When they don't we end with people thinking Kant, Marx, and Nietzsche were real philosophers. — Garrett Travers

I know it hurts, buddy, but they gotta fuckin go, hehaha.

serves you right :naughty:

Since when do philosophers wait for more facts before they start "speculating"? — Gnomon

Alas, all too often they disregard facts entirely, except perhaps when they face them in day-to-day life and have no option but to acknowledge them by their conduct, at least.

Besides, the authors of the books referenced are pragmatic scientists, who were forced by the counter-intuitive "facts" they dug-up to speculate on what they might mean for our intuitive worldview and our incomplete "standard theory" of reality. — Gnomon

I regret I haven't read the works you refer to, but just what is that supposed to mean? What is it about what they've dug up that would throw our lives into disarray, make any difference to what we do or how or why we do it, lead us to doubt in any practical sense the world of which we're a part and which we and other humans have interacted with, every moment, all our lives? Will we suddenly encounter cats that are both dead and alive, once we know what they've discovered?

:sweat:

I haven't read the book [Penrose], but from reviews I get the impression that his Mathematical Reality is essentially the same thing as Virtual Reality. If that is not questioning our traditional understanding of reality (Materialism & Atomism) I don't know what it's all about. :cool: — Gnomon

Could be. I'm only commenting on parts of his gigantic book I've read. Mostly it is what you would expect of a mathematical physicist: lots of physics math, some of which is like traditional math, some beyond my pay grade. Math physicists mostly search for math to predict the results the experimentalists are getting. But some dabble in philosophy of reality. Some conjure up woo.

Let me toss another one on the fire :razz: : Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. I'm not advocating, just mentioning — Real Gone Cat

I have that book, also. It too is gigantic, over 1,000 pages, and devoted to Wolfram's mathematical approach to physical reality: elementary cellular automata. I've read parts, but again I doubt that more than a few have read the entire tome (that used to be a cocktail party joke). I wrote several programs in BASIC to produce the automata he suggests in the complex plane, and got interesting imagery. But as a fundamental concept explaining physical reality his ideas have failed.

Oh, I see. I am in 100% accord with this analysis. — Garrett Travers

Good! The problem with Systems Theory is that, like all Holistic attempts to understand Nature, General & Universal concepts are not knowable by sensory observation or reductive analysis. Instead, we develop such mental models of reality by rational inference from direct personal experience, or from second-hand learning from other envelope pushers.. The next Theory of Everything will never be a confirmed fact, but merely a new target to shoot down.

That's why scientists, who make general judgments about whole sub-categories of Nature, are going beyond the empirical evidence to make metaphysical philosophical postulations. They can't possibly observe every possible combination of elements. And they are seldom testable with current technology. So, they fill-in the gaps in direct knowledge with the imaginary links of pattern recognition (inference). This knowledge-of-the-gaps is so instinctive for humans that we hardly notice when we cross the line between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation.

The scientists, in the books I listed above, are professional empiricists, but their topics of study are on the cutting-edge of technology, Some focus on Abstract Math (string & loop theory), others on Quantum Weirdness (entanglement), and a few on Consciousness (the last frontier of science). Consequently, like all philosophical postulations, they are open to challenge. You might call them "un-settled science": And they are often accused of dabbling in Metaphysics. But. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if it challenges my "settled" opinion of how the world should work.

Science evolves & advances by pushing the boundaries of the current world map. And yet, just as in politics, conservatives typically accuse the pushy pioneers of "pseudoscience", or even worse "metaphysics". And it seems to be true, historically, that unfettered liberal minds do tend to make discoveries before the plodders, who don't stick their necks out. For example, Einstein was not a practicing scientist when he published his five papers that turned the classical world upside down. So, I'd be careful not to label those long-neck scientists as anti-scientific. Unless they claim to see the promised land from the mountain of Metaphysics.

The purpose of this thread is not to propagandize pseudoscience, but to translate the fringey findings of Science into meaningful philosophical concepts. For example, Hoffman's provocative assertion that "Reality is an Illusion", makes a lot of sense to me. And, I understand that he is not denying our common sense model of material reality, but merely noting that that notion is a map, not the territory. :smile:


The problem of universals is an ancient question from metaphysics that has inspired a range of philosophical topics and disputes. Should the properties an object has in common with other objects, such as color and shape, be considered to exist beyond those objects? And if a property exists separately from objects, what is the nature of that existence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
Note -- Einstein's Block Time is not an empirical observation, but a universal extrapolation. But is it Real?

Consciousness: The Final Frontier :
Understanding consciousness may be the greatest challenge posed to science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/consciousness-self-organization-and-neuroscience/201804/consciousness-the-final-frontier

Science advances one funeral at a time :
Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

TERRA INCOGNITA

But as a fundamental concept explaining physical reality his (Wolfram's) ideas have failed. — jgill

Excellent! Saves me the trouble of reading it.

hould the properties an object has in common with other objects, such as color and shape, be considered to exist beyond those objects? — Gnomon

Gonna butt in here with some of my homespun analysis. Universals don't exist, but they're real. They're real as constraints and possibilities, the forms that things must take in order to exist. But they're not real on the level of existent things, their reality is of a different order to phenomena. Current philosophy cannot accomodate that because it has a univocal conception of existence - something either exists or it doesn't. But the sense in which universals are real, is different to the sense in which things exist. This is, for example, there can be no consensus on the nature of scientific laws - everyone acknowledges they exist, but there's no explanation of what they are.

I regret I haven't read the works you refer to, but just what is that supposed to mean? — Ciceronianus

It means that what you think of as capital "S" Science is a moving target. And these envelope-pushers may know something you don't. For example, Deacon has postulated the counter-intuitive notion of "causal absence". Check it out. But hold your prejudice until you understand what he's talking about. :wink:


Incomplete Nature : How Mind Emerged from Matter
is a 2011 book by biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon. The book covers topics in biosemiotics, philosophy of mind, and the origins of life. Broadly, the book seeks to naturalistically explain "aboutness", that is, concepts like intentionality, meaning, normativity, purpose, and function; which Deacon groups together and labels as ententional phenomena. . . .
The book expands upon the classical conceptions of work and information in order to give an account of ententionality that is consistent with eliminative materialism and yet does not seek to explain away or pass off as epiphenominal the non-physical properties of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Gonna butt in here with some of my homespun analysis. Universals don't exist, but they're real. They're real as constraints and possibilities, the forms that things must take in order to exist. But they're not real on the level of existent things, their reality is of a different order to phenomena. — Wayfarer

Yes, It's that dual meaning of "exist" & "real" that causes us to talk past each other. Some deny the existence of "a different order of phenomena". AFAIK for almost 14 billion years, there were no minds, and hence no Universals or General Concepts and no Ideas or Ideals. When your dog is looking pensive, is he pondering Universals? Is your talking parrot a philosopher?

"Constraints" and "absences" are essential to Deacon's book Incomplete Nature. But some can't wrap their matter-based worldview around the notion of nothingness. But even the ancient Atomists were forced to assume a Void for their atoms to move around in. No void, no motion, no change, no evolution. :smile:

AFAIK for almost 14 billion years, there were no minds, and hence no Universals or General Concepts and no Ideas or Ideals. — Gnomon

But even in the absence of any mind, five is a prime number, and the law of the excluded middle will hold. Our simian ancestors could not have grasped that, but h. sapiens can. But that doesn't mean that by our grasping of such things they begin to exist, rather, they're discovered by us.

That is why in some sense universals are possibilities; they're the attributes or forms something must have in order to exist. For instance, the 'idea of a wing' is such that it must be able to suspend a body in flight. So pterodactyl wings, flying lizard wings, bird wings, and bat wings, all have the same general form, even though they evolved by completely different evolutionary pathways. They're converging on a possibility which is the necessary form if the winged creature is going to take flight.

serves you right :naughty: — Wayfarer

:brow:

serves you right :naughty:
— Wayfarer

:brow: — Agent Smith

Brits (& Aussies?) call that "taking the piss".

That is why in some sense universals are possibilities; they're the attributes or forms something must have in order to exist. — Wayfarer

I.e. Kant's platonic 'transcendental reifications' ...

But that doesn't mean that by our grasping of such things they begin to exist, ...

"Universals" do subsist, but until we grasp them, they do not exist – stand out – for us. Is it your position, Wayf, that they are "real but do not exist" (à la Meinong)? If so, sketch what "real" means to you in this instance as distinct from "exist".

My position is that "universals" are not real (i.e. they are not 'ineluctable, subject/language-invariant, non-tautologies') yet they do subsist (e.g. fictions) :point:

... rather, they're discovered by us.

Consider this alternative: It's [X] the applications of, or uses for, our abstractions (i.e. grammars e.g. expressions, "valid moves") abstract & concrete objects that work (discerned from those that do not work) which are "discovered" (re: pragmatics) whereas [Y] the expressions of abstractions themselves (i.e. logical spaces e.g. systems, "games") are invented. I think [Y] the latter begin (via reflective equilibria?) as particular (trial and error) heuristics from / by which deduceable algorithms subsequently emerge as generalizations abstracted inductively from [X] the former. In other words, "universals" are abstracted from "instantiations" – [Y] generalizations from [X] particulars – like maps abstracted from territories; it makes no more sense to say that [Y] generalizations are logically (or causally) prior to [X] particulars (e.g. platonism) than it does to say maps (forms, possibilities) are logically (or causally) prior to territories (facts, actualities).

(NB: This interpretation, I believe, is more pragmatic (e.g. Witty, Dewey, Hocking, Haack ...) than merely nominalist – which assumes actualism as well as rejects possibilism (or the usual transcendental arguments & platonisms) and positivism too.)

My position is that "universals" are not real (i.e. they are not 'ineluctable, subject/language-invariant, non-tautologies') yet they do subsist (e.g. fictions) :point: — 180 Proof

But engineers, and the like, are dealing on the one hand in theoretical possibilities, but on the other, if they get their calculations wrong, then buildings collapse or rockets explode. Those factors are not fictions. They come from 'peering into the realm of the possible' - extrapolating from known factors to possible outcomes by way of mathematical reasoning. That has Platonist origins, and it's the reason why the scientific revolution happened in the West, not China or India.

The 'reality of number' was my first post on the previous forum, and yours the first response. Overall it was the best interaction we were to have. :chin:

"Universals" do subsist, but until we grasp them, they do not exist – stand out – for us. Is it your position, Wayf, that they are "real but do not exist" (à la Meinong)? If so, sketch what "real" means to you in this instance as distinct from "exist".
— 180 Proof

Generally, "exist" is a spatial-temporal concept. To exist is to be describable in spatial-temporal terms. The concept of "real" allows for truth in referring to things which cannot be described as having spatial temporal positioning. So for example, fictitious characters are real, but we cannot say that these characters exist. This allows that we can make truthful statements about things which have no spatial-temporal existence.

This, or any similar mode of classification allows for the reality of things which transcend spatial-temporal existence. It is necessary to allow for this because we do not know whether our concepts of space and time encompass all the possibilities of reality. And as Wayfarer points out, "possibility" itself is not something which can be included within spatial-temporal existence. So we have problems like quantum entanglement, which demonstrate very clearly to us, that reality transcends what we know as spatial-temporal existence. So we allow that the concept of "reality" extends to cover things outside the realm of "physical", because "physical", as an attribute is necessarily limited in its application. Therefore "reality" encompasses the non-physical.

