If you want to speak of INFINITE possibilities then that is a real possibility. — intrapersona
I would of thought that when we discovered that red is a certain wavelength of the EM spectrum that is exuded by the type of material light is reflected from it would've meant that we did away with thinking "redness" is something instantiated universally by objects, that it is a thing in itself rather than just a physical occurrence. ?? — intrapersona
Primary qualities are things like mass, volume, shape, distance to/from, velocity, etc. — darthbarracuda
That is not how it works. Infinite possibilities do not entail that anything and everything is a real possibility. There are infinitely many possible triangles, but none of them have four or more sides. — aletheist
"Red" is not an EM wave with wavelength 620-740 nm. That is what red is caused by, but the experience of red is something different. Again under a dualist schema. Red is not a property of an object, but rather a property that an object causes us to experience. — darthbarracuda
Something can be seen to be moving while actually not moving at all. Something can also be seen to be static and yet be quite dynamic. — darthbarracuda
I mean, illusory experiences happen all the time. — darthbarracuda
Yes indeed thanks for the correction and that should therefor mean that "redness" is mind dependant and makes no sense for anyone to start talking about properties and universals outside of the experiences in the mind. — intrapersona
So you think the discovered facts of reality oughtn't inform contemporary metaphysics? You don't think the truth of things ought to act as a constraint on our speculative ignorance.
Curious. — apokrisis
No, again, motion is primary, but the experience of motion is secondary. All we're registering is a change in our phenomenal world. — darthbarracuda
Isn't a change in our phenomenal world exactly how we understand motion anyway? Science is an empirical thing, after all. — Michael
So what causes the experience of motion if it isn't necessarily actual motion? — apokrisis
Right, but if you don't move out of the way, that baseball is going to hit you. We register that there is a change going on in our phenomenal world, but we make a further assumption when we believe this change correlates to something actually moving outside us. — darthbarracuda
The experience of motion is more like the experience of changing secondary properties. — darthbarracuda
This doesn't follow. If our understanding of motion is of a particular kind of phenomena then even if this phenomena is caused by something "beyond" the phenomena, it would be a category error to say that this "something else" is motion. Rather this "something else" is just the cause of motion, with motion just being the particular kind of phenomena. Compare with being red and having a particular frequency of light. — Michael
I'm not sure I follow.
A ball moves towards me. In reality, this means that the ball is changing locations, traveling distance, in a specific discrete amount of time. But I do not actually experience the ball moving towards me, I experience a reconstruction of the episode, a painting of the real thing.
Consider how, if you cover up one of your eyes, it becomes much more difficult to see depth of field. The ball is still moving, but it's harder to register this because you aren't given enough information. Until it smacks you in the face, that is.
The phenomenal reality we experience everyday is a crude and limited reconstruction of the unknowable world beyond. Assuming there is such a world at all. — darthbarracuda
I did read it. And to deny that multiple things have the same property, is to deny that A=A. You only have 'that instance of A over there', and 'another instance of A here' - but they're not identical. So how can you even retain 'the law of identity' at all? — Wayfarer
If you had in mind Planck length or Planck temperature or "the Planck scale," you know what might be a clearer way of communicating that? If you'd write "Planck length," "Planck temperature," or "the Planck scale." — Terrapin Station
With respect to the principle of identity, "A" on the left-hand side of the equality sign isn't referring to something different than A on the right-hand side of the equality sign, is it? They're not multiple things, right, but the same thing. That's just the idea of it...
Perhaps with the principle of identity you're confusing use and mention? — Terrapin Station
[Nominalists] are denying the reality of multiple things having an identical (in the A=A sense) property. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.