[FOM] Unrestricted Quantification and Paradox

[Robbie Lindauer]

On Jun 7, 2007, at 5:59 AM, laureano luna wrote:


>
> This principle seems evident to me, since the thought
> I'm performing is not yet there to face me while I'm
> still performing it. It is easy to see that, if an
> intentional act were its own intentional object, there
> would be an infinite regress in the determination of
> the content of the act:
>
> let 'PSI(x)' be the intentional act whose objetc is x.
> Set x = PSI(x). Then you have:
>
> PSI(x)= PSI(PSI(x)) = PSI(PSI(PSI(x))) etc.

This is one possible representation, another, non-infinite one is:

P(s) = P(P(s))

Why is such a function, in principle, impossible?

Robbie Lindauer