To the chemist, protons are not 'real' as they are constructed and we can blow them apart. They and smaller 'bricks' are just accounting devices. No doubt I always thought you were in 'denial' mate! /Archytas
Please define your terms..... are protons or all these smaller "bricks"....Ideas or are they Matter....Are they Conceptual or are they Physical.....when a Mass spectrometer or a particle accellerator gets an indication of a "hit"... is that "objective" or "subjective"... is it an idea or is it a physical "thing"....? You know Archytas.... sometimes I wonder about you .... Do you misunderstand me that much?... Or are you lost in your your own ( perhaps confused) semantic abstractions and definitions of universals (of concepts and ideas)....remember any theory is only as good as its "efficacy" (adherence to the "real" Res)... Ptolemy had a great conceptual vision for the workings of the astrological universe.....but it was slightly off... On Sunday, November 25, 2012 6:21:21 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > I would add Nom that nominalism, in both senses (there ate two forms), > is a kind of anti-realism. For one kind of Nominalism denies the > existence, and therefore the reality, of universals and the other > denies the existence, and therefore the reality, of abstract objects. > But what does Nominalism claim with respect to the entities alleged by > some to be universals or abstract objects, e.g. properties, numbers, > propositions, possible worlds? Here there are two general options: (a) > to deny the existence of the alleged entities in question, and (b) to > accept the existence of these entities but to argue that they are > particular or concrete. To the chemist, protons are not 'real' as > they are constructed and we can blow them apart. They and smaller > 'bricks' are just accounting devices. No doubt I always thought you > were in 'denial' mate! > > On 24 Nov, 16:36, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I think he is... but I wonder what self-proclaimed "realists" like > > Archytas, think? Locke was pretty close to being a nominalist, > > however....must have gotten it from his Oxford education... much as he > > reportedly disliked it's(Oxford's) classic bent..... > > > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/CcdKrAVGUVYJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@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.
