From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 2:46 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Science & atheism are cultures. "Jesse Nowells" wrote: > > I ask yet again: under what definition of 'exist'? > > Something that is more than an idea. Two ideas are more than an idea. Do any possible pair of ideas thus "exist"? A story is more than an idea. Do all possible stories thus "exist"? > > As long as actuality and mere possibility are indistinguishable > > for worlds, there is no reason to presume they are different > > (for worlds). (Can you say 'parsimony'?) > > There is no reason to presume that they're the same. I gave you the precise reason: parsimony. > You can't have your cake & eat it too. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. A watched pot never boils. A stitch in time saves nine. > > By the principle of the Identity of Indiscernables, I indeed assert > > such an equivalence. If you know of a discernable difference > > between the two notions for worlds, state it and thereby prove me > > wrong. (Of course, if you could do so, you'd have done so by now.) > > You're playing bait & switch. The argument is not about the equivalence > between actuality & possibility of the *actual world* but worlds in > general. I defy you to quote me ever stating that the argument is about the equivalence between actuality and possibility of just our actual world. > Nobody can presume that any world described is actual. They can, if they observe that there is no demonstrated difference between actuality and possibility for worlds. Can you demonstrate such a difference? Let's see: > A description of a world is a set of statements about a world with no > necessary referent at all other than itself, that is, a set of statements > about a world. The actual world is not merely a set of statements about > itself. Evidently not. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net