by Vexing.
What do we mean to say a thing exists? What is proof of existence or non-existence?
My position is that the word is utilitarian and has no meaning outside of a specific context between specific actors. Call it a model. Though I may have to amend that usage.
I want to know if x exists.
I have a set by intension as follows:
{x such that x is an integer and x >= 3 and x < 17}
I can extend the set and write {3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16}
If the set is not empty then x exists.
So that one is simple right? Yet you will see discussions about whether integers and these sets Really Exist.
It is my firm position that these discussion are complete nonsense. They have no frame, no, context, no definition, and no model.
It is simply true that these x's exist by definition and model. There is no meaning for the word exist outside of this clear specification. Further, proof is a little precarious even in simple cases but it to can be simply defined. But it MUST BE DEFINED!
Or else nonsense.
Now what I can do is give the intension of my set or class and then I can extend it piecemeal by choosing elements one by one and placing them in the set. We will define a proof by extension as having found at least one element for which the intensional statement is true. (note true has not meaning outside of it's models either, more nonsense to avoid)
Now if I am just an average guy asked to prove that hamsters exist there is a very commonly held model for doing so. We have some commonly held notion of what a hamster is. I simply have to find one such critter that falls true under the set of hamster predicates and I have my proof. If I can go buy a hamster at the pet store or even find a picture of one or some testimony then hamsters exist. The latter being a weaker proof.
Now consider the same criteria applied to blue bunny unicorns. Do they exist. Does 'blue bunny unicorn' exist? We very much want to say no to the former and yes to the latter. We want to say no to the case where we pretty much believe that there is no way in hell that given the challenge we can bring one of those things home and put it in our extended set. We do believe that we can find an integer given the criteria above and put it in our set. So I think such integers exist with greater strength than blue bunny unicorns.
Lets' give some criteria for god. Can we get god at the pet store and put it in the set? How about galaxies? How about the universe or how about Everything? Ho about Everything that Exists?
If we have no common notion, no ability to extend a set of hamster predicates or no criteria for proof then we are talking out of our asses again. Talking shit. Talking nonsense.
The vexing trick of both Little Idiot and jamest is posted above and it amounts to talking shit. Any attempt to answer such an unspecified proof is to fall for an intellectually dishonest piece of trickery.
So tricks aside. What do make of this existence business?
