Physical. It's one of the 4 fundamental forces. — Michael

Right, but then are the fundamental forces themselves physical? What physical properties do they have? Do they have a mass or a velocity?

What about "Newton's second law". Is that one physical, mental, or has no referent?

Well, there's the question you asked of me; what does it even mean for an abstract object to exist (as some mind-independent thing)? — Michael

I told you:

an abstract exists if there could exist material things that act according to it. — khaled

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"

The liquid exists, the atmospheric conditions exist, but the boiling point is just a value produced by a human mind, as is temperature. You’re just describing the state of the liquid.

That light being within a certin range

That light exists, yes, and it appears red, sure, but red is just a description of the light.

OK, then is there a difference between spin being real and a top really being able to spin? — Michael

I've lost track of your point. It seems like you're constructing word salad.

My question to NOS about whether spin, as an essential property of electrons, is real, was aimed at his earlier statement that nominalism addresses the concept of existence better than the alternatives.

You started talking about the verb "spin", which electrons don't do. So I tried to adjust by talking about tops, which do spin, and have the property of spinnability, spinness, or the ability to spin, however you want to put it.

Could you clarify your point?

Could you clarify your point? — frank

I'm trying to point out the ambiguity in your question.

The Platonist might say that height is real iff height is a mind-independent abstract object. The nominalist rejects the claim that height is a mind-independent abstract object. The Platonist might then respond by claiming that the nominalist rejects the claim that height is real. But then the nominalist will respond by claiming that height being real just is that physical objects really have a height, and that physical objects really having a height does not depend on height being a mind-independent abstract object.

So simply asking something like "is height real?" doesn't address the issue at all.

Your question for @NOS4A2 should be "is an electron's spin a mind-independent abstract object?" rather than the ambiguous "is an electron's spin real?"

