Refresh for a new fortune!
_________________________________________
/ "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" /
-----------------------------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||