tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3462060161172751048.post2910868251842857974..comments2019-11-19T04:39:35.546-06:00Comments on Substance: What If a Tree Fell in a Forest and No One Hears...Falconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06020754181545210408noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3462060161172751048.post-79817913598903938902012-01-23T17:04:03.095-06:002012-01-23T17:04:03.095-06:00(are you taking the Tractatus class? if not, you s...(are you taking the Tractatus class? if not, you should consider it. i am trying to audit but got too busy.) Yes, i agree with Russell on this point, his point (Frege gave a wonderful exposition on this) is that existential status is not an attribute of an object, i.e. if we write a statement symbolically, we cannot <i>assert</i> existence by "exists(the fallen tree)" but "there exists X such that X is the fallen tree." <br /><br />But as for non-existential entity can be a perfectly fine subject, e.g. "there exists X such that X is a unicorn and X is running" can be a translation of "a unicorn is running." <br /><br />So the puzzle's supposition really says this: there exists X such that X fell and no one hears. Trivially the tree fell since that is given in the supposition. I hope this will sound clear from the perspective of your comment.Falcon Daihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06020754181545210408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3462060161172751048.post-30518247000146378512012-01-22T23:58:10.340-06:002012-01-22T23:58:10.340-06:00But how can a non-entity be the subject of a propo...But how can a non-entity be the subject of a proposition? Quoting Russell, "'I think, therefore I am' is no more evident than "I am the subject of a proposition, therefore I am'". Also "the tree" in the second half of the question denotes the set of fallen trees that no one has heard, but if this set doesn't exist then "the tree" denotes a null set, making the proposition nonsensical.jamieli2004https://www.blogger.com/profile/09154718127945125639noreply@blogger.com