« Is Race a Social Construct? | Main | A Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives »

Thursday, November 03, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

>>The conclusion is obvious: one cannot explicate the existential 'is' in terms of the particular quantifier without circularity, without presupposing that things exist in a sense of 'exist' that is not captured by (D3). <<

Did you mean to include the 'not'? I'm having difficulty with this part.

>>Out of nothing nothing comes. Note that 'nothing' is used here in two different ways, ontologically and logically/quantificationally. For what the hallowed dictum states is that it is not the case that something arises from nothing/Nothingness.<<

Isn't it just a picturesque way of saying that everything comes from (i.e. is caused by) something? This is the same as saying

(1) it is not the case that something does not come from something

which is the same as

(2) Nothing does not come from something

I.e. 'comes from nothing' is a colourful way of saying 'does not come from something'.


Yes, I meant to include the 'not.' The sentence makes perfect sense to me.

I'll break the thought into two sentences. The 'is' of existence cannot be explicated in terms of the particular quantifier, pace thin theorists such as Quine and his side-kick van Inwagen. For if you attempt that you must assume that the items in the domain of quantification are not merely identical to something but are THERE in the first place.

As for your second comment, it's not so easy.

You say that (ENN) means that everything is caused by something.

Negating the latter yields: something is not caused by anything. Negating the former yields: out of nothing, something comes into being.

The negations strike me as non-equivalent. Suppose certain subatomic events are without cause. Then something is not caused by anything. That is consistent with (ENN): out of nothing, nothing comes into being.

Not quite following. If the meaning of A = the meaning of B, then the meaning of the negation of A = the meaning of the negation of B.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Google Search Engine

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008



May 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad