For example, any group of yellow objects is also a group of things, of seeable things, and of colored things. How could you abstract yellowness instead of thinghood, seableness, or coloredness from the group? — Tristan L

For example, if all yellow objects are destroyed and all thoughts about yellowness are no more, the Shape of Yellowness would still exist. — Tristan L

Abstract entities, including (Platonish) Shapes (Forms, Ideas), do not exist in the mind or the external physical spacetimely realm. Rather, they exist in an abstract world which lays the ground for both the mindly and the physical. — Tristan L

. The square was a square (and many other things, too) before the observer saw it, so it must have been sharing in the idea of squareness (th.i. (that is) the Shape / Form / Idea of Squareness) before the obsever saw it. Hence, squareness itself must also have existed before the observer saw the shape. — Tristan L

I am quite certain that abstract entities broadly and possibilities in particular do in fact “lie around” in some abstract “space”. — Tristan L

This shows that all the ideas must be abstract and uncreated, — Tristan L

Creativity seems to be popularly held to be some kind of non-deterministic, random process of some kind of magical, metaphysically free will, but I hold that that is not the case at all. I hold that there really isn't a clear distinction between invention and discovery of ideas: there is a figurative space of all possible ideas, what in mathematics is called a configuration space or phase space, and any idea that anyone might "invent", any act of abstract "creation" (prior to the act of realizing the idea in some concrete medium), is really just the identification of some idea in that space of possibilities. — Pfhorrest

The substratum of what we see is beauty. We look with our right subjective mind and our left objective mind and conclude, with will, that it's objective. But that's choosing what's true. That is, there is faith. Hegel wanted to get rid of faith by knowing nothing and everything, balancing the objective and subjectice. The basic fact is beauty is subjectice, so tim wood has been correct. Hegel kept a homey natural faith to keep from scepticism — Gregory

Which of his books talk about points and quantity? Wikipedia says Whitehead wrote stuff that was wrong about wholes and parts, while Husserl wrote good things. This is stuff that I'm interested in — Gregory

I think that what underlies everything is the pure potentiality of Infinity and Finitude. If you have a segment pi in length, then a piece of the segment corresponds to each number. It goes on forever (Infinite) but has a limit (Finite). Where the infinite meets the finite (at the limit) is an infinity mystery. So nature can never even be understood — Gregory

Chaos vs symmetry... That's a lot to think about. It's deep. Maybe because I suck at math in trying to make up for it by over thinking this stuff. Maybe there are truths that simply can't be said. The college I went to after high school was Catholic and they hated basing math on logic. I feel like I'm trying to do something similar, but I like it. — Gregory

It may well be that given Anscombe's particular usage of the word deterministic, her argument is logical and her conclusion sound

However, the general reader who believes that they know the common usage of the word deterministic may find her argument unclear.

In such a case, where the author uses a word in a way that is different to common usage, then the author should explain what they mean by the word at the beginning of their article.
— RussellA

It's questionable whether using a word in an unusual way produces a sound argument. For the sake of a logical argument, one can define a word in any way the person wants. But a definition ought to be taken as a premise. And a false definition is a false premise. — Metaphysician Undercover