According to Carnap, each linguistic framework comes with its own unrestricted existential quantifier, and thus its own notions of object and existence. No one of these quantifiers is logically or metaphysically privileged over any of the others; there is no neutral standpoint from which one framework can be judged correct and another incorrect. When frameworks appear to disagree—as when one says that arbitrary fusions exist, and another denies it—the dispute is merely verbal; they are using quantifiers with different meanings. This is a form of the doctrine of quantifier variance. One might well wonder: don't we get a single, privileged quantifier by combining all linguistic frameworks, and considering a quantifier that ranges over the union of all the domains of these frameworks? But the question presupposes, in effect, that the notion of “all linguistic frameworks” is meaningful, and there is no reason why Carnap would accept that. Any attempt to introduce a single all-inclusive quantifier that ranges over absolutely everything would be rejected by Carnap. For what does everything mean here, if not “everything in reality? And that, for Carnap, is cognitively meaningless.