Any imaginable thing is real
Any imaginable thing is real
The whole is boundless (this is discussed here). Therefore, any imaginable thing is real.
-
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
the corner of a sphere
-Imp
-Imp
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
I believe you.
Can you express the topology (semantics) you have in mind?
-
- Posts: 4368
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
I was one of those.
I stopped being a married bachelor the day I got my Masters degree.
But that doesn't help me reconstruct the sort of abstract object you have in your mind when you imagine the corner of a sphere.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
It may be impossible to put into words, even if it is possible to imagine it.
One might express semantically a sphere and a corner separately, but not a sphere with a corner.
It’s preposterous to claim that whatever can be imagined exists in the physical world.
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
It is not.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:50 amIt may be impossible to put into words, even if it is possible to imagine it.
One might express semantically a sphere and a corner separately, but not a sphere with a corner.
It’s preposterous to claim that whatever can be imagined exists in the physical world.
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
I am going to split your comment in two so I can address it.
So lets say I told you about a "square circle". And you said "you might semantically express square and circle separately, but not a square circle"
What you are really telling me is that you lack the semantic framework in which to interpret a "square circle". You lack the kind of geometry in which those two concepts can coexist without causing you mental anguish.
But when I tell you about the kind of geometry I have in mind then you'll go "Oooooohhhhhh! Is that what you mean?". And your outrage evaporates.
When you abandon your semantics and substitute them for mine, then you understand the square circle as I understand it.
So if Impenitent provides me with the geometry/semantic he's using then I don't see a problem. But on the principle of charity, I at least, have to ask for it.
It's precisely about semantics. I won't focus on the sphere with a corner because Impenitent hasn't told me how to construct the interpretative framework for it.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:50 am It may be impossible to put into words, even if it is possible to imagine it.
One might express semantically a sphere and a corner separately, but not a sphere with a corner.
So lets say I told you about a "square circle". And you said "you might semantically express square and circle separately, but not a square circle"
What you are really telling me is that you lack the semantic framework in which to interpret a "square circle". You lack the kind of geometry in which those two concepts can coexist without causing you mental anguish.
But when I tell you about the kind of geometry I have in mind then you'll go "Oooooohhhhhh! Is that what you mean?". And your outrage evaporates.
When you abandon your semantics and substitute them for mine, then you understand the square circle as I understand it.
So if Impenitent provides me with the geometry/semantic he's using then I don't see a problem. But on the principle of charity, I at least, have to ask for it.
Is it as preposterous as the existence of square circles? Because those are in every city.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:50 am It’s preposterous to claim that whatever can be imagined exists in the physical world.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
Oooooohhhhhh!Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:00 am I am going to split your comment in two so I can address it.
It's precisely about semantics. I won't focus on the sphere with a corner because Impenitent hasn't told me how to construct the interpretative framework for it.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:50 am It may be impossible to put into words, even if it is possible to imagine it.
One might express semantically a sphere and a corner separately, but not a sphere with a corner.
So lets say I told you about a "square circle". And you said "you might semantically express square and circle separately, but not a square circle"
What you are really telling me is that you lack the semantic framework in which to interpret a "square circle". You lack the kind of geometry in which those two concepts can coexist without causing you mental anguish.
But when I tell you about the kind of geometry I have in mind then you'll go "Oooooohhhhhh! Is that what you mean?". And your outrage evaporates.
When you abandon your semantics and substitute them for mine, then you understand the square circle as I understand it.
So if Impenitent provides me with the geometry/semantic he's using then I don't see a problem. But on the principle of charity, I at least, have to ask for it.
Is it as preposterous as the existence of square circles? Because those are in every city.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:50 am It’s preposterous to claim that whatever can be imagined exists in the physical world.
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
Boundless is the one thing.
Of course the set of things is infinite.
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
There is even a copy of you somewhere who wishes the large steak and chips with cheesecake and enjoy eating it right now. He has it, you don't. Wishing is not enough in your cases. You need to want it and do something to get it.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
"Boundless" isn't a "thing." What I mean is that you could have a boundless expanse of electrons only, or socks only, or whatever.
Sets are just concepts--they're something we invented. They don't exist aside from that.Of course the set of things is infinite.
Re: Any imaginable thing is real
I mean it a thing as a whole.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:50 pm"Boundless" isn't a "thing." What I mean is that you could have a boundless expanse of electrons only, or socks only, or whatever.
They for sure exist if they are coherent. By coherent I mean if they could manifest themselves.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:50 pmSets are just concepts--they're something we invented. They don't exist aside from that.Of course the set of things is infinite.