Subject:

Comments:
: <a href="http://relievepain.org/">tramadol</a> "It could be that Walter's horse has wings" does not imply that there is : any such animal as Walter's horse, only that there could be; but "Walter's : horse is a thing which could have wings" does imply Walter's horse's : existence. But the conjunction "Walter's horse exists, and it could be : that Walter's horse has wings" still does not imply "Walter's horse is a : thing that could have wings", for perhaps it can only be that Walter's : horse has wings by Walter having a different horse. Nor does "Walter's : horse is a thing which could have wings" conversely imply "It could be that : Walter's horse has wings"; for it might be that Walter's horse could only : have wings by not being Walter's horse. : I would deny, though, that the formula [Necessarily if some x has property P : then some x has property P] expresses a logical law, since P(x) could stand : for, let us say "x is a better logician than I am", and the statement "It is : necessary that if someone is a better logician than I am then someone is a : better logician than I am" is false because there need not have been any me. : -- A.N. Prior, "Time and Modality"

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: