Dragons Exist, proven by modal logic

I have heard that Wikipedia's article on Axiom S5 is incorrect. I hope for the sake of humanity that Wikipedia's article is incorrect, and that actual logicians are not taking seriously the idea that "if possibly necessarily p, then necessarily p".

The dragon picture came from here:
http://www.polenth.com/clipart/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• dragons
• exist
• LOL
• modal
• logic
• axiom
• s5

[sports0330]

No you're WRONG! In your argument, you claim that if drgn fire exists, then drgns NECESSARILY exist. I agree that if drgn fire exists then drgns exist, but that is not what you state. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the logical definition of "necissary." That drgn fire exists in THIS possible world does imply that drgns exist in THIS possible world. However, in order for drgns to NECESSARILY exist, they must exist in EVERY possible world. So, your argument shows that possibly drgns exist.

[nineteenthly]

This would only be a proof of the existence of at least one dragon, not a proof of more than one dragon.

The ontological proof, like many other things in philosophy, is important partly because it's wrong for interesting reasons. I personally think its a motivation for replacing existence with instantiation in some instances. Existence not being a predicate, there is an apparently similar predicate, namely "having an instance". This is a useful predicate for distinguishing truth and fiction.

[xStrelok]

Your understanding of modal axiom S5 is flawed, however your conclusion is not. Google "paul almond modal ontological argument" for a thorough refutation of axiom S5 (or at least a refutation of the notion that it has valid use in philosophy).

[inswoon]

@MrHobiecat Did you just punch me in the face with a handful of paradoxical nonsense? I would think so. I do think so. I think so.

[MrHobiecat]

@inswoon nonsense has no point.

[inswoon]

@MrHobiecat There's always one that misses the point.

[karatefinger]

cyclops vs dragons / brutal , brute gigants vs flaying lizards

[messakg123]

@natsirhc21 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha­hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha­haha

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mitzzkai]

Problems:

1. The Axiom is called 5, not S5. S5 is a modal logic consisting of Axioms K, T, and 5.

2. S5 is used for the notion of necessity called metaphysical necessity. (very basic, S5 is hugely contentious) On this interpretation (I stress, INTERPRETATION) of S5, the axioms KT5 form a universal equivalence relation (by soundness). In English: given any two arbitrary worlds A and B, A will be able to see B, and B will be able to see A. Axiom 5 comes out true.

[natsirhc21]

Why do we today, think we are so much smarter than those in the past who saw the creatures firsthand before many of them became extinct?

The disillusionment of men in the present fail to disqualify mans testimony of the past.

Why are we so arrogant as to dogmatically say that man has never seen a living dragon (now called dinosaur), despite all the historical and physical evidence to the contrary?

To dismiss dragons as fictitious is a sad attempt to rewrite history.