I also accept this first one, but only because it fits in with my (probably different than yours) definition of being real. Somebody else might assume a contrary premise and they would not be necessarily wrong for that.Consul wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 11:31 amAs for 1: I don't believe in the existence of mere possibilia or merely possible worlds, so I accept the premise that the actual world is the only existent/real world.Tamminen wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 8:52 amIn spite of the happy agreement on one point, this is where we disagree, because:
1. There is only one world.
2. There are subjects in the world.
3. Only subjects can use logic.
4. The scope of logic is the same as the scope of using logic.
5. The limits of the logical space where a subject can posit possibilities are defined by the subject-world relationship.
6. Therefore, because there is only one world, a subject cannot consistently imagine a world without subjects, because it lies outside of the limits of logic.
Where does this reasoning fail?
If 'the world' includes all of history (not just the state at some given moment), then the world contains subjects, period. Adding a restriction that the subjects to be present at all times is as unreasonable as requiring subjects to be present at all locations.As for 2: Obviously true. However, it doesn't follow that there have always been (and will always be) subjects in the world.
Tamminen hasn't given the definition of exists in his list, so yes, this point is true. In a way he has. There is only the one world (by ), so no other world exists. The whole conclusion can be drawn by just premise 1 and 2. There is only this world, and it has subjects. A world without subjects would thus be a separate world, and that violates premise 1. If there is only one world, of course other worlds don't exist. There isn't much logic to it. It was just assumed as a premise, which certainly does not render proof of the impossibility of (1) not being the case.And even if this were true, it still wouldn't follow that the world depends for its existence on the existence of subjects. (Actual existence doesn't entail necessary existence!)
OK, the point was not that such a world doesn't exist, the point was that it could not be posited.
A simple wooden device can use logic. This premise seems blatantly false.As for 3: True—unless logical processes (reasoning) can be implemented by nonconscious machines (computers). Of course, only subjects are capable of conscious reasoning (logical thought).
I also don't see how this premise is necessary. It seems the conclusion doesn't rely on the inability of logic being performed by something that doesn't qualify as a subject.
Ditto. No idea what it was supposed to convey.As for 4: This I do not understand.
Again, ditto. It seems evident that all one has to do to posit such a world is to propose a modified form of premise 1 such as: "There may be more than one world". Many proofs rely on positing (imagining) the thing they want to disprove. Posit not-X (sqrt(2) is rational), and from that demonstrate a logical inconsistency. Therefore X (sqrt(2) is irrational). But all those proofs would be rendered invalid if it was not logically possible for the contrary position to be posited.As for 5: Again, I'm not sure what this means. Are you talking about the epistemology of modality—in particular, about the relationship between imaginability or conceivability and possibility?
As for 6, my reply is more directly to Tamminen:As for 6:
No logic has been demonstrated connecting the premises to the conclusion. Just straight to 'therefore'. OK, I can sort of see the line of reasoning, but it should be spelled out so we can see how the unclear pieces fit.
So you have a conclusion drawn from 5 assumptions, only one of which has empirical evidence, which means if any of the assumptions are mistaken (and at least two demonstrably are), then the conclusion doesn't follow. Your statement just says that if you believe these five premises, then maybe you can believe that it is impossible to posit a world without subjects.