Re: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
Philippe, Rob, John,
the point I was trying to make, is that if there is one thing clear and
undeniable, it is that there is something rather than nothing. The nature of
what is, is a different question. Anyway, I cannot see how making the thing
more complex could help.
I have to admit that I'm dazzled why people cannot admit this. Denying it
would be also denying the law of contradiction. Denying it shows that the
denier is a Pyrrhic sceptic, when the one who accepts it does not have to
commit to anything else except existing himself! Of course, if we want to
pursue forward with what I call PPO, we have to first accept that there is
something rather than nothing. I gather that (correct me if I'm wrong)
because John is against pursuing anything like PPO, he will not even agree
that something exists.
Avril
Quoting Philippe Martin <phmartin@PHMARTIN.INFO>:
> Rob,
>
> > Descartes proof was a proof of existence. But existence is a very
> > problematic concept. For instance, Descartes is now dead, does he not
> > then still exist? Clearly he doesn't exist in the way he once did, he
> > doesn't think any more. But do his thoughts not exist? We are thinking
> > about him, does that mean he exists?
> > Even basing existence in thought (or doubt) it is difficult to say
> > unequivocally that Descartes either exists or does not exist.
>
> Doesn't this difficulty disappear if you define "exists" in a
> sufficiently precise or general way, and hence, if you define the
> terms you use in your statements?
>
> existing_living_person < existing ;
> existing_in_thought < existing ;
> Descartes_the_living_entity < Descartes existing_living_person ;
> Descartes_as_intellectual_symbol < Descartes existing_in_thought ;
>
>
> Philippe
>
>