Actual Infinities

[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?