Any imaginable thing is real

[bahman]

The whole is boundless (this is discussed here). Therefore, any imaginable thing is real.

[Impenitent]

the corner of a sphere

-Imp

[Skepdick]

the corner of a sphere

-Imp

I believe you.

Can you express the topology (semantics) you have in mind?

[Impenitent]

the corner of a sphere

-Imp

I believe you.

Can you express the topology (semantics) you have in mind?

along the lines of a married bachelor...

-Imp

[Skepdick]

along the lines of a married bachelor...

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.

[commonsense]

the corner of a sphere

-Imp

I believe you.

Can you express the topology (semantics) you have in mind?

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.

[bahman]

the corner of a sphere

-Imp

I believe you.

Can you express the topology (semantics) you have in mind?

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.

It is not.

[Skepdick]

I am going to split your comment in two so I can address it.

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 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.

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 preposterous to claim that whatever can be imagined exists in the physical world.

Is it as preposterous as the existence of square circles? Because those are in every city.

[Terrapin Station]

The whole is boundless (this is discussed here). Therefore, any imaginable thing is real.

Boundless can be just one thing. You can imagine more than one thing.

[commonsense]

I am going to split your comment in two so I can address it.

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 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.

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 preposterous to claim that whatever can be imagined exists in the physical world.

Is it as preposterous as the existence of square circles? Because those are in every city.

Oooooohhhhhh!

[bahman]

The whole is boundless (this is discussed here). Therefore, any imaginable thing is real.

Boundless can be just one thing.

Boundless is the one thing.

You can imagine more than one thing.

Of course the set of things is infinite.

[Sculptor]

The whole is boundless (this is discussed here). Therefore, any imaginable thing is real.

I imagine a large steak and chips with cheese cake to follow.
Sadly I'm still hungry.
What am I doing wrong?

[bahman]

The whole is boundless (this is discussed here). Therefore, any imaginable thing is real.

I imagine a large steak and chips with cheese cake to follow.
Sadly I'm still hungry.
What am I doing wrong?

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]

The whole is boundless (this is discussed here). Therefore, any imaginable thing is real.

Boundless can be just one thing.

Boundless is the one thing.

"Boundless" isn't a "thing." What I mean is that you could have a boundless expanse of electrons only, or socks only, or whatever.

Of course the set of things is infinite.

Sets are just concepts--they're something we invented. They don't exist aside from that.

[bahman]

Boundless can be just one thing.

Boundless is the one thing.

"Boundless" isn't a "thing." What I mean is that you could have a boundless expanse of electrons only, or socks only, or whatever.

I mean it a thing as a whole.

Of course the set of things is infinite.

Sets are just concepts--they're something we invented. They don't exist aside from that.

They for sure exist if they are coherent. By coherent I mean if they could manifest themselves.