Actual Infinity in Reality?

[brewer]

My childhood is now ruined.

Hey, mine was ruined when I was a child. Consider it extra time!

But you don't understand. That whole story is why I left Christianity. 

Funny that is was probably told to me by a Christian.

[polymath257]

Lots of fiction in that legend.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's just a description of how stuff interacts with other stuff . And simply is the way it is . There is no intention or thought behind it . At least their is no reason to believe in one or that it is some other way .

Sure seems like the appropriately miserly assumption to make to me too.  I wonder though if a theist is just duty bound to see it as radiating divine intention.

A philosopher is duty-bound to apply the Principle of Sufficient reason rather than arbitrarily take some things a mere brute facts. IMHO the atheist asserts that there is nothing behind the curtain because he fears there might be.

[LastPoet]

A philosopher is duty-bound to apply the Principle of Sufficient reason rather than arbitrarily take some things a mere brute facts. IMHO the atheist asserts that there is nothing behind the curtain because he fears there might be.

Lel, a philosopher bounded.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You intentionally conflate ontology with epistemology because it suits you.  It is similar to how there are natural laws that govern the universe and there are formulas describing/modeling those laws. Saying that something is descriptive implies some other thing being described.

Interesting point.  Do you imagine that the natural laws that govern the universe reflect the universe's intention?  Or do such laws just reflect the brute nature of stuff and how it interacts with other stuff?

Both seem like loaded questions (though probably not intentionally so). My only point was that the discussion gets derailed when people fail to distinguish between the description of a thing and the thing itself. In this particular case, I am asserting that some qualities have ontological status.

When someone says that a sensible body is triangular, they are describing that body as having a distinct quality that is shares with other triangular bodies. Saying that something is triangular is an acknowledgement that it shares a certain kind of about-ness with other similar bodies, i.e. triangularity. It's simply not enough to say the word "triangle" is what we call the set of three-sided bodies. You also have to recognize that you are referring something which gives those objects similarity - the quality of triangularity they all share.

If qualities don't exist, then descriptive words do not refer to anything.

[pocaracas]

Interesting point.  Do you imagine that the natural laws that govern the universe reflect the universe's intention?  Or do such laws just reflect the brute nature of stuff and how it interacts with other stuff?

Both seem like loaded questions (though probably not intentionally so). My only point was that the discussion gets derailed when people fail to distinguish between the description of a thing and the thing itself. In this particular case, I am asserting that some qualities have ontological status.

When someone says that a sensible body is triangular, they are describing that body as having a distinct quality that is shares with other triangular bodies. Saying that something is triangular is an acknowledgement that it shares a certain kind of about-ness with other similar bodies, i.e. triangularity. It's simply not enough to say the word "triangle" is what we call the set of three-sided bodies. You also have to recognize that you are referring something which gives those objects similarity - the quality of triangularity they all share.

If qualities don't exist, then descriptive words do not refer to anything.

Do those qualities exist solely in our shared collective minds?
Or do they exist independently of our minds?

A triangle would still be a triangle, if no mind was to exist... but would that triangularity exist?
Is triangularity discovered or invented?

[polymath257]

Interesting point.  Do you imagine that the natural laws that govern the universe reflect the universe's intention?  Or do such laws just reflect the brute nature of stuff and how it interacts with other stuff?

Both seem like loaded questions (though probably not intentionally so). My only point was that the discussion gets derailed when people fail to distinguish between the description of a thing and the thing itself. In this particular case, I am asserting that some qualities have ontological status.

When someone says that a sensible body is triangular, they are describing that body as having a distinct quality that is shares with other triangular bodies. Saying that something is triangular is an acknowledgement that it shares a certain kind of about-ness with other similar bodies, i.e. triangularity. It's simply not enough to say the word "triangle" is what we call the set of three-sided bodies. You also have to recognize that you are referring something which gives those objects similarity - the quality of triangularity they all share.

If qualities don't exist, then descriptive words do not refer to anything.

In what sense do they exist?  As something outside of us, something in our minds, or as simple language conventions?

Whether something is a triangle or not isn't a matter of it sharing 'triangularity' with other triangles. It is a matter of having three straight sides, etc as in the definition of a triangle. It is a propositional statement and not a statement about something shared with an existing object.

Why *isn't* it enough to simply say that 'triangle' is a word we associate with certain three-sided bodies? it is a concept *we* define: a language convention *we* use to help us understand.

Descriptive words simply say that an object meets the criteria for some definition. It isn't about 'sharing' an 'about-ness'.

Platonism is the first BIG philosophical mistake.

---

Both seem like loaded questions (though probably not intentionally so). My only point was that the discussion gets derailed when people fail to distinguish between the description of a thing and the thing itself. In this particular case, I am asserting that some qualities have ontological status.

When someone says that a sensible body is triangular, they are describing that body as having a distinct quality that is shares with other triangular bodies. Saying that something is triangular is an acknowledgement that it shares a certain kind of about-ness with other similar bodies, i.e. triangularity. It's simply not enough to say the word "triangle" is what we call the set of three-sided bodies. You also have to recognize that you are referring something which gives those objects similarity - the quality of triangularity they all share.

If qualities don't exist, then descriptive words do not refer to anything.

Do those qualities exist solely in our shared collective minds?
Or do they exist independently of our minds?

A triangle would still be a triangle, if no mind was to exist... but would that triangularity exist?
Is triangularity discovered or invented?

I'll go for invented for $1000, please.

[Whateverist]

Sure seems like the appropriately miserly assumption to make to me too.  I wonder though if a theist is just duty bound to see it as radiating divine intention.

A philosopher is duty-bound to apply the Principle of Sufficient reason rather than arbitrarily take some things a mere brute facts. IMHO the atheist asserts that there is nothing behind the curtain because he fears there might be.

*my bold*


What a truly absurd idea. Based on personal experience I suppose.

[Amarok]

Once again Neo insisting that just because he claims he was an atheist . Were to believe he has some profound insight . Well the evidence so far says the contrary . I don't think it's atheist who fear there is a man behind the curtain . It's theists who fear there is not .

---

Triangles would exist as an object 

Triangularity is a description of the feature of a triangle  

Such a concept was invented like all similar concepts . Platonism is bullshit .

---

A philosopher is duty-bound to apply the Principle of Sufficient reason rather than arbitrarily take some things a mere brute facts. IMHO the atheist asserts that there is nothing behind the curtain because he fears there might be.

1. God is not sufficient and is totally arbitrary. Not to mention totally agenda driven .

2. The sum total of all exist and it seemingly consistent and persistent state is not .

[GrandizerII]

Sure seems like the appropriately miserly assumption to make to me too.  I wonder though if a theist is just duty bound to see it as radiating divine intention.

A philosopher is duty-bound to apply the Principle of Sufficient reason rather than arbitrarily take some things a mere brute facts.

So take God out of the system then. Be a little more consistent!