All Questions
38
questions
3
votes
6
answers
628
views
What's the least amount of things that can possibly exist?
Suppose there only ever existed one indecomposable, irreducible object.
What could distinguish it from nothingness? From not existing, as there is nothing besides it that could deduce its information?
...
- 213
0
votes
4
answers
142
views
Existence, Stating/Proving in Logic
Proving dogs exist
If x barks then x is a dog: ∀x(Bx → Dx)
t: Timmy (a dog)
PROOF:
∀x(Bx → Dx) [Premise]
Bt [Premise]
Bt → Dt [1 UI]
Dt [2, 3 MP]
∃x(Dx) [4 EG]
QED
Proving ghosts don't exist
If the ...
- 4,351
0
votes
1
answer
116
views
Existence as a Predicate
In Predicate logic if I wanna say, Atoms exist, I don't/*can't (?) use Ex = x exists (make existence a predicate) and state Ea, where a = Atoms. The correct way to express Atoms exist is Ex(Ax), Ax = ...
- 4,351
3
votes
9
answers
2k
views
Is the concept of (Total) Nothingness self-refuting?
I've been reading the SEP about Nothingness and it gives a good summary of the philosophy around "Why is there something rather than nothing?".
One of the confusions it notes is that "...
- 2,107
-1
votes
5
answers
985
views
Can omnipotent beings exist? [duplicate]
Through an omnipotent being, all things are possible. Can such beings exist? For example, can the Flying Spaghetti Monster be omnipotent?
Prior discussion:
This question is supposedly relevant, but ...
- 1,586
2
votes
2
answers
399
views
Understanding the concept of "Entity"
I was reading the concept for an entity, it says:
An entity is something that exists as itself, as a subject or as an object, real or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not. It need ...
- 29
2
votes
1
answer
131
views
Is there something that exists by pure logic alone?
Is there something such that its existence is necessary, through pure logic alone? I know that Anselm famously suggested God as such a being, but his argument is widely thought to be fallacious. But ...
- 7,686
2
votes
7
answers
377
views
Applying logic to the question of whether all of existence is infinite or not
Here, I use to exist as generally as possible; if it is an object, it exists; if it is conceivable, it exists; if it is anything, it exists; even the properties and relations themselves exist. ...
- 148
2
votes
2
answers
167
views
Is al-Farabi right that predicates must add information and existence is not a predicate?
Al-Farabi claimed that existence is not a predicate, because "exists" as in "Apple is red and exists." doesn't bring any new information, but does a predicate have to bring in a ...
- 4,249
1
vote
1
answer
123
views
Can we make statements for persons/objects that cease to exist?
I am asking this question because I thought what truth value would have a have a quantifier over a set that contains persons that are dead. For example suppose I state:
"For every x that is ...
- 721
0
votes
4
answers
203
views
Does the existence of a thing necessarily imply its logical necessity?
In formal logic, does the existence of a thing necessarily imply its logical necessity, i.e., is it possible for something to exist without being logically necessary? Can a logically unnecessary thing ...
- 119
2
votes
1
answer
211
views
Existential Import
How is it that universal propositions (from the Boolean standpoint) don't commit us to the existence of the subject term while particular propositions actually do? Also, why particularly take or focus ...
6
votes
3
answers
362
views
How to denote the idea of nothingness in formal terms?
I was thinking about the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" , and have read about some theories that existence is the case because non-existence is logically impossible
So, I ...
- 2,419
3
votes
3
answers
513
views
Does the existential quantifier express existence?
Does the existential quantifier express existence?
The existential quantifier is a symbol of symbolic logic which
expresses that the statements within its scope are true for at least
one ...
user38026
-2
votes
2
answers
359
views
Does the Universe make sense? [closed]
When faced with a paradox, we say: well this can't be because it doesn't make sense.
p = "x doesn't make sense"
q = "x doesn't exist"
The contrapositive preserves validity:
p implies q
(not q) ...
- 709