My position is that "universals" are not real (i.e. they are not 'ineluctable, subject/language-invariant, non-tautologies') yet they do subsist (e.g. fictions) :point: — 180 Proof

There is no point to excluding universals from reality, as you propose. Then you still have to assign something to universals in order to bring them into the realm of intelligibility, i.e. being intelligible. To say that they "subsist", but are not real, is not a good use of the word "subsist", and usage like this is why I have so much difficulty understanding you. "Subsist" is normally used to refer to the temporal extension of existence, to continue to be alive or exist, through time. This necessitates that the thing which subsists also exists. But you are saying that the thing which subsists is not real, so you imply a not real thing which exists. Why make "existence" the more general concept, such that it extends to include things which are not real?

Those factors are not fictions. — Wayfarer

"Money" may be the most ubiquitous fiction on the planet and its an abstraction that has long been far more effective at shaping the concrete world than swords & ships, bullets & bombs. :roll:

First, my previous post is a response to Wayfarer's position on "universals" and I sought clarification on his usage of terms. However interesting your use of those concepts may be, MU, I'm only concerned with Wayfarers at the moment. Second, I qualified my use of "subsists" with a parenthetical "à la Meinong", so take issue with his work instead. Third, your last paragraph makes no sense in the context of what I wrote in my post.

I'm sure there may be many interesting implications from these works. I'm just wondering if they make any difference to how we live our lives on a day to day basis (which seems, to me, to involve reality).

Good! The problem with Systems Theory is that, like all Holistic attempts to understand Nature, General & Universal concepts are not knowable by sensory observation or reductive analysis. — Gnomon

This would be an issue of theories that don't imply that level of analysis as a prinicple. Not of systems theories, or holistic theories. Truly holistic theories are adaptive to all new objectively verified phenomena, like science, and philosophy. If you have a theory that does not embody this principle, it is by definition dogma, and not philosophy.

Instead, we develop such mental models of reality by rational inference from direct personal experience, or from second-hand learning from other envelope pushers. — Gnomon

Yes, this is the very definition of what cosnciousness was developed to do. However, what people don't uderstand is that consciousness is ALWAYS reviewing data for concept generation. Meaning, any concept at all that can actually be used in reality to discover truth of any kind, is absolutely essential to incorporate and use alongside ALL other conceptual frameworks that allow for the same results across domains inquiry. You see what I'm saying to you?

That's why scientists, who make general judgments about whole sub-categories of Nature, are going beyond the empirical evidence to make metaphysical philosophical postulations. — Gnomon

Yep, nothing wrong with postulates, but everything wrong with any conclusion not predicated on verified phenomena.

You might call them "un-settled science" — Gnomon

Philosophy IS unsettled science, and non-dismissive of seemingly contrary, but observably compatible theories and phenomena in reality, is neither. Meaning, quantum mechanics doesn't violate relativity, it enhances it. String Theory does, however, because contradicts both without observation. Along some dimension, it is self evident that relativity and quantum mechanics MUST be compatible, thereby morphing our physics system into multiple dimensions of understanding of the nature of the very same reality within which they emerge.

This knowledge-of-the-gaps is so instinctive for humans that we hardly notice when we cross the line between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation. — Gnomon

Man's greatest murder, and I will not fucking stand for it for another day in my life. I will ridicule and rationally destroy it of the face of the earth with pleasure for the rest of my days.

But. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt — Gnomon

Always give pursuit the benefit of the doubt. Never give conclusions such a benefit.

For example, Einstein was not a practicing scientist when he published his five papers that turned the classical world upside down — Gnomon

Ah, but it wasn't just his papers, was it? Our dear Einstein labored in passion in coffee shops, scribbling in note books ad nauseum to develop a theory that seemed to make sense, but science doesn't play with "seem," neither does philosophy. And at those times in his life, Einstein was nothing short of a pristine example of both, and he fucking knew it. He knew it so god damn much that he predicted the effect of gravity on photons, dude. And predicted gravitational waves from the grave. A-Pex Predator. And it was THAT, the conjunction of theory and observational verification, that forever defined him as relavent in the history of philosophy. Forever will we have Eisntein's relativity in our philosophical zeitgeist, forever will our systems of thought demand compatibility with that discovery.

