Hi Cell,
We can talk about something existing in our mind and in reality. IOW, something can exist conceptually or empirically (or both).
With regard to conceptual existence, we can entertain all kinds of ideas. Some will have empirical existence. Some won’t. Let’s examine the latter category.
Something can be conceptually existing but not empirically existing because the object, while empirically possible, just happens not to exist. Take, for example, my favorite example from film, Rodents of Unusual Size (ROUSes). In the
Princess Bride, when Westley and Buttercup started their journey through the Fire Swamp, Buttercup asked about ROUSes and Westley expressed the confident opinion that they don’t exist. In the next moment he found out he was wrong, but I think we all would agree that ROUSes are possible. After all, we know there have been Sloths of Unusual Size and so on.
Unicorns are a more far-fetched example. Conceivably unicorns could have evolved (however improbably) or some genetic engineer could make one someday. But here we get into something that approaches physical impossibility given the limits of our world. Maybe such things would be more probable in some other world.
And then there are objects which seem just plain physically impossible. e.g. someone who can travel 1000x faster than light. IOW, objects that violate physcial laws.
So put conceptual objects like these in one category (possible conceptually but not actual for whatever reason). We’ll call it Category 1.
In a different category, Category 2 are things that can be conceptually existing but not empirically existing because the idea violates stipulated definitions or rules of language. e.g. round squares. They don’t exist because they can’t. 'Tis impossible for round squares to exist unless we change the definition of the terms “round” and “square.”
Now you have introduced the category of “fictional” existence.
There is also the concept that “God that necessarily exists”, but possibly only as a concept itself. IOW - if it were the case that GCB did not actually objectively exist, God can “pseudo objectively” exist - if - within the context of a fictional world. Such ideas don’t have to be coherent when they are purely fictional existences.
But in the end I think we are still talking about the same categories of things. The elements that we add to our fictional world will include things which have conceptual as well as empirical existence. e.g. people and ordinary objects like cars and lasers. Some fictional objects will have conceptual existence but aren’t actual. These may range from ROUS’s to unicorns to 1000x The Speed of Light Man. And then there may be Round Square Man (I don’t know how you’d draw him.)
Now the Great GCB Debate is over in what category does the GCB fall, Category I or Category II?
side kick Dorkboy:jrbirdman:.