Modal Logic Question

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Mr_Reasonable

identity theory, or reductive and functional descriptions

identity
reductive
functional

1. Is that a harmonic triad? Identity yellow, reductive blue, functional red?

2. What does reductive mean?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

For posterity.

Absolute Randomness

Wilfred Hodges thinks “identical” means you’re dealing with two different things, but clearly A=A means every particular thing (and everything taken together, I would assume??) is identical to itself. @PZR … the particular identities & general predicates are looking at each other funny. Just letting you know.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Reductive… a limiting factor, no?

[Hudjefa]

For the moment, possibly necessary “seems to” imply possibly not necessary. I don’t see how necessary A follows from possibly necessary A.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Does reductive just mean definite/defined?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

If you can’t rule out the necessary as IMPOSSIBLE, then it’s necessary… is my feeling.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

the case=definitive proof of concept

methinks

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@Ichthus77

10:40 B corollary it’s poss nec A implies A is in fact the case (one way to read: whatever is possibly necessary is in fact the case)

Question: If whatever is necessary is in fact the case (Axiom M), why are only one of those corollaries controversial? Modal ontological argument? Why only one results in it?

Prolly same reason folks prefer Boole to Aristotle on existential import, I’m guessing.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Piecing things together:

Jorgensen’s dilemma resolution. (only indicatives have truth value — as in — a nonempty category, or a particular instance/individual)

If you can easily solve “individuals” by saying them as “categoricals” (“All people who are Socrates…”) — then rephrasing imperatives as indicatives should be easy enough, just like rephrasing from passive to active voice. It won’t prove existence, like it wouldn’t prove the existence of Socrates. Are you going to DENY person equals person? That’s denying the law of identity.

Don’t have it all yet.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

If you’re treating every person as category and you’re treating every category as necessary then you’re treating every person as necessary. That’s gonna glitch (isn’t it?).

This is partly why I need help translating between logics for the square of opposition.