Skip to main content

New answers tagged

0 votes

If P is a property, then is (not P) a property?

That follows in most cases, and it follows in all cases according to the immediate form. However, the denial of "p is not true and false" is "p is true and false", which although ...
randomindividual's user avatar
0 votes

What is the difference between a " particular" and an " individual being "? (Ontology)

The standard ontological classification distinguishes: (1) particulars and universals (2) concrete and abstract entities. I'm wondering what place to attribute to " individuals" in this ...
lee pappas's user avatar
1 vote

Term of art for ontological evasion

Isn't "abstraction" the term you are looking for, at least in CS? In programming we hide irrelevant (at some level) information behind an interface so we don't need to think about it. For ...
Dikran Marsupial's user avatar
0 votes

Term of art for ontological evasion

Denialist https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denialist a person who denies the existence, truth, or validity of something despite proof or strong evidence that it is real, true, or valid ...
SystemTheory's user avatar
  • 1,909
0 votes

What are an object's properties?

To have object properties - the way you described them - you need the model first. The model is your deliberate intent to depict reality. In the model you list all the objects and the properties that ...
Slawek's user avatar
  • 41
1 vote

Term of art for ontological evasion

I feel the example given here is one of semantics rather than anything dealing with ontology. This is true about many debates. It is possible to argue for either side on the example depending on ...
Gree's user avatar
  • 11
2 votes

Term of art for ontological evasion

You state that pointers are references in memory, than all memory can be pointers. Higher level languages claim to not use pointers but that seems impossible because it has to use memory. It can't ...
Wayne Irving's user avatar
1 vote

Term of art for ontological evasion

There are two good answers so far, but you've asked for a philosophical bent to it. I'd invoke a Nietzsche quote to question your use of ontology: "Truths are illusions we have forgotten are ...
Cort Ammon's user avatar
4 votes

Term of art for ontological evasion

Languages that lay claim to be more high level do not have a concept of pointer but they still need to have (a model for) memory I'd agree (with you: I haven't actually dug into the dispute) that, if ...
Julio Di Egidio - inactive's user avatar
1 vote

What is the reason behind the fourth axiom in Gödel's ontological proof?

There are a couple of different versions of the proof. Wrt Wiki, we have that Axiom 4: "If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive", is used in the proof of Theorem 3: "....
Mauro ALLEGRANZA's user avatar
10 votes

Term of art for ontological evasion

This technique is called abstraction in computer science. We say that the programming language implements an abstraction on top of the hardware, and that the abstraction is a higher-level language. ...
David Gudeman's user avatar
1 vote
Accepted

Is there a difference between "there is" versus "there exists"?

Your question seems to assume that there might be some definitive difference between the meanings of the two words, and whether that difference has been explored by philosophers. I suggest you regard ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
-1 votes

Does having certainty about anything imply being omniscient?

Surely you can see that your question boils down how you define certain words. I consider myself to be absolutely certain that I am awake, that I have two feet, that I am not a billionaire, that I do ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
0 votes

Does having certainty about anything imply being omniscient?

In the world of mathematics, certainty can be and is routinely achieved in practice- at least in the sense that when balancing your checkbook, there is only one correct answer for the closing balance. ...
niels nielsen's user avatar
2 votes

Did God "design" logic?

2 + 2 = 4 by definition. It's not that we can't fathom 2 + 2 = 5, it's that that's not what we defined 2 + 2 to be. We can fathom much stranger things, like i*i = -1 The is no world, where the fourth ...
Michael Carey's user avatar
0 votes

Does having certainty about anything imply being omniscient?

Confidence is an internal feeling and conviction within a person regarding the correctness of their views, decisions, and actions. A self-confident individual knows precisely what they want to achieve ...
Aurelius Pontus's user avatar
1 vote

Did God "design" logic?

Leaving the question of God aside as irrelevant, we can sum up the question as follows: Could logic be different so that 2 + 2 = 4 be false and 2 + 2 = 5 true The answer is terribly simple: If we ...
Speakpigeon's user avatar
  • 8,012
2 votes
Accepted

Did God "design" logic?

One characterization of logic is as "topic neutral" (though heed the caveats in the SEP entry!), so logic is, or there would be a logic that is, about God as much as anything else. If God ...
Kristian Berry's user avatar
1 vote

Did God "design" logic?

Let's start with an answer to your comment on the question itself @RabbiKaii. Yes, logic itself is an effect of a cause, that cause being design. In fact, we can even argue that logic itself is a ...
Sebastianjoseph333's user avatar
-1 votes

Did God "design" logic?

If there is a god (I suspect not), then I would think that even it is beholden to the laws of logic and mathematics. It might be able to create clever worlds where certain logical or mathematical ...
TKoL's user avatar
  • 3,449
2 votes

Did God "design" logic?

There seems to be more than one question here. What is the origin of logic: is it the product of human design, or a natural feature of human thought, or is it supernatural in some way? What is the ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 26k
6 votes

Did God "design" logic?

He could have made it so that 2 + 2 = 5, without modifying the meaning of "2" or "+" or "=" or "4" or "5" (i.e. keeping all of that exactly the same). ...
causative's user avatar
  • 13.6k
1 vote

Do we have evidence that explanations that contain a minimal number of entities are true?

NO to all questions. (ontology is not about simplification, but realization)
Ioannis Paizis's user avatar
2 votes

What does modern physics hold to be the “base ontological system” of reality?

A really useful answer to this question would come from a physics practitioner who has completed a graduate program in mathematical physics. I will provide a slightly useful answer instead. The basis ...
niels nielsen's user avatar
2 votes

What does modern physics hold to be the “base ontological system” of reality?

QFTs are reducing particles to algebraic structures which are in fact mathematical abstractions. The ontology of reality IS identified with these mathematical constructs. It's not that mathematics are ...
Ioannis Paizis's user avatar
1 vote

Model and implication of bidirectional time

One of Einstein's great insights was simultaneity (if there is such a word) is not universally well-defined - it depends in surprising ways on how you move relative to the events you are observing. ...
j4nd3r53n's user avatar
  • 219
2 votes

Model and implication of bidirectional time

Causality is a human concept directly "linked" with time. When a system progresses from state A to state B it is supposed that some kind of force(?) acts upon this system to cause this ...
Ioannis Paizis's user avatar
4 votes
Accepted

Model and implication of bidirectional time

I think you are mixing notions of time and causality, as in metaphysics or psychology, with the physical notions of time and causality. The laws of physics are indeed insensitive to the direction of (...
Julio Di Egidio - inactive's user avatar
3 votes

Model and implication of bidirectional time

To deal with you question about bidirectional time one first needs a scientific context. A suitable context are world models on the base of General Relativity. Here your question becomes the question ...
Jo Wehler's user avatar
  • 33.1k
2 votes

Model and implication of bidirectional time

According to physics, there is NO present (see the Einstein's Train Thought Experiment, which shows that what is simultaneous to one observer is sequential to another); there are multiple possible ...
RodolfoAP's user avatar
  • 7,489

Top 50 recent answers are included