(August 20, 2016 at 1:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That;s a strange way to put it...since the fundamental laws of physics have -everything- to do with and say about baseball. There;s a reason, for example, that the ball travels on it;s particular trajectory. That it reacts the way it does when it comes into contact with the bat. Physics, in both cases, being that reason. No fundamental laws of physics, no baseball..nothing to talk -about-.
He's talking about the rules of the game. Stuff like strikes and home runs etc.
Quote:this, though...
Quote:but real as a social/legal/cultural construct.-totally onboard there. Hell, I even throw shit like god into that category.
It seems like this whole debate is about how best to explain causality to laypeople. We don't have the slightest disagreement about ontology, just about the vocabulary we use to describe it.
Which is still a useful debate to have. That's what Colin McGinn argued the whole point of modern philosophy is--reconciling the manifest image (our naive experience of existence) with the scientific image (everything we actually know about how the universe works).
A Gemma is forever.