possible worlds...

Bizzaro World !

i seldom think the one world i live in is possible.

I haven't really bought into the premis martin, but following anyway.

"2+2 = 4" is either a tautology. or it models a "state of affairs" in which individual objects exist, have continuity and identity, and form consistent combinatorial units. This second statement (which assumes the existence of an observer to define "identity" etc) is logically a priori relative to the tautologica1 abstraction, hence it has no independent existence from that of an "I".

As far as being defined by us humans, I would agree that 2+2 = 4. We have defined it this way. We have accepted that this is an absolute. On another possible world, let's say that the verbal statement "2+2 = 4" for some reason meant "Let's do lunch." Would the statement then be an absolute truth?

Also, I have found that with tax loopholes, sometimes 2+2 does not always = 4

Hmmmmm; in "my" world, 2x2 = 4 !

Not to mention that two squared equals four.

Re: possible worlds...


The entities in that other world may not be aware of your existance but you would still exist.

i am not talking about '2+2=4', but 2+2=4, i.e. the numbers, not the signs. i am saying that 2+2=4 is a necessary truth in all worlds except in a world where there is nothing, for if there is nothing, then there are no numbers or any signs that can signify numbers. if, in some possible world, "2+2=4" were to mean "let's do lunch", then it is the signs '2+2=4' which mean "lets do lunch". in that world, there would have to be numbers because something exists - just the way of signifying those numbers is different.

incidently, this calls into question the notion of how language latches onto the world. i don't know if anyone is familiar with the work of William of Ockham (medieval philosopher), but he gives a three layer metaphysic of concrete particulars, and removes the need for universals. this means that individuality is found within the 'being' of an object. this was termed "haecity" or "thisness" by jons duns scotus. Jacques Derrida, building on the destructive methods of Martin Heidegger, has proposed that it is not "being" that gives individuality, it is 'difference', ie the similarities and disimilarities of objects from each other and their 'trace' (their history).

my knowledge on this area of metaphysics is sketchy at best - does anyone know anything about Jacques Derrida and his anti-metaphysic philosophy?

Martin

worlds
Is it possible that 2+2 always and necessarily "amounts to" 4 because "4" is just another way of saying "2+2?

worlds
Apparentlymartin, when I say "I exist" do I always imply "here"? I know I don't exist in Detroit or on Mars.

JLNobody, regarding your statement:



The mathematical statement 2+2=4 does not imply that 4= 2+2 in all circumstances. Mathematically the result "4" can be arrived at via an infinite amount of combination of mathmatical operations.
Examples:

4=3+1; 4=2 x 2; 4= 5-1; 4= 2,124,554 - 2,124,550; etc. and there are many more mathematical operators to further muddy the waters, not to mention more complicated math statements that would resolve to "4".

Obviously this is much too ambiguous to employ as a language, not enough specific information conveyed.
If one utters "2+2", that in and of itself implies specific information,
stating "4" implies no such specificity.

JM

At the risk of boring fellow threaders I wish to argue (again !) that we need to distinguish between "existence" and "quality of existence". I argue that "existence" means "to be in relationship with". Thus "I" may be in relationship with (a)"this chair" (b) "unicorns" (c) "the concept 2+2 =4"(d) "myself as an object"
So I argue that a,b,c,d "exist" but the "quality" of the relationship differs. Such "quality" describes the nature of the relationship...whether experienced by the senses, whether used to inform next action, degree of consensus with others etc.

The argument that "there may be worlds where "I" don't exist" in my view borders on Russells paradox. i.e. "I" as a "thinker" can visulize(relate to) a world where "I" as an "object" am not present.
But this can be resolved by differentiating between the QUALITY of existence of the "two I's", i.e. a separation of identities.

JLNobody, personally, i think that by making the existential statement "I exist", i am only imposing a temporal limitation on the notion. it is an interesting question though, because there is the thought that "i exist" entails that "I am self-identical" . there are some who believe that "I am self-identical" implies a spatial limitation. That is, how can one be self-identical with oneself, without being in the same place as oneself? i tend to agree. But this is only true if you agree with "I exist" implying "I am self-identical".

