Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Until you tell me whether it does or doesn't, there is no proposition before me to comment on, only linguistic nonsense. I have been trying to communicate this to you all along and you just don't get it. You continue to mistake a statement with ambiguous terms for a proposition with multiple truth values.
PAWN:
Would you accept that the following proposition is true?
(A): "There exists a fictional FSM, such that it has a Noodly Appendage."
DS:
Sure. It is nomologically impossible for a proposition of the form "There exists a fictional X" to be false, since the proposition itself is conclusive evidence of the truth of its claim.
PAWN:
(B): "There exists a fictional FSM, such that it has a Oblanceolate Appendage."
Is this proposition itself conclusive evidence of the truth of its claim?
NOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, IF YOU SAY THAT (A) MUST BE TRUE, BY SOMETHING LIKE STIPULATIVE DEFINITION ,THEN, TO BE CONSISTENT, YOU ALSO HAVE TO SAY THAT (B) IS TRUE, FOR THE SAME REASON, RIGHT?