http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/index.html
If you and others understand and/or are able to manipulate such math and
related notions.... you have my admiration ... all the best to you....
I am not pridefully stupid or "crowing" in my ignorance....
How's the linked site?.... any good as an explanation?
On Friday, November 30, 2012 9:53:51 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> String theories have been around for about 40 years without throwing
> up something we could put to the empirical test Nom. If they do we
> will know if was worth poncing about with the speculation or not.
> Evidence is nearly always about before we form a theory. We posit
> stuff like big bang but then find reason to doubt it. Deutsch is
> quite good on how not to write speculation out of thinking. - as idiot
> dogma on big bang or anything else does. I'd say you have problems
> with 'experience of single physical "res" can be had '.
>
> On 29 Nov, 20:03, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Have been reading the John Worral article... at first blush.....I am
> quite
> > disappointed....if you know the fellow....try to get him to consider my
> > point between the "epistemological" distinction of "Subjective" as
> opposed
> > to "Objective" as they (terms) pertain to the distinction between
> > Conceptus / Res... as noted above....I think he Morral, et al) could do
> > with a review of William of Ockham, as well.... for a distinction
> between
> > Vox (sign) of "first intention" where direct empirical(intuitive)
> > experience of single physical "res" can be had (and from which the
> thinking
> > mind forms a "conceptus") as distinguished from Vox (sign) of "second
> > intention" where the thinking mind ruminates upon and considers
> > ("abstractly") all sorts of separate (presumed similar) "first
> intention"
> > (empirical) experiences and orders them into categories or other such
> > rational or logical conclusions or explanations therof....As for his
> > apparent mode or method or "reasoning".... it seems to be
> "propositional"
> > and further based on quantities and identity of the "things" being
> studied
> > or considered.....My suggestion is... you can also learn a lot about the
> > "things" studied or under consideration through proper logical
> opposition
> > analysis that I have above tried to show at the epistemic
> level...Through
> > opposition, one defines a studied "thing" by concluding what "it" is
> > definitely NOT. If some "thing" is epistemologically Realist
> > (Conceptus-Objective / Res-Objective) then it cannot be the logical
> > contrary Idealist (Conceptus-Subjective / Res-Subjective) or the
> > corresponding "half-poles" of the logical square.... Nominalist or
> > Phenomenologist....etc.
> > As for the rest... I have also treated "ontology" and value judgments
> that
> > give rise to Ethics in human affairs.... these can be noted (very
> broadly)
> > in other of my posts on the internet.... Humanities board... "Snow
> -White
> > Tale analysis.... or if someone is truly interested I can give
> indications
> > to some of my more in depth copyrighted writings (though
> > unpublished)....Anyway, my bottom line is.... Worral and this
> "structural
> > Realism" definitely seems NOT to be "Realist" as I (and Realists)
> define
> > the term.... anything "structural" is... abstracted... order of second
> > intention Vox or Sign (at best) and , as such tends toward the
> subjective
> > and "Idealist" , at least or "Phenomenologist", at most....( talking
> about
> > Kant's "noumenon" doesn't help Morral's thinking at all... pure garbage
> > that, in my opinion) ...."structure" is never "Physical" or objective,
> in
> > my opinion... not even at the mathematical level....I say, stick to the
> > empirical data... if not the "unknown object" cause.... then stick to
> the
> > known effects or sensory traces.... get a more precise overview from a
> > better figurative ( constructed) sensory organ before you conclude
> > anything....But definitely don't go off into "abstracted"
> > "Wonder-Land"...talking about the "unobserved".... har....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, November 26, 2012 10:11:09 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
> >
> > > Mt own view is the argument has been had. John Worrall did a lot of
> > > it years back. You can get a summary here:
> > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/
> >
> > > It's key in sub-atomic physics that the decay trails we record are
> > > more real than the particles we believe we have 'found' but only 'see'
> > > through the decay record in several kilometres of instrument.
> > > Everything we call real has conditions for existence. But you don't
> > > need to know how to build CERN to trap a photon in a Bose-Einstein
> > > condensate and 'see' it come out as a matter wave. I don't need to
> > > define a proton to tell you how an element is likely to react - etc.
> > > Maybe we should be talking about modern reliableism?
> >
> > > On 27 Nov, 01:02, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I always took it we are mates Nom - so I can say your paranoia knows
> > > > bounds! Mind's Eye hasn't changed much. I don't take you for a
> > > > fool. The slap in the face with a wet fish doesn't survive the
> > > > sophist rationalisation - but argument such as this never stops
> > > > adherents evading wet fish. The Greeks realised arguments plural
> can
> > > > always be made. Their resolution through 'suspended judgement'
> > > > doesn't work.
> > > > Nominal in finance means : Describing a variable that does not take
> > > > inflation into account. For example, when considering GDP growth, if
> > > > GDP has grown 10% in nominal terms and the inflation rate is 3%,
> real
> > > > GDP growth is only 7%.
