When you use the word "nature" the audience understands two: The abstraction Nature, and also that thing that the word points to
Nature es also an abstraction, even so the John's question is valid as it is simple to understand the referenced object in his sentence So it is valid to say "the nature of mass", mass and nature can be abstract concepts, but that does not mean "the nature of mass" makes no sense. I can say as well: the nature of Dante's Eternity is... whatever, and makes perfect sense within the context Otherwise we would be unable to talk about anything but abstract models On Dec 22, 4:57 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote: > --- On Wed, 12/22/10, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have on several occasions wondered > > about the nature of "mass"... > > =============== > Why? > > It's a simple abstract coefficient void of any other "nature". > Postulating proportionality of physical observables "force" F and > "acceleration" a, we express it mathematically as F = ma > with help of the proportionality coefficient m. > > Thus "m" simplifies the expression, but by itself has no physical, or > any other mysterious "nature". > > Georges. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
