Re: virus: necessary reason

Brett Lane Robertson (unameit@tctc.com)
Thu, 06 Nov 1997 23:12:05 -0500


At 09:26 AM 11/6/97 -0700, you wrote:
>At 02:53 AM 11/6/97 -0500, Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
>
>>The proof for sufficient reason seems to say: given x; x either exists or
>>doesn't exist; either way there has to be a reason for x existing or not
>>existing...it cannot be shown that x does not exist so therefore x exists.
>>In what state does x exist?
>
>PSR implies that if x is possible then x must exist. I don't buy it.
>David McFadzean

List,

The idea I presented is similar to Ernst Mally's distinction between
exemplifying and encoding a property. "This is a distinction between two
fundamental kinds of predication, and it is formally represented in the
theory as the distinction between the atomic formulas `Fx ' (`x exemplifies
F ') and `xF ' (`x encodes F '). The formula `Fx ' represents the classical
kind of predication; it is used to logically analyze such simple sentences
as `John is happy'...So Mally informally introduced the notion `x encodes F
' (German: F determiniert x) as a new mode of predication that is more
appropriate for the logical analysis of sentences about fictions and other
abstract objects....Encoding provides the means of identifying and
individuating abstract objects. The properties that an abstract object
encodes are part of its intrinsic nature---they are even more essential to
it than the properties that such objects exemplify necessarily." (from "The
Theory of Abstract Objects <http://mally.stanford.edu/theory.html>")

What this says to me is that David's statement is from a classical
perspective. He is saying "if x is possible then x must exist". The theory
though says that "if x exists it must be possible"...the second kind of
"predication" shown above.

Again, this theory doesn't say that <x> is possible so <x> has to exist. It
says that if <x> exists then it has certain properties. The above passage
says that <x> would encode an object...that it would be a symbol (abstract
object); but, even as an abstract object, one could make a logical analysis
of it. One analysis made above is that "The properties that an abstract
object (meme) encodes are part of its intrinsc nature--they are even more
essential to it than the properties that such objects exemplify necessarily".

I think this is very important to the study of a meme which encodes certain
properties "intrinsically". I also think that David's inability to percieve
of the second type of "predication" might limit his understanding of exactly
how it is that a meme encodes certain properties. Similarly, Wade might be
missing this symbolic understanding of the meme by looking for it to fit
within the first category.

Brett

Returning,
rBERTS%n
http://www.tctc.com/~unameit/makepage.htm

Faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam
on a picnic without looking to see whether the seeds move.