And, I understand that he is not denying our common sense model of material reality, but merely noting that that notion is a map, not the territory. — Gnomon

Ah, but reduction finds it's way back home. Read above what I have posted to you here again, and come back and read this statement of yours: "a map, not the territory." You sure it isn't..... both? Or, more than both?

What sounds more likely? That reality isn't real? That reality is only a map? That reality is only a territory? Reality is only a force? Reality is only a system? Reality is only chemical reactions? Reality is only a cognitive synthesis? etc.. Or, my friend, is it FAR more likely, that reality is, in fact, a conglomeration of literally every aspect of what those concepts mean to us that are compatible with one another, as well as observable within the same domain of existence? With what you KNOW of reality, not what you think or desire, with what you KNOW, which of our two theses sounds most likely? And which of our two theses do you think can be shown the quickest to be most closely approximating the truth? Think about this one before you answer, dear fellow. I really want you to compute this question and give the most genuine thoughts on the subject that have ever crossed your mind.

@Gnomon :point:

If we don't know what physical reality is, it makes little sense to speak of non-physical reality.

Best to start with what can be elucidated than to go on to something which isn't clearly posed.

Our dear Einstein labored in passion in coffee shops, scribbling in note books ad nauseum to develop a theory that seemed to make sense, but science doesn't play with "seem," neither does philosophy. — Garrett Travers

"Albert Einstein was a lady's man
While he was working on his universal plan
He was making out like Charlie Sheen
He was a genius."
--Warren Zevon

Sorry. I just like Zevon, and couldn't help but think of these lines. Couldn't help but type them as well, it seems.

Sorry. I just like Zevon, and couldn't help but think of these lines. Couldn't help but type them as well, it seems. — Ciceronianus

Hell yeah, rock on.

I'm sure there may be many interesting implications from these works. I'm just wondering if they make any difference to how we live our lives on a day to day basis (which seems, to me, to involve reality). — Ciceronianus

Unless you are a professor of Consciousness Studies, you are not likely to put food on the table by understanding Non-physical Reality. But, if you are an amateur philosopher, like me, that deeper understanding of reality, may make a difference in how you perceive & conceive the puzzling world around you. That, in turn could make you a better person (wisdom & virtue) in your day-to-day dealings with other people. Besides, it might give you fodder for contentious TPF topics. Do, you have something more important to do with your time on Earth? If so, why are you wasting it on feckless Philosophy? :smile:

Truly holistic theories are adaptive to all new objectively verified phenomena, like science, and philosophy. — Garrett Travers

Do you really require objective verification for all of your beliefs? Most people get their technical knowledge second & third hand. So, they must trust their sources. I am not a practicing scientist, so my understanding of abstruse topics, such as we discuss here, is verified only by comparing one expert opinion to another. That's why I read widely. And I actively look for opinions that are different from my own : this forum, for example. That's how you learn. But there are not enough minutes in eternity to "verify" all sources, or for critical analysis of every "fact". So, I suspect that like most folks, even you remember mostly those "facts" that seem to agree with your prior beliefs, as vetted by the Availabilty Heurstic. :smile:

The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597883710447.

Availabilty Heurstic :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

This knowledge-of-the-gaps is so instinctive for humans that we hardly notice when we cross the line between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation. — Gnomon
Man's greatest murder, and I will not fucking stand for it for another day in my life. I will ridicule and rationally destroy it of the face of the earth with pleasure for the rest of my days. — Garrett Travers

Whoa! That sounds like Antihumanism or Transhumanism or even Antinatalism. Which means you won't rest until the scourge of irrational caveman intuition is eradicated from the planet. It must be frustrating to share the world with imperfect people who are not as logical as Mr. Spock, or as computational as Commander Data, or as intolerant as GT. My condolences. :sad:
PS___It's a good thing we are not in the same room. My occasional lapses into instinct might get me exterminated.

