Abstracts/concepts are actually particular mental events. — Terrapin Station

yes, but all changes are mental events, so you’re really not saying much here, let alone refuting my claim.

I'm not making any substantive or metaphysical claims about abstract objects. All I'm saying is that logically speaking, for example, 2 is always precisely 2. You say you're an antirealist about abstract objects, but the logical entailment of your position would seem to be that you should also be an anti-realist about objects tout court, because you deny that there is any persistent identity across time, and thus any persistent entity, which could be identified as an object.

yes, but all changes are mental events — TheGreatArcanum

Why would you believe that?

because you deny that there is any persistent identity across time, and thus any persistent entity, which could be identified as an object. — Janus

There's no requirement for objects to be identical through time.

So, when is a particular object that particular object then? Only during the dimensionless point instant; which is to say never? Because there is no "during" in a dimensionless point instant. Are you beginning to see the incoherence of your stance yet? If not, it would seem that you are beyond help!

So, when is a particular object that particular object then? — Janus

When it doesn't change in the contextual frame in question.

And how would you determine that it hasn't changed?

Why would you believe that? — Terrapin Station

because all changes bridge first and final causes.

First, let's be clear that ontological facts in no way hinge on how we determine anything. Only ontological facts of our determining actions as such would hinge on that.

Aristotelian nonsense? Seriously?

Aristotelian nonsense? Seriously? — Terrapin Station

because there exists at least one final cause, first causes must exist, and if first causes exist, the universe has a first and final cause. it’s quite simple. how do you not understand this stuff, this is like philosophy 101

because there exists at least one final cause, first causes must exist, — TheGreatArcanum

Isn't that simply saying that just in case someone does something in a goal-directed or purpose-oriented way, the goal-directed or purpose-oriented action must occur, and that requires an initial state followed by a consequent state?

What that has to do with a claim that change is necessarily mental is something that likely only you have any inkling of, if indeed it makes any sense to you (which I doubt).

I don't see any relevance in what you say here. In any case if ontological facts cannot be determined by us, what bearing could they have on our notions of identity and difference? If ontological facts can be determined by us, then that determination must be dependent on the logic of our notions of identity and difference. Either way your position still remains incoherent; that much hasn't changed. :wink:

I don't see any relevance in what you say here. — Janus

Relevance to?

At any rate, I didn't say whether we can determine anything or not. I said let's be clear that ontological facts do not hinge on how we determine anything.

What that has to do with a claim that change is necessarily mental is something that likely only you have any inkling of, if indeed it makes any sense to you (which I doubt). — Terrapin Station

from what I’ve already said, the steps of logic which lead to the verification of my claim are very easy figure out; it seems that you’re too invested in your opinion to do the steps necessary do disprove it, that is, your own opinion.

"Change is only mental" isn't an empirical claim?

@janus don’t you love how Terrapin takes one small quotation out of context and then refutes it while ignoring everything else that was said in the message despite its importance to the conversation? it’s like talking to a bot who simply repeats his own opinion no matter what it said to him. are you sure that you’re not a bot, Terrapin?

it’s a lost cause with you, you’re opinion won’t change if I prove it to you, and it won’t change if I don’t. Not even sure why anyone bothers to argue with you.

Would your opinion change if I "prove" mine to you?

Would your opinion change if I "prove" mine to you? — Terrapin Station

:lol: you don’t know the first thing about logic. you still haven’t figured out that you lost the argument before you even started. the OP put nominalism in the coffin. and then I repeatedly kick it while it was down some-more, yet still you persist in trying to revive it. for this reason, I don’t think you’re actually capable of proving anything, because the context in which those proofs are being formulated, is faulty beyond repair.

So was that a yes or no?

I said let's be clear that ontological facts do not hinge on how we determine anything. — Terrapin Station

So, what relevance do they have? Can we determine them or not?

Not even sure why anyone bothers to argue with you. — TheGreatArcanum

That is something I have wondered myself many times; and even more I wonder why I continue to argue with him.

Aristotelian nonsense? Seriously? — Terrapin Station

Aristotle all day! :strong:

So, what relevance do they have? Can we determine them or not? — Janus

Well, they'd be relevant to the way things are/to facts, including relational facts, to people who are interested in facts, etc.

We can determine this by looking at something in a particular reference frame and abstracting out the observational interaction, for example.

You just like the extra teeth.

and then I repeatedly kick it while it was down some-more, yet still you persist in trying to revive it. for this reason, I don’t think you’re actually capable of proving anything, because the context in which those proofs are being formulated, is faulty beyond repair. — TheGreatArcanum

We're you aware that Jesus, our lord and savior, was revived, RESURRECTED, in a mere span of 36 hours. Hallelujah!!!

Beating a dead horse can sometimes be amusing. :grin:

You just like the extra teeth. — Terrapin Station

I'm also a sucker for the long in the tooth.

You just like the extra teeth. — Terrapin Station

Actually, I just looked it up. That's hilarious :rofl: .

But as a nominalist, you know that nothing is absolute, so why would we begin to think such about Aristotle?

I wasn't asking about general relevance, but about relevance to the discussion of identity and difference.

We can determine this by looking at something in a particular reference frame and abstracting out the observational interaction, for example. — Terrapin Station

And how do we do that without relying on the notion of identity obtaining, and entities persisting, across time?

@Janus

Speaking to a nominalist is like speaking to one under the oath of silence, you can always answer their questions for them, and with no resistance.