From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Mon Dec  9 10:48:56 EST 1991
Article 1954 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:11314 sci.philosophy.tech:1341 comp.ai.philosophy:1954
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Existence
Message-ID: <1991Dec8.120006.6306@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 8 Dec 91 17:00:05 GMT
References: <1991Dec7.190338.2203@Princeton.EDU> <JMC.91Dec7230031@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <95525@brunix.UUCP>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 80
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <95525@brunix.UUCP> 
cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:

>In article <JMC.91Dec7230031@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> 
>jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

JMC:
>>It is presumptuous and narcissistic to declare a question meaningless just
>>because you have no way of answering it conclusively.  This holds true both
>>for questions about the material world and for purely mathematical questions.

As unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with John McCarthy, I'll say that he is
absolutely right here.

CY:
>I agree; but Skaggs was referring to what I consider merely a semantic
>question, "Does pi exist?"  The question is applying the predicate of
>"existence" to an object on which it is not well-defined; i.e., I doubt you
>could find two people on any of these newsgroups who would agree what it
>would mean for pi to exist, or what it would mean for pi not to exist.

Item: given that Skaggs interrupted a mere semantic discussion between
Chesters and myself, his question was on par with the rest of it.

Item: existence, as most post-Kantian philosophers would be happy to tell
you, is not a predicate.

Item: once you assume that \pi is an object, you beg the question of
existence. 

Item: what it would mean for pi to exist, or what it would mean for pi not
to exist is quite well understood by mathematical philosophers; the rest of
the world does not count in this discussion, unless they are willing to
take the steps necessary for its understanding.

CY:
>If you give a clear definition of "exist" over the domain of mathematical
>objects as you state the question, it becomes meaningful.

Item: all modern discussion of existence is grounded in the Quine-Church
argument that every theory is committed to all entities included in the
ranges of its existentially quantified variables; in this sense, the
account of existence is deflationary, needing no "clear definition".

Item: in the light of the above, the question of mathematical existence is
meaningful to all who take such matters seriously. 

CY:
>Otherwise, nobody else is really sure what you're talking about, so they all
>come up with their own personal definitions, and have a nice
>philosophy-style argument.  He who first propounds a theory so obfuscated
>that none of the rest can understand it, as always, wins.  The prize is
>grant money and academic prestige; the game is unstable, as the former
>brings your enemies grovelling to your toes so they can get a piece of Uncle
>Sam's Tit, and the latter brings them to think you so brilliant that they
>don't bother even trying to deobfuscate your pronouncements.  In this,
>philosophy has much in common with the classic frat-house sport of
>"quarters," although the latter sheds rather more light on the true nature
>of consciousness, proving at least that whatever this elusive beast may be,
>it is certainly no boolean quantity.

Item: your personal position reduces to an implicit admission of your
failure to understand philosophical discourse, exacerbated by your
presumptiuos projection of a personal inability into an imaginary
theoretical deficiency thereof.  Go play a game of "quarters", frat boy.

>c


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