Read above what I have posted to you here again, and come back and read this statement of yours: "a map, not the territory." You sure it isn't..... both? Or, more than both? — Garrett Travers

Hey, you're not arguing with me. that's a quote from Alfred Korzybski. His point was that your mental model of the world is a figment of your imagination, not a miniature clone of reality. And he would probably agree with Don Hoffman, that your model of Reality is an "illusion". Or with Carlo Rovelli, that Reality is "not what it seems". However, they are not denying the existence of both mental Maps and material Territories in the same world, but in different forms. Each has its place in the grand scheme of things . . . an non-things. :cool:

Map vs Territory :
This quote comes from Alfred Korzybski, father of general semantics: “A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness”. To sum up, our perception of reality is not reality itself but our own version of it, or our own “map”.
http://intercultural-learning.eu/Portfolio-Item/the-map-is-not-the-territory/

Pages like this are so enticing to narcissistic know-it-alls. Many of you are a fucking joke.

Sure. Even setting aside ontological disputes, physicalism vs idealism vs dualism, you have the whole question of modality.

I think the realm of the possible, but as of yet not actual is somewhat of a no man's land. In this area you'll see physicalists and idealists standing side by side to argue the non-reality of the "possible," while an equally mixed company argue in favor of a "many worlds," based logic that allows them to make truth claims about possibilities.

I also find modality more interesting than most topics in metaphysics in general. I don't have a strong opinion on realism versus nominalism. Trope theory attribute nominalism looks great until you encounter the problem of the identity of numerically distinct indiscernibles. But then universals need a universal of haecceity, some sort of unmodified substratum of being, to attach their universals to in order to get around the indiscerniblity issue, and this ends up equally troubled by incoherence. Aristotlean substance seems too subjective. Ontology is a mess.

Modality though: there is something for the most out to lunch continental philosopher or the most hardcore logician to get into there.

Do you really require objective verification for all of your beliefs? — Gnomon

Barring none, whatsoever.

Most people get their technical knowledge second & third hand. — Gnomon

I've no issue observing science and relying on such terms, papers, research, etc. If it arises that such sources are actually fabrications, then I'll change my tune and start again, no problem.

That's why I read widely. And I actively look for opinions that are different from my own : this forum, for example. That's how you learn. — Gnomon

I do to, but I've grown weary of clear fabrications spreading.

So, I suspect that like most folks, even you remember mostly those "facts" that seem to agree with your prior beliefs, as vetted by the Availabilty Heurstic. — Gnomon

I do, my philosophy is adaptive, I don't do the keeping of beliefs if they are shown to be wrong. Just for an example, I only found out this past week that Epicurus' communes were Anarcho-Capitalistic in nature, being the first Capitalist societies in history that I know of, but also that Marx directly plagiarised the idea from him and twisted its principles. I had been riding with the idea that the socialists themselves had generated the conceptual understanding of private property and free exchange and Feudalism and all that. Complete bullshit.

Whoa! That sounds like Antihumanism or Transhumanism or even Antinatalism. — Gnomon

No, I said rationally, as in logic and reason. Only collectivists are those things. You'll notice that here soon with Russia, full frontal display incoming.

