All right, here we go -
The ontological proof of the existence of the P1 -
1. It is possible to conceive of a camera that is better than the one
that you now own, in every way.
2. It follows then that you can conceive of a camera even better than
that one - and one better again.
3. Therefore there must be an ultimate camera, one that is perfect in
every way. Let us call it P1.
4. If something did not exist, then it would not be perfect.
5. Therefore, the ultimate camera, P1, must exist.
That's the St Anselm version. Unbreakable logic.
A Cartesian ontological proof would be more subtle -
1. I know that I own several cameras but they are all imperfect.
2. I can conceive of a camera that would be perfect.
3. This camera must exist (see above) and yet I have not yet owned it.
4. Thus the only one who can own it and sell it to me is Olympus.
(NB. Canon is clearly the evil demon).
or
1. I have an idea of a perfect camera.
2. Where does the idea of a perfect camera come from?
4. Nothing perfect can come from the imperfect.
3. Thus it cannot come from me as I am an imperfect being and cannot
have perfect thoughts.
4. The idea must come from Olympus, the creator.
5. And that camera must exist as non-existence would render it
imperfect.
Now if you are not religious, perhaps you'd prefer a phenomenologial
approach, in the manner of Husserl? It's not as concrete though.
1. The thought and the thing itself are inextricably linked.
2. Consequently the thought is as much a part of existence as the
object.
3. We have assigned a meaning to 'P1', a directed intentionality.
4. This directed intentionality cannot help but affect the physical
reality. (Think new physics).
5. Thus we must be thinking about something, a 'P1' that exists in
some form, even if only as a shared meaning.
Conclusion: 'P1' must exist in some form.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
'If a man speaks in the forest and there is no woman there to hear
him, is he still wrong?'
On 10/03/2007, at 4:17 AM, NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
> If a camera was introduced in the woods, but nobody was there to see
> it, is there any doubt that Olympus USA had something to do with it?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|