Do You Claim the Power?
June 8th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Do You Claim the Power? :: Do You Claim the Power? :: Do You Claim the Power? :: Do You Claim the Power?
Cologne 29-May-2008
Joseph Polanik schrieb Wed, 28 May 2008 06:34:49 -0400:
> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik schrieb
>
> >>Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >>> Joseph Polanik schrieb
>
> >>>>do you claim the power to attribute predicates to nothing(ness) or
> >>>>do you not?
>
> >>>>ME: You certainly claim the power to predicate something of nothing,
> >>>>for you have named it, and even predicated that something is
> >>>>distinct from nothing.
>
> >>saying that something is not nothing says something about something
> >>that is not nothing; hence, it is a legitimate predication.
>
> >>consider two statements concerning the nature of predication:
>
> >>A: predication is saying something about something
>
> >>B: predication is saying something about something that is not
> >>nothing.
>
> >>I’ve previously expressed my view that [A] should be understood to
> >>mean exactly what [B] appears to mean.
>
> >>you’ve claimed that [B] is untenable; but, you never really gave an
> >>example of a statement of predication that met [A] as you interpret it
> >>without meeting [B] as I interpret it.
>
> >>would you do that, now?
>
> >ME: If something is not nothing, then, so too, nothing is not
> >something, which is saying something about nothing. So your premiss B
> >fails.
>
> JP: I agree that asserting ‘nothing is not something’ counts as saying
> something about nothing; but, you haven’t proven that B has failed.
> you’ve only proven that there is a *difference* between your
> understanding of A and my understanding of B (which is also my
> understanding of A).
ME: They’re your A and B, not mine. All I pointed out was that you can’t
help predicating something of nothing, viz. that nothing is not
something.
>
> JP: I prefer B because it bans nonsense such as the claim ‘nothing is not
> something’.
ME: Why should it be nonsense?
>
> JP: could you say something similar in the language of sets: if something
> is
> not a member of the empty set; then, so too, a member of the empty set
> is not something? are you allowed to say that even though there are no
> members of the empty set about which you could say that?
ME: The empty set is something. And nothing is not the empty set.
> JP: suppose someone proved that an object weighing at least 5 Kg is not a
> member of the empty set. would you be able to conclude that a member of
> the empty set must weigh less than 5 Kg — even though there are no
> members of the empty set for you to weigh?
>
> Joe
>
ME:You can say anything you like about a member of the empty set, for
anything said has no sense. And nothing is not a member of the empty
set.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