> >
> > > > Radioactive half-life is supposed invariable - but we think it does
> > > > with our distance from the Sun - suggesting a particle - the
> neutrello
> > > > (I forget exactly). You and I could get on the track of it if we
> > > > learned the accounting procedures. Philosophy seems to have little
> to
> > > > do with letting 20 ton weights fall on you from a great height
> because
> > > > you don't believe in reality.
> >
> > > > Colour turned out not to be primary, but shorthand for subjective
> > > > appreciation of frequency (my brother is colourblind). We used to
> > > > have arguments about colour until he did O level physics. I would
> > > > guess more protons are close to identical than me and Chaz - but
> given
> > > > the scale maybe they aren't as simialr as we think? Perhaps some
> have
> > > > freckles? I doubt nominalism or tropical fish realism defines
> either
> > > > of us or is worth a rat's arse.
> >
> > > > On 26 Nov, 17:41, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Here I am... scatter minded as usual... I meant to say Aristotles'
> > > square
> > > > > of opposition....but you know thathttp://
> > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition
> >
> > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 12:20:21 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Conceptus / Res... is the distinction that William of Ockham
> (maybe
> > > not
> > > > > > the first to do so)....The definitions are pretty much true to
> > > modern
> > > > > > day.... Concept/ Reference .... Idea / Matter... Mind
> > > /Body....Motivation
> > > > > > / Action (for living "animal" sorts) and some others,
> perhaps.....
> > > > > > now... a "universal" ... being a composite of separate
> individual
> > > "ideas"
> > > > > > in the mind which are perhaps founded on separate observed
> > > references
> > > > > > (or perhaps not)...the universal in and of itself has no
> objective
> > > > > > substance... and therefore no "reality" per se (e.g. I know one
> man
> > > > > > Archytas and I know another man Chazwin.... they are similar but
> not
> > > > > > identical... I thing I'll call the "conceptual" similarities
> between
> > > the
> > > > > > the "universal" man)....the same goes for abstract objects, e.g.
> > > > > > properties, numbers, propositions, possible worlds"... they are
> all
> > > > > > operations of the mind.... call them ideas or any of the other
> > > related
> > > > > > terms I set forth above (Cocept, Mind, Motivation... etc), which
> is
> > > to
> > > > > > say... all mental constructs... perhaps of conglomerations of
> > > separate
> > > > > > experiences of real object "things (or perhaps not)....
> > > > > > So of course when you say that nominalists deny the existence
> and
> > > thereby
> > > > > > the reality of such universals and such.... well.... of
> course...
> > > you
> > > > > > should say that they actually deny the "Objective physical
> > > existence" of
> > > > > > such conglomerate mental constructs... the way I put it is that
> > > ideas,
> > > > > > concepts and such have existence ("nonphysical") within the
> mind...
> > > nowhere
> > > > > > else, per se....hence my motto.... I have never met a circle or
> its
> > > > > > diameter, but your ass resembles them, like it or not your ass
> > > stinks.
> > > > > > You should note that nominalists usually have no problem
> accepting
> > > the
> > > > > > "physical" or real objective existence of the other side of the
> > > > > > "split"....i.e., the Res...Reference....Matter.... Body....
> > > Action.....all
> > > > > > of which nominalists accept as "rock-solid"....just as I have no
> > > problem
> > > > > > accepting the real or "physical" existence of Archytas and
> > > Chazwin.....I
> > > > > > just don't see the two of you sharing in one and the same
> > > (identical)
> > > > > > "real",as in physical body....
> >
> > > > > > It gets to a question of how one distributes (or defines) the
> > > > > > "epistemological" terms of Subjective or Objective over the base
> > > "split"
> > > > > > components of a "thinking" or "live" entity... such as an
> > > animal..... very
> > > > > > broadly....a Realist views it as Conceptus(objective) / Res(
> > > > > > objective)...... but an Idealist views it as
> Conceptus(subjective) /
> > > > > > Res(subjective)..... a Nominalist views it as
> Conceptus(subjective)
> > > /
> > > > > > Res(objective).... and a Phenomenologist view is as
> > > Conceptus(objective)/
> > > > > > Res(subjective).....
> >
> > > > > > How have you been Archytas?.... well, I hope....Here we are,
> still
> > > > > > treading the same epistemological ground....Think... "fours"...
> I
> > > keep
> > > > > > trying to say... remember Plato's square of opposition... and
> switch
> > > out
> > > > > > the "propositions" with sets of Conceptus / Res.... don't think
> > > > > > ....identity.... think.....opposites....
> >
> > > > > > Democracy / Capitalism......contrary....Totalitarian / Socialism
> >
> > > > > > Democracy/ Socialism........contrary.....Totalitarian /
> Capitalism
> >
> > > > > > 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
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more ยป
>
--
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/-/D4UfSMEiH7IJ.
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.