It must be frustrating to share the world with imperfect people who are not as logical as Mr. Spock, or as computational as Commander Data, or as intolerant as GT. My condolences. :sad: — Gnomon

Thank you, but I don't need the condolences. It's actually the people that DON'T value the human consciousness that are miserable. That's why they keep rioting, spreading racial hatred, fighting for power, leaving american humans to die in the middle east, sending american humans to die near russia, raping children in churches and highscools, killing eachother in churches and highschools, bickering over which despicable terrorist organization is less terroristy than the other, overdosing, killing themselves. This is the world the collectivists want, they must have it. But, it isn't the rational who are miserable, my dear fellow. Just see how miserable the Epicureans were, before the miserable slaughtered them in the name hatred of the human consciousness, in faith to a god that demands such hatred and provides no evidence of his existence except corpses beyond count.

Hey, you're not arguing with me. that's a quote from Alfred Korzybski. His point was that your mental model of the world is a figment of your imagination, not a miniature clone of reality. And he would probably agree with Don Hoffman, that your model of Reality is an "illusion". — Gnomon

Wow, I wonder what model of reality was used to come to that objective assertion about the nature of reality.

grand scheme of things — Gnomon

There's where you should investigate. Non things aren't things, that's why you can't find any, and if you did, they would immediately become things, and not non things. Weird how reality just doesn't give a fuck about people's thoughts.

Although, come to think of it, it's pretty hard to describe fundemental particles without reference to universals. You have a thing that lacks identity, that can be defined only by the traits that a type posseses.

Generally, "exist" is a spatial-temporal concept. To exist is to be describable in spatial-temporal terms — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not so sure. Does a theory of infinite compositions of complex functions exist? Why yes, it does exist. I should know. Lots of other examples.

That’s a great question. The theory exists, but can only be grasped by a rational mind. It does not exist in the same sense that chairs and tables exist. It’s an intelligible object.

My reply is similar to Wayfarer's, but if we go deeper you'll see that I differ significantly in opinion, from Wayfarer. As I defined "exist" as spatial-temporal, you'll see that I attribute "existence" to the physical manifestation, which is the symbolization, in its physical form. This leaves "grasping the theory", or understanding it, as something which the rational mind does somewhat separately, from the theory itself, which is exterior to the mind, existing in its physical form.

The problem I find, is that if we say that the theory itself, is what exists within the human mind, as that which is understood, or the understanding which the mind has, then we have to account for particular differences in understanding between individual people. The fact that such differences in the way that different people understand "the same" theory are very real, is evident from this forum. So if "the theory" exists within the rational mind, manifested as the activity which is "understanding", then we cannot accurately call it "the theory" any more, because each person has one's own unique interpretation of what is called "the theory", so we would have a multitude of different instances of the same theory. Therefore I prefer to refer to the physical manifestation as "the theory", so that we are justified in having one united theory, instead of a multitude of different related theories in different minds.

However, you'll see that my way of understanding, and expressing what constitutes "the theory", does not completely resolve the problem of differences. We might have different expressions, different written formulas, or even different instances of physical occurrence, of what we would call "the same theory", just like we say "2" is "the same" symbol each time we see this physical appearance, despite it being different instances. We really ought to say each time we see a 2 that it is the same type of symbol as the other time, and not actually the same symbol.

What I think though, is that this way of looking at it gives us a more realistic approach to the fundamental difference between expressing a theory, and interpreting a theory. These two are necessarily very different from each other, because interpreting (understanding) is necessarily prior in time to expressing what is understood. So the expression, which is "the theory" is the result, or effect, of the act of understanding.

I believe this gives us a better approach toward understanding the reality of what I would call the creation of a theory, and what Wayfarer would probably call the discovery of a theory. I would say that the theory is created when the symbols are given their appropriate relations to each other, in the physical medium. This means that the theory is actually a representation of the non-physical which remains within the mind. But the non-physical here is the process by which the physical representation (the theory itself) is created. Wayfarer would probably say that the theory itself is within the mind, as a non-physical thing, intelligible object, discovered by the mind. The substantial difference, is that I posit a non-physical activity, which is the cause of a physical thing (the theory in its physical manifestation), while Wayfarer posits a non-physical static immaterial object called the theory. (Correct me if I'm wrong please )