Scott Brizel i’m actually ok with that formulation of existence as a reasoning tool – i think i found a solution for that just now – like 15 minutes ago – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object_theory it seems to be a kind of information theory but more like an “it’s all a database” theory. i’ll have to look deeper but basically what they call ordinary objects (table chair etc) are exemplars of properties. those properties are used in encoding objects. from there you can have non existent objects such as square circles because they are exemplars of a single object which is a unique collection of properties. from there it’s possible to have a formal ontology. its at that point within your formal ontology that you can distinguish more clearly in the types of objects. but now there is a place for them rather than in a vague land of fallacy, although fallacious objects could fit in a formal ontology

Scott Brizel i’m actually ok with that formulation of existence as a reasoning tool – i think i found a solution for that just now – like 15 minutes ago –

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object_theory

it seems to be a kind of information theory but more like an “it’s all a database” theory.

i’ll have to look deeper but basically what they call ordinary objects (table chair etc) are exemplars of properties.

those properties are used in encoding objects.

from there you can have non existent objects such as square circles because they are exemplars of a single object which is a unique collection of properties.

from there it’s possible to have a formal ontology.

its at that point within your formal ontology that you can distinguish more clearly in the types of objects. but now there is a place for them rather than in a vague land of fallacy, although fallacious objects could fit in a formal ontology

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 8 = sixteen

Leave a Reply