Why is there something rather than nothing?

In which i respond to a subscriber request to more carefully explain why modern logic implies the existence of at least one object.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• predicate
• logic
• first
• order
• calculus
• model
• theory
• existential
• quantification
• universal
• boolean

[MarkCGreer1]

the first 1:20 cold have been summed up in one sentence. That's where I stopped.

[XitonqyH]

u never proved WHY there is something

[POWLIHERE22]

The fact that logic has a meaning proves that something exists, otherwise meaningfulness would vanish.

[hogiharu]

Please don't ever misspell Socrates again. Never. Ever. I will hunt you down.

[killhorsesallthetime]

Ok, according to Leibniz's rule nothing should equal nothing. Therfore there should be nothing. Those other rules do not apply because at one point there was nothing.

[JonathanM00r3]

@asdfaxsdgg Go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on "Free Logic". It's better and it gives an explanation of the motivations for free logic.

[asdfaxsdgg]

@JonathanM00r3 Well, then the article does not really explain well what the problem with classical logic is that free logic is supposed to fix. If the assumption of the existence of "something" is the only problem, then it may make practical sense for everyday purposes to let that go, instead of complicating everything else just to cover this. But for this particular question I would indeed use a logic that is careful about existential presuppositions.

[JonathanM00r3]

@asdfaxsdgg I actually just read the Wikipedia article on free logic and it goes on to explain exactly why you can't prove the existence of "Pegasus" in standard first-order logic because one cannot substitute nondesignating constants for variables.

[asdfaxsdgg]

@JonathanM00r3 That makes sense. Indeed the Wikipedia article on free logic shows an example from classical logic that proofs the existence of "Pegasus." That's what I meant. Apparently classical logic allows you to prove the existence not just of something but of anything.

[JonathanM00r3]

@asdfaxsdgg If you're interested in an alternative logic that doesn't involve the ontological commitments that we've been talking about, then you should check out "free logic". I think you might be interested.