br /><br />In this case your fictional SIL exists as a fictional person. Not nothing.<br /><br /><br />Regarding your 2 questions:<br />I'm claiming you are making a category mistake.<br /><br />If you can talk about it, it is not nothing (per Parmenides).<br />But if you could talk about nothing (which is not possible) your speech would have no content.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85764985644601899472021-02-18T10:34:28.680-07:002021-02-18T10:34:28.680-07:00The fact that you are talking about something mean...<b> The fact that you are talking about something means that this something you are talking about has some form of existence. </b><br /><br />I don't think this principle holds. I could tell you all about my sister-in-law, Phoebe, where and when she was born, where she went to school, who she married, and so on. You'd understand it all. But I have no sister-in-law.<br /><br /><b>If there is nothing there in any aspect of existence and then neither I nor anyone else would know what you were talking about. </b><br /><br />Accepting this principle for sake of argument, are you then saying, <br /><br />1. There is nothing there and therefore you don't know what I'm talking about (modus ponens),<br /><br />or<br /><br />2. You do know what I'm talking about and therefore there is something there? (modus tollens)<br /><br />I'm guessing (2), but what is it that's there?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23220640380211374082021-02-18T08:07:35.791-07:002021-02-18T08:07:35.791-07:00But there's nothing there
If there is nothing...<b> But there's nothing there</b><br /><br />If there is nothing there in any aspect of existence and then neither I nor anyone else would know what you were talking about. Nothing is the complete absence of existence. The fact that you are talking about something means that this something you are talking about has some form of existence.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43528133482297356402021-02-18T07:40:05.660-07:002021-02-18T07:40:05.660-07:00Consider: the points (0,0), (1,0), (1,1), and (0,...Consider: the points (0,0), (1,0), (1,1), and (0,1) form a square or are in a square in the Cartesian plane, Yes? But there's nothing there. And I haven't specified a distance unit, the location of the origin, or the orientation of the plane in space. What can I be talking about? It would seem that space is filled with countless squares and other figures some of which we haven't names for or have yet to imagine. But you knew straight away when I listed the coordinates what I was talking about. This suggests to me that 'square' denotes a relationship that may hold between any four positions in space. And by a species of linguistic 'extension' the term for the relation comes to be applicable to any set of four concrete things whose location in space satisfies the relation. Of course, this explanation builds on a related phenomenon whereby multiple individuals under some connecting relation are denoted by a singular term---<i>couple, quartet, herd, platoon, company, collection,</i> etc, etc, etc.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69804386745340942212021-02-17T17:25:40.161-07:002021-02-17T17:25:40.161-07:00I don't think squares have any existence at al...<b>I don't think squares have any existence at all..</b><br /><br />But a thing that doesn't exist in any way is just nothing. I don't think nothing can be called a square, stack or anything else for that matter. <br /><br /><b>I say that these arrangements are real and we can make objectively true statements using the nouns 'stack', 'row', etc, yet there are no stack and row entities either in spacetime or outside it.</b><br /><br />I don't know what these objectively true statements could be about if they depend crucially on denoting nonexistent individuals.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59662393583962418362021-02-17T16:24:44.710-07:002021-02-17T16:24:44.710-07:00If "arrangements" are real and have exis...<b>If "arrangements" are real and have existence but aren't objects what kind of existence do they have?</b> I don't think squares have any existence at all but we could use graph paper or rulers and protractors to show that four coins really, truly were arranged in a square. <br /><br /><b>What are your definitions of noun and entity?</b> For <i>entity</i> how about <i>individual</i>? A noun is a word that can be preceded by 'a' or 'the' to denote an individual of some kind.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8538182585970573812021-02-17T11:00:38.858-07:002021-02-17T11:00:38.858-07:00All my recent examples have been spatial in that t...<b>All my recent examples have been spatial in that they are about spatial arrangements of objects at some time, stacks, rows, etc, it's just that they aren't objects themselves,</b><br /><br />We switched from entity to object? I think object refers only to material things.<br /><br />I agree they aren't objects since that implies they have material existence. If "arrangements" are real and have existence but aren't objects what kind of existence do they have?<br /><br /><b>I say that these arrangements are real and we can make objectively true statements using the nouns 'stack', 'row', etc, yet there are no stack and row entities either in spacetime or outside it.</b><br /><br />I think I asked before What are your definitions of noun and entity?<br />There are many different types of things these terms encompass so there is much room for ambiguity.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63489045060973194042021-02-17T08:53:23.775-07:002021-02-17T08:53:23.775-07:00The fact that there is no physical spatio-temporal...<b>The fact that there is no physical spatio-temporal component associated with what we both understand to be an "arrangement"..