Actual Infinities

[Neo-Scholastic]

I made some solid arguments. Chadwooters did not respond to any of them except to tell me to look up nominism. So basically he said that what he was arguing was valid because it had a branch of philosophy named specifically for it. He did not argue his case.

I will try to say this as respectfully as I can. The debate over the ontological status of principles, universals, categories and concepts (just for a start) has rich history and some of the most brilliant minds have put much thought into the issues. Your arguments correlated largely with a school of thought called Nominalism. As a courtesy, I gave you that reference so you could maybe better understand the strengths and weaknesses of your beliefs, refine your understanding, and present a coherent argument.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I will try to say this as respectfully as I can. The debate over the ontological status of principles, universals, categories and concepts (just for a start) has rich history and some of the most brilliant minds have put much thought into the issues. Your arguments correlated largely with a school of thought called Nominalism. As a courtesy, I gave you that reference so you could maybe better understand the strengths and weaknesses of your beliefs, refine your understanding, and present a coherent argument.

My apologies. I misread the description after googling and thought that it meant that nominalism purported that Maths existed as a real entity.

[Mudhammam]

There's a joke that the only use for a philosophy degree is to make you philosophical enough to work at McDonalds. There's a reason that's true.

Did you use the scientific method to arrive at that conclusion?

I'd say it's best not to take suggestions about philosophy from the guy who had to look up nominalism on Wikipedia, who then just read the first sentence, came back to make a "substantial argument," and showed everyone how entirely he failed to grasp the concept. That kind of effort in life will put you at McDonald's.

(Is "nominism" the position taken by McDonald's' philosophers?)

[I_am_not_mafia]

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nestor, while I tentatively hold to moderate realism; however, I do think the term 'existence' is itself problematic. I find it to 'be' an almost inescapable term of art that molds itself to accommodate a variety of ideas. Or maybe an existential condition of life.

I do believe that the Schoolmen made important and subtle distinctions between ideas, forms, concepts and abstractions that get glossed over in Philosophy 101. The professors tend to jump from Aristotle to Descartes as if nothing happened in between ancient and modern traditions.

My personal synthesis as a layman starts with the distinction between the knowing subject and the object of knowledge...

Sorry more later...I'm posting from phone must go but do not want to lose what I've written so far.

[ignoramus]

Chuck, please explain another way for me...
How can a person 32.5m light years away possibly see any trex photon from 65m years ago ...The photons have long shot past their planet, yes?

T. rex photos starting their trip 65 million years ago would reach a persoj 32.5 million LY away after 32.5 million years, arriving 32.5 million of our years ago.   If that person captures the photons and converts them to an image displayed on an extremely precocious Samsung big screen, then the photons from that screen would take another 32.5 million years to get back to us, meaning it gets here right now.

I can do some calculations and tell you how big the aperture of any telescope that can theoretically resolve a T. rex, or the image of one On a Samsung,  32.5 million light years away,  would need to be, but that's another story.

Chuck, ta.

So to confirm I'm not Completely retarded, this other planet needed to have started this experiment 32.5m years ago?

[Anomalocaris]

T. rex photos starting their trip 65 million years ago would reach a persoj 32.5 million LY away after 32.5 million years, arriving 32.5 million of our years ago.   If that person captures the photons and converts them to an image displayed on an extremely precocious Samsung big screen, then the photons from that screen would take another 32.5 million years to get back to us, meaning it gets here right now.

I can do some calculations and tell you how big the aperture of any telescope that can theoretically resolve a T. rex, or the image of one On a Samsung,  32.5 million light years away,  would need to be, but that's another story.

Chuck, ta.

So to confirm I'm not Completely retarded, this other planet needed to have started this experiment 32.5m years ago?

Yes.

Btw, a telescope that can theoretically resolve a t-Rex from 32.5 million light years away, based on Rayleigh criteria, needs an aperture 2 light years across.

Technically, three smaller telescopes arranged at the points of symmetrical Y, with each straight line in the Y being 1 light year long, would also do the trick. You just have to get the photons they capture together in one place to determine how they interfere.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nestor, while I tentatively hold to moderate realism; however, I do think the term 'existence' is itself problematic. I find it to 'be' an almost inescapable term of art that molds itself to accommodate a variety of ideas. Or maybe an existential condition of life. I do believe that the Schoolmen made important and subtle distinctions between ideas, forms, concepts and abstractions that get glossed over in Philosophy 101. The professors tend to jump from Aristotle to Descartes as if nothing happened in between ancient and modern traditions.

(cont.) Lately, I’ve wondered (begin recent speculation here) if someone could dispense with ‘existence’ as a descriptive term altogether. For quite, some time I’ve taken to the occasional practice using E-prime (http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm). For example, instead of saying “It is cold outside” or “That’s a pretty sunset,” I would say “It feels cold outside” and “That sunset looks pretty.” I have found that using that semantic structure a speaker/writer must more precisely pair subjects with objects using mostly phenomenological language.
As it relates to the ontological status what those most modern people refer to as abstractions, I ask two questions: 1) Do the objects of knowledge have causal import apart from the knowing subject? And 2) Can different people independently know of the object of knowledge? If so, then I say it qualifies as ‘existing’ in the traditional ‘objective’ sense of the term.

[Alex K]

Nestor, while I tentatively hold to moderate realism; however, I do think the term 'existence' is itself problematic. I find it to 'be' an almost inescapable term of art that molds itself to accommodate a variety of ideas. Or maybe an existential condition of life. I do believe that the Schoolmen made important and subtle distinctions between ideas, forms, concepts and abstractions that get glossed over in Philosophy 101. The professors tend to jump from Aristotle to Descartes as if nothing happened in between ancient and modern traditions.

(cont.) Lately, I’ve wondered (begin recent speculation here) if someone could dispense with ‘existence’ as a descriptive term altogether. For quite, some time I’ve taken to the occasional practice using E-prime (http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm). For example, instead of saying “It is cold outside” or “That’s a pretty sunset,” I would say “It feels cold outside” and “That sunset looks pretty.” I have found that using that semantic structure a speaker/writer must more precisely pair subjects with objects using mostly phenomenological language.
As it relates to the ontological status what those most modern people refer to as abstractions, I ask two questions: 1) Do the objects of knowledge have causal import apart from the knowing subject? And 2) Can different people independently know of the object of knowledge?  If so, then I say it qualifies as ‘existing’ in the traditional ‘objective’ sense of the term.

I am writing some popular science stuff right now, and I have encountered a problem which reminds me of your point, though I am unsure whether the similarity is superficial - I would write something like (roughly paraphrasing) "The forces are caused by the exchange of virtual particles", but it immediately felt wrong. I then tried to, as consistently as possible, write "The explanation provided by theory XYZ is that forces result from...". Now, aren't your examples, and your more cautious corrections, of a somewhat related nature?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I am writing some popular science stuff right now,  and I have encountered a problem which reminds me of your point,  though I am unsure whether the similarity is superficial - I would write something like (roughly paraphrasing)  "The forces are caused by the exchange of virtual particles",  but it immediately felt wrong.  I then tried to,  as consistently as possible,  write "The explanation provided by theory XYZ is that forces result from...".  Now,  aren't your examples, and your more cautious corrections, of a somewhat related nature?

How about...

"The exchange of virtual particles results in the forces."

"The forces appear during the exchange of virtual particles."

It takes practice to use E-prime. Using it forces, a writer to identify the proper subject-object relationship. Nor can a writer use the passive voice.