Fresco, i wish to rebut your claim about existence. There are some circumstances where there is nothing "to be in a relationship with". For example, the universe exists - but to what does it exist in relation with? to exist in relation to itself would be absurd, even to itself "as an object". I take this point of view because the universe is changing constantly. To exist in relation to itself entails some kind of staticity, and that goes against observation. To exist in relationship with those those entities within the universe seems equally strange, because that is no different to being in relation to itself.
With regards to quality, how do you define "quality"? it is not quantifiable, and it does not seem to resolve the problem of "I can conceive of a world where i don't exist". If you are trying to claim that the "I" of "I can conceive" is different to the "I" of "I don't exist", then you seem to be denying the statement "I am self-identical", which is a necessary truth.

My brief rejoinder.

1. "The universe" cannot "exist" except in relationship to "an observer". (Theres no "tree in the forest without" an "imaginer". ("The universe" is a concept like any other with the hidden a priori assumption of "the observer" as external axiom in the Godel sense. Berkely "solved" this by evoking "a deity" as the ultimate observer)

2. "Identity" is a function of "the observer" who defines the "event window". (Some cultures do not see all "water" as identical substance)
Thus by altering the size of the event window self1 may not be "identical" to self2 where 1 and 2 are different times except in relationship to say "common goals" or "legal culpability"etc.(..and even here we have the escape..."he was not in his right mind" etc). The social persistence of "our name" or ANY WORD falsely imparts a concept of non-functional "identity" or "neutral events".

3. "Quality" is defined by "social functionality" and one attribute of this is "consensus". Thus co-believers in some version of "God" perform mutual rituals on a "the sabbath", whilst others use "the sabbath" to sleep late. The "sabbath" has "existence" of different qualities to different partcipants, and restricts the actions of all via trading laws etc.

Later expansion of point 2. (above)

I have argued elsewhere (See Social Reality Thread) that "similarity" and "difference"are necessary conjuncts to the "existance" of any two "objects"(=event observations). Thus the old philosophical argument about "the morning star" and the "evening star" being "identical"(both equal to Venus) is irrelevent except for certain pragmatic purposes (e.g. Space Travel). In extrapolation all "facts" are relative to functionality.and "persistance" is about our confidence in predicting outcomes of our interactions ("time" being an artificial mental construct).

ontology
Now I know why I don't like philosophy as a venue of debate, only as one of very personal inquiry.

a friend with a Ph.D. in Philosophy told me that in a universe where nothing happens and nothing exists--like our universe before the Big Bang-- there would be no time.

But my problem is that if the Big Bag happened and there was a before and an after, then there was "time"....

Can anyone clarify this? That is , if you have time.

First Amarty;
"For example, the universe exists - but to what does it exist in relation with?"

While I don't for an instant agree that there needs to be something with which to "relate", I would postulate the "other" universes, or "nothingness" as available options; are we going to make that same old mistake again, based on self centred anthropomorhism, that we alone; our universe alone, exists in a void? Surely it makes more sense to assume, within the obvious lack of evidence, that we exist in one of an infinite (or less) number of universes.

Second fresco's "brief rejoinder";
"The universe" cannot "exist" except in relationship to "an observer""

Let's try this scenario: Albert junior is dabbling with specific mixtures of atomic particles that may make nicer, bigger fireworks, and OOPS, he blows the entire planet out of existence; BANG!!!!!
Does the universe, lacking any "observers" cease to exist; to again satisfy our self centred anthropomorhism? Or does nonlife go on as it has for eons, totally unconcerned with the loss of a little, nasty source of "noise"?

And in (my) answer to trailB;
Time as I, and many others see it is totally relative; and would indeed be created by the "BB" in relation to "this" universe.
Time in "other" universes would be related only to "itself" and measure from its "BB"(or equivalent, who knows?).
Whether there was a measurable "before", or will be a extended "after", is niether knowable, or infer-able.
In my "BB" nothingness began to cataclysmically explode into "everything"(our "everything"), and continues to do so.
Eventually "everything" will have "winked" into existence, and our universe will fully exist (with its full compliment of "dark matter"); and from that point what?
Will it then start to wink "out" of existence, bit by bit?