Proving What We Already "Know"

[Neo-Scholastic]

Not to be too tangental but it seems to me that the whole conversation hinges on what someone considers to be "real". If one starts with the assumption that matter/energy and its operation exhaust the category then there is not much room left, none actually, to talk about the reality of intangible things such as triangles, holes, and past events.

It also seems careless to me if we just assume that "objective" equals "real," and "subjective" equals "illusion." 

It's not so simple.

Indeed. One of the reasons I admire Scholastic philosophy is their inordinate concern for the percise distinctions and definitions. Lately I been thinking a lot about the term "objective". I am reasonably certain a physicalist, such as @polymath, would consider himself objective. However, without an ontology that addresses the problem of universals there can be no true objects, just heaps. What I am saying is that SINCE physicialism cannot escape meteorological nihilism, AND since in meteorological nihilsm heaps never truly become objects (there are not objects); THEREFORE, physicalism cannot be objective.