virus: Re: Encoding, Zalta, and Brett

Brett Lane Robertson (
Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:03:33 -0500

Brett is arguing: 1) Actual objects can have "abstract properties." 1a) The
"actual world" is an example of 1) above, since it can be said to be a
"possible world." 1b) If we can think of the 'actual world' as a 'possible
world', then the 'actual world' can be considered an abstraction. 2) If
'actual objects' are "described according to the properties which make
[them] up, then such 'actual objects' are abstractions which 'encode' their
properties. (Anonymous)


Yes, these are the claims that I make concerning the idea that actual
objects can incode properties. This is similar to Zalta's treatment of the
world as an abstraction. But, this makes me no more of a "fiction" than the
world would be (in such instances that the world is described according to
the properties which make it up). I say it is PRECISELY because exemplify
is a term which is generally accepted as applies (already) to the
predication of real objects that the same *concept* can be expanded to
include fictional objects--with the modifications suggested by Zalta's
formulae. Likewise, this concept applies to other forms of abstractions
which include "times" (Again, according to Zalta). And, I include being,
existence, and Beings in this category.

The WHY of my continued insistence on using the term "encode" to refer to a
Being (besides that Zalta allows for it): 1. It might help understand the
predication of one man "exists" and a man is "being" as regards the man as a
Being. 2. It follows Hiedeggers understanding of existence in that
limiting existence to a merely non-contradictory classification of
predication fails to (according to an interpretation of Hiedegger) account
for all the possibilities implied for by Being if limited to only that which
is "at hand". 3. My "playing around" with this idea has lead to a new
understanding of the contradiction inherent in the philosophy of
existentialism (one cannot say "it is that it is" without negating existence
through a process of coming to be...see). 4. I would therefore conclude
that the idea of mutual exclusion and substitutionality is an inferior means
of looking at predication (which I have also explored in other posts).


ps...I see some actual benefits in using "encode" to refer to the *possible
Beings* (the possible make-up of a Being) since it follows the memetic idea
that encoding is similar to "exemplification's" chance recombination and
competition via substitutability and mutual exclusion; but might be an
expansion of this idea which could utilize Zalta's equations of abstract
objects...said equations might then be applied to memetic experiments in a
mathematical fashion!


Anoint, v.:
To grease a king or other great functionary already
sufficiently slippery.

Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"