From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 7:25 AM To: Alt.Atheism.Moderated Subject: Re: Science & atheism are cultures. "HeckleAndJeckle" wrote > I interepreted "what exists refers to" as the thing that is being referred > to as existing. You interpreted differently than I. > These statements are false: > > "'existence' has not been distinguished from mere possibility for possible > worlds." > > "lexicographically, 'existence' for possible worlds is either > nonsensical, or is indistinguishable from mere possibility." It's obvious from the context of this discussion that "possible worlds" here means any world other than this one: ------------------ 'reality' cannot mean for other worlds the same thing that you think it means in this world. we don't have any criteria (separate from mere possibility) to judge the existence of other worlds. If existence means anything at all for other worlds, it is indistinguishable from mere possibility, and is thus equivalent. I'm instead claiming that 'existence' is not well-defined for other worlds, and that the way this lexeme is used makes it indistinguishable from (and thus equivalent to) mere possibility. ------------------- > But this "existence for possible worlds ... is > indistinguishable from mere possibility" seems applicable to anything. No, for any other thing, existence implies causal connectedness to the rest of this universe. This is not true of possible worlds (i.e. worlds that are not this one). -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net