Got a bummer from the link. The physicists are farting about with varieties of maths is all I get from any of this speculation on 'origin forever deferred'.
On 1 Dec, 17:09, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. 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.
