Metaphysics

Ed:
Yes, I'm familiar with Russell et al's arguments and definitions re 'sets.' Once he/they left physical concretes and flew off into 'The Set of all sets' (which supposedly automatically includes the Null-set [the non-set? or is there meaning to that? Oh, nm.]), all the while clearly talking more or less in terms of concepts but never using the word, the only set I kept interest in thereafter was my tv-set. My question was really half-facetious.
Re what troubles you re my using the term 'Nothing' as though it was a kind of sub-'something,' I think I understand. I believe that that conundrum comes under what's called "Plato's Beard": how can one 'properly' talk about that which is presumed to not exist, even if it's a pegasus, never mind the bona-fide 'nothing'? Once we agree pegasus doesn't exist, it seems improper to refer to 'it.' I have thoughts on this, but I'll not go into them here, other than I do believe that it's basically an epistemological prob which has much more than 'nothing' to it. But, see if you can find a ref to P-B somewhere on the web; I'm sure it's around. W.V.Quine coined the term/concept, re what he considers to be the ontological problem of referring to a non-existent/non-referent.

LLAP
J-D

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/14, 11:34am)

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/14, 11:35am)

Post 61

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 5:06pm

Semantically, 'Nothing' has two connotations :
'Nothing_(L)' (in logical terms) is the null set - represented by the symbol '�'.
'Nothing_(A)' (in the abstract) is 'that which does not exist'. But, 'that which does not exist' does not exist. It is not the empty set. It is not a set at all. It has no properties or attributes. To consider 'Nothing_(A)' would be not to consider.
To perceive 'Nothing_(A)' would be not to perceive.
To understand 'Nothing_(A)' would be not to understand. Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space. Logic requires definition. 'Nothing' - in the abstract context - is undefined, it does not exist, it is a fiction which has no physical manifestation in the Universe. Within the realm of logic 'Nothing' isn't 'non-existence', it is the existence of the null set - the value of '�'.

Post 62

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 7:01pm

    So, does the null-set 'necessarily' exist (or, at least have some kind of meaning, like 'pegasus'), meaning that there cannot be (a meaning to) NO 'null-set'? Or can one have (if not 'existence' then at least a meaning to) NO 'null-set'?
    If there can be (at least meaning to) the NO 'null-set', then, does to speak of such mean that you have some kind of 'set,' or No kind of 'set'? In EITHER of those cases, just WHAT is being referred to, at this point? (familiarity with the problem of Plato's Beard might help here; not that *I* have an answer!)
    Re-phrase 'the latter': Is to speak of NO 'null-set' self-contradictory? Or is it so 'logically-basic' that we're merely speaking of 'a negation of a Negation,' in which case we're merely circumlocutorily saying 'set.'? But if so... then NO 'null-set' is WHICH 'set' of WHAT?

    Or...is there maybe a problem with the very idea OF 'set' as used in logic-discussions (or "Philosophy of Logic," if you will)? --- Methinks the lack of an Aristotelian d-e-f-i-n-i-t-i-o-n for 'set' (as opposed to the description-of-concretes one is given in basic logic which one is expected to conceptually abstract-upon-abstractions upon) might be the starting point of any problems in dealing with my questions.

    Bertrand: thank you, for...'nothing.'

LLAP
J-D

P.S: sorry for the multiple 'edits.' Had to clarify (yeah, I know: HAH!) a phrase...or three.

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/14, 7:26pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/14, 7:31pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/14, 7:35pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/14, 7:46pm)

Post 63

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 7:49pm

The human purpose of logic is to successfully deal with reality. If something is unreal, then it is unimportant (other than as a mental exercise).

Logic serves US, not we IT.

Ed

Post 64

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 8:30pm

Ed:
    "The human purpose of logic is to successfully deal with reality. If something is unreal, then it is unimportant (other than a mental exercise).
    Logic serves US, not we IT."

    No argument. True enough, fer sure.
    But...(you must've known, given my posts, that THAT was coming)...'exercise,' whether mental (logic-conundrums or any 'puzzles') or physical (weight-lifting, soccer-kicking, gymnastics, maybe even Tiddly-Winks), is ALWAYS good in and of itself (and, is sometimes inadvertantly productive, such as discovering a new 'angle' [literally or metaphorically]); except, of course, when it transplants/replaces otherwise obviously (especially necessary-to-do) 'productive' time. --- Apart from the latter, I'm a bit with Richard Feynman re the attitude of 'play.' ('Course, he was able to professionally combine the two re his orientations and profession. Ntl...)
    Uh-h...my previous questions still stand, however...and...they are not in the least facetiously meant. Indeed, they're asking for an Identification re what IS the 'real' (meaningful/useful) re the 'null-set' (or NO 'null-set') vs what's NOT 'real'. --- I hinted that my view of the whole idea of 'sets' as (supposedly) 'defined' in Philosophy-of-Logic writings is itself a 'null-set,' (ie: un-real, with logical consequences IN logic-analysing); but no one's arguing for...or against...this view. Ergo, it's still de facto (like religious prophets of old) accepted as 'real'/useful.

MTFBWY
J-D

Post 65

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 6:56am