1. What does the discussion's place have to do with my argument?The whole discussion takes place in the shadow of Plato. You're offering his middle period view. — frank
NOS has been more gracious than I could ask for. He's rational, to the point, and eminently non-abusive. — frank
But when you dismissed me and my arguments with a dismissive gesture, — god must be atheist
The boiling point, for instance, is the temperature at which something boils. — NOS4A2
but there isn’t something called “red” in Anthocyanins and Heme. — NOS4A2
the light bouncing off of these compounds is similar. — NOS4A2
I think you're saying that you're satisfied that things sometimes spin. That tops have the property of being able to spin is a different proposition, though.
Are you ok with that proposition? — frank
Is 100 degrees celsius a property? — Michael
No. — khaled
Yes, the boiling point of water is not a property. In the same way that the height of the empire state building is not a property. But height is a property.
The boiling point is a property. The boiling point of water is not. — khaled
A is B
B exists
Therefore A exists
If so, replace A with "boiling point" and B with "the temperature at which something boils" and you get "the boiling point (a property) exists"
You're saying that the temperature at which something boils exists. But this is meant in some abstract sense, not in some concrete sense, e.g. the temperature at which water boils exist. — Michael
Then your argument above equivocates: — Michael
And so I will simply deny that the temperature at which something boils exists. — Michael
I will accept that the temperature at which water boils exists, but then if so we are only left with my argument above — Michael
That just seems...weird. Would you deny the existence of distance between two points as well? When a mathematician speaks of "distance between two points a and b" but doesn't specify a or b, what is he speaking about? — khaled
The argument comes down to insisting that you can't think or communicate without using universals and abstract objects. — frank
Even if that were true it doesn’t follow that universals and abstract objects exist in the realist sense. They might play a useful role in language, but that’s all they are. — Michael
What does existence for abstract stuff mean to you? — khaled
As for a lack of need for it: If things are either mental or physical, then when we refer to "gravity" we must be referring to a mental thing, a physical thing, or having no referent at all. So which is it? — khaled
The obvious question would then be why you are so sure those two categories are all there is. — khaled
But other than that, your only problem for it is that it seems unnecessary? Not some sort of internal inconsistency or issues that arise from assuming it? — khaled
The temperature at which something boils exists, therefore the boiling point exists. — khaled
That's the question I asked of you. Is there a difference between asking if spin is real and asking if things really spin? — Michael
If there is a difference then prima facie one can deny that spin is real but accept that things really spin. What issues would arise from this? We have evidence of things really spinning. What evidence is there of spin being real (as something else)? What need is there for spin being real (as something else)? — Michael
The boiling temperature varies with pressure, so it is relative. Therefore it is not true that there is a temperature at which something boils. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, there's a difference. Saying that tops have the property of being able to spin is not the same as saying that tops sometimes spin. You could have a top that spends its whole existence in a drawer. It still has the property of being able to spin. — 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.