tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post45141565488598249..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Unicorns and error theoryAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-57819173809181176312021-05-11T22:35:03.942-05:002021-05-11T22:35:03.942-05:00Response 1: If the quantifier is eternalist, then ...Response 1: If the quantifier is eternalist, then "There are unicorns" was always true, and hence meaningful.<br /><br />Response 2: Suppose in the 22nd century God creates two different natural kinds of single-horned equines (at the relevant taxonomic level). Which one does the 21st century word "unicorn" refer to? It's not both, since "unicorn" names a single kind (at the relevant taxonomic level). By symmetry, is not one of the two. So it must be neither. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-10039354748859299152021-05-07T14:10:39.781-05:002021-05-07T14:10:39.781-05:00The year is 2100 and God decides in celebration of...The year is 2100 and God decides in celebration of the turn of the 22nd century to create unicorns de novo. Isn't that possible? If so "There cannot be unicorns" turns out false. "There are unicorns" can't be meaningless because it was false and is now true. I'm sure I'm missing the point?Benjamin Stowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01319546252260646028noreply@blogger.com