B:Yes, I still maintain that I have not mis-represented the theory and that
I am not implying that if something can exist it does.
D:Brett said (and this is a direct
>quote) "it cannot be shown that x does not exist so therefore
>x exists." (within the limits of the argument, Brett amends...that is we
have stated that x exists for arguments sake--no assumption of x no argument).
B:I did NOT say *if* it cannot be shown that x does not exist then x *must*
exist. What I said can only imply that arguments for the possibility of x's
non-existence cannnot disprove x's existence.
D:Then he says "Again, this theory doesn't say that
><x> is possible so <x> has to exist." So what *is* Brett
>claiming PSR implies?
B:So, I am claiming that *if* x exists then it's existence is not contingent
on arguments to the contrary (proposing "not-x" will not make x exist
either, if it is not a thing...familiar?); or, if x exists then it must be
possible; or, if x exists then there must be a (positive) reason for x to
exist...the same as Robin points out is the usual interpretation of the theory.
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
http://www.tctc.com/~unameit/makepage.htm
"That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all."