Humans group things in their mind in order to see reality from an intellectual perspective and they can get tangled up because we can't see all of reality as it is — Gregory
The above description of spin and electrons is full of universals and abstract objects. If you deny the existence of those properties, you have no real terms with which to explain what an electron is. "Electron" becomes a blank.
Instead of defending abstract ideas not being real, how would you attack abstract ideas being real? What issues arise if we consider abstract ideas to be real?
Wherever they appear they can only prove to exist as products of the mind — NOS4A2
If these universals are merely products of our minds, they'd be no more than imagination. However, when someone says a red apple is green, we tell him he's wrong. You can't be wrong if the redness of the apple is just our imagination. — khaled
the contention for the nominalist is that abstract objects and universals do not exist independently of descriptions — NOS4A2
If abstractions like words do not exist then this debate is non-existent. — I like sushi
A description is an abstract object, since it's made of propositions, so you're confirming the existence of at least one independent abstract object.
Using a suffix to turn an adjective such as “red” into the noun “redness” is purely an exercise of the mind, not an observation of something in the world. — NOS4A2
We cannot point to or quantify something called “redness” — NOS4A2
They might manifest as words but they will never manifest anywhere else. — NOS4A2
A description is an abstract object, since it's made of propositions, so you're confirming the existence of at least one independent abstract object.
It’s not independent, though. You said yourself it’s made of propositions. We make propositions, descriptions, abstract objects, universals, and so they are forever dependent on the human mind. They might manifest as words but they will never manifest anywhere else. — NOS4A2
If so, then what is the explanation for all of us largely attributing redness to the same things? It sounds as though there is something in common between all the things we describe with the adjective "red" or to which we attribute "redness". What is that thing in common?
Yes we can, what?
Redness is the property of reflecting light of wavelengths around 625-740nm and absorbing other frequencies. That's something in the world is it not?
Forget universals. Do you believe properties exist? Do things have properties?
A proposition is a state of affairs. Propositions transcend time and space by definition. It's easy to demonstrate that they can't be the product of any particular mind, and if they're products of mind at all, it would be in a Kantian sense. An individual human may give expression to a proposition by uttering a sentence, but in that act, the only thing with spacial and temporal extension is the marks or sounds of the utterance.
But even if you reject the above and opt for some sort of hard behaviorism, you've still given an abstract foundation to descriptions: us.
Is there a difference between asking if spin is real and asking if things really spin? Is an answer to one also an answer to the other? — Michael
Propositions do not transcend space and time. I’ve quoted your propositions right here, the product of a particular mind. If it’s easy to demonstrate that a proposition transcends space and time perhaps you might entertain us by doing so. — NOS4A2
Do they deny that it’s appropriate to say that tops spin? — Michael
They would allow that some tops spin some of the time. — frank
The argument comes down to insisting that you can't think or communicate without using universals and abstract objects. — frank
It depends on the sense in which you use it. If it is a “state of affairs”, then it is a statement. Do you mean it in another sense? — NOS4A2
put down my proposition: Abstractions and universals (non-physical things) exist but not in the physical world. — god must be atheist
I don't know how they exist, although I have speculations. I just know there's a logical problem with denying that they exist, which is the nominalist claim. — frank
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.