John Page

Of course Ex, we're just arguing about its form and which quadrant of this diagram it fits in.

When looking at the diagram, you might note that your concept of reality that you have might be "deemed" (assumed?) to be in any of the two right-hand quadrants - hence the epistemology/ontology puzzle because our concept of reality is only an imaginary one....

Cheers, John

Witt

Witt : <>Px must be true before we can assert Ex(<>Px) or its equivalent <>(ExPx).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John: Of course Ex,

What, Of course are you talking about?

What does 'Ex' mean for you?

John: we're just arguing about its form and which quadrant of this diagram it fits in.
When looking at the diagram, you might note that your concept of reality that you have might be "deemed" (assumed?) to be in any of the two right-hand quadrants - hence the epistemology/ontology puzzle because our concept of reality is only an imaginary one....

?? The more I read what you say the less I understand what you mean.

John: Everybody has their own reality.

??

No, they do not.

That, is not possible.

Reality, whatever it is, is not dependent on 'my' subjectivity at all!

Surely: the world is what it is, independent of my existence.

Your views are interesting but puzzle-ing.

Witt

John Page

I'm trying to say (perhaps clumsily) that Ex is itself a proposition (Akin to Bill Snedden's statement that the is something). So if Ex then I'm asking what is the form of x and in particular whether we agree that it is imaginary (conceptual, of the mind).
Sorry, bad wording, everybody has their own view of reality.
I am inclined to agree, but how do we know this? Or is this just an axiom of realism?

Cheers, John

sophie

Dominus Paradoxum,

I am sure we can sit over coffee and quietly count the difference between the size of your real bank account and the size of my bank account. I am sure there is a big difference between the two sizes.