</b> <br /><br />Hmmm. You've lost me now. All my recent examples have been spatial in that they are about spatial arrangements of objects at some time, stacks, rows, etc, it's just that they aren't objects themselves, even though the language we use in talking about them is the language of objects. I say that these arrangements are real and we can make objectively true statements using the nouns 'stack', 'row', etc, yet there are no stack and row entities either in spacetime or outside it. This is Ockham's razor: <i>entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate</i>.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88376371243976010492021-02-17T07:46:17.029-07:002021-02-17T07:46:17.029-07:00If your definition of "entity" is only s...If your definition of "entity" is only something that exists within space and time then of course something outside of space and time cannot be an "entity". But the dictionary doesn't necessarily confine English users to just that sense.<br /><br />Here's the first result from Google:<br />Merriam Webster:<br /><i><br />en·ti·ty | \ ˈen-tə-tē , ˈe-nə- \<br />plural entities<br />Definition of entity<br />1a : BEING, EXISTENCE<br />especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence<br />b : the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes<br /><b>2 : something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality</b><br />3 : an organization (such as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity separate from those of its members</i><br /><br />The Cambridge English Dictionary also lists adjectives often used with the term entity such as: abstract entity, autonomous entity, and biological entity.<br /><br />The fact that there is no physical spatio-temporal component associated with what we both understand to be an "arrangement", doesn't mean it doesn't have existence. If it didn't objectively exist, then maybe one or the other of us would notice it, but not both of us (along with the rest of the human race).<br /><br />I'll admit if one limits oneself to only thinking physical objects have existence, then "arrangement" is a perplexing topic. I don't think calling it a noun changes things much.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17563224510538071462021-02-17T06:20:19.419-07:002021-02-17T06:20:19.419-07:00I guess I am nibbling away at the idea that entail...I guess I am nibbling away at the idea that entailments are entities existing outside space and time. Largely because I can't make sense of this. I can't offer a decent definition of 'entity'. Maybe 'substance', as I understand it, or 'object' gets close. I don't think 'existent thing' will do because there is just as much vagueness in that term as in 'entity'. I think we might proceed by means of examples and looking at how words are used. Often we can agree that sentences are true when we can't really say (in other words) what they mean!<br /><br />A further point I want to make about the terms I brought up above is that they are composable. We can take four stacks of five coins, place them on the table at the corners of a square and then we have a square of stacks of coins. Repeat at random places on the table and we have a scattering of squares of stacks of coins. My difficulty in seeing this as an entity is now compounded. Yet we can still make an existential statement, There is a scattering of squares of stacks of coins on the table, and we'd agree it's true, I hope.<br /><br />Let's call these words <i>nouns of arrangement</i>. When we say, 'There is a stack of books on the shelf' we are saying,<br /> 1. There are some books<br /> 2. They are on the shelf<br /> 3. They are stacked up.<br />We can analyse away the noun 'stack' by describing an arrangement. But nouns of arrangement are useful for describing composed arrangements. An arrangement is always an arrangement of somethings, even if the somethings turn out to be themselves arrangements of simpler somethings. Thus we can say, There is a row of stacks of books on the shelf. The arrangement is row-of-stack, as it were, and the arranged objects are books, but that's not how we say it in English. Unfortunately, the way we do say it in English leads us to think there may be row and stack entities or objects. <br /><br />So my proposal is that 'entailment' is a noun of arrangement. This is at least plausible in so far as (written) words are sequences of letters, sentences are sequences of words, and entailments are sequences of sentences, subject to further conditions.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51377463207568827092021-02-16T20:10:35.337-07:002021-02-16T20:10:35.337-07:00To be honest, I don't know what you're get...To be honest, I don't know what you're getting at.<br /><br />If you want to say that a "stack of coins" can't exist without there being coins in a stack then OK.<br /><br />I don't get this at all:<br /><b>Is there a stack entity in addition to the five coin entities?</b><br /><br />Who has implied this is the case?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91663582979488144492021-02-16T19:52:28.877-07:002021-02-16T19:52:28.877-07:00Likewise I may have a "stack of bricks"....Likewise I may have a "stack of bricks". In this case there is one entity with the material aspect of it being bricks rather than coins while the formal aspect is "stack".<br /><br />But when we ask ourselves what is common between a stack of coins and a stack of bricks, the answer is stack isn't it? It's not the material aspect of the 2 different stacks, but immaterial "stack" aspect of them.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34673473321568836192021-02-16T19:44:05.092-07:002021-02-16T19:44:05.092-07:00In this example you stated that a stack of coins e...In this example you stated that a stack of coins existed. So if an entity is an existent thing then the stack of coins is an entity. What is the material part of this particular stack? Coins. So we have formal and material explanation for this entity. They are not separate entities but all make up the single entity "stack of coins".bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82089595492394426912021-02-16T19:33:41.920-07:002021-02-16T19:33:41.920-07:00Please define entity.Please define entity.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38300580462092902482021-02-16T17:24:05.151-07:002021-02-16T17:24:05.151-07:00Suppose we have a stack of five coins on the table...Suppose we have a stack of five coins on the table. Is there a stack entity in addition to the five coin entities? I'd say not. The noun 'stack' denotes a way of arranging things rather than a thing itself. But the stack exists. To deny this is to deny the existence of the coins or the way they are arranged, and that would be false. Likewise 'row', 'square', 'pile', 'scattering', 'pyramid', 'queue', and others. Can't 'entailment' behave analogously?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80505213642504504662021-02-16T07:00:13.598-07:002021-02-16T07:00:13.598-07:00I wonder what you think an entity is and what a no...I wonder what you think an entity is and what a noun is then.<br /><br />You and I both recognize the same "entailment" conveyed by the sound, touch and sight of the different material media and so we have both been able to separate the media from the message. Yet it seems you're saying that this thing we both recognize as existing does not exist.<br /><br />That doesn't make sense to me. <br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18869118008735064312021-02-16T04:30:01.928-07:002021-02-16T04:30:01.928-07:00...then that particular entailment cannot be a mer...<b>...then that particular entailment cannot be a merely material entity</b>. But it's an entity of some sort, Yes? This is a point of difference between us. Despite 'entailment' being grammatically a noun I'm very reluctant to grant that an entailment is an entity of any kind. Much more akin to <i>arrangement</i> as discussed above at 9:52 AM. But then it seems rather grandiose to say that if I notice that my wife has changed the arrangement of the furniture in the living room then I must be in contact with something beyond time and space. And is it a deep metaphysical puzzle if the furniture next door is in the same arrangement? I prefer to think not.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44390621783705895732021-02-15T19:36:02.756-07:002021-02-15T19:36:02.756-07:00I think we've come back to a certain aspect we...I think we've come back to a certain aspect we've discussed before.<br /><br />I will point out that if the exact same entailment is transmitted to a mind in a voice, a Power Point slide or a Braille book, then that particular entailment cannot be a merely material entity since it is present in so many different material things. But you see no problem with this and your philosophy of materialism. It seems to me then, that apparently your version of materialism allows for hylomorphism since you see a distinction between the material component of a thing and it's form (or pattern).<br /><br />If that's the case, then I'm not sure what we disagree about. <br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76025681542393655162021-02-15T16:52:38.394-07:002021-02-15T16:52:38.394-07:00Hello BM. Putting LNC to one side for a minute, Y...Hello BM. Putting LNC to one side for a minute, Yes, entailment per se is abstract. So is injustice. We don't rail against injustice the abstraction as such, but rather particular concrete instances of injustice in space and time. Injustices, plural, conveys this. Victor isn't arguing as far as I'm aware for our contact with the non-spatiotemporal from our awareness of abstractions in general. For him there's something special about entailments compared to, say, injustices. A particular---I guess I can't say concrete---individual entailment is itself a non-spatiotemporal thing that we can perceive. I think I can see why one might think this. We seem to be talking about relations between words and sentences or even those mysterious things propositions, and these seem already to contain a good dollop of abstraction. I guess a parallel argument could be made from our contact with number and arithmetic, and we have touched upon this just lately. On the other hand, without the sentences of an entailment written in front of me, or spoken to me, or just 'heard' in the head all in the here and now, there is no determinate entailment to be perceived. Because it's exactly the read or heard words that determine the entailment in question.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85243894682518694242021-02-15T13:44:21.151-07:002021-02-15T13:44:21.151-07:00bmiller,
So, if humans had never evolved, the law ...bmiller,<br /><i>So, if humans had never evolved, the law of noncontradiction would not be true?</i><br /><br />If humans never existed, the Law of Non-contradiction would be non-existent.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12880502607059478642021-02-15T09:48:39.186-07:002021-02-15T09:48:39.186-07:00So, if humans had never evolved, the law of noncon...<b>So, if humans had never evolved, the law of noncontradiction would not be true?</b>bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28072291564801747552021-02-14T22:32:38.562-07:002021-02-14T22:32:38.562-07:00So entailment per se is abstract. It is non spati...So entailment per se is abstract. It is non spatiotemporal.<br />Like LNC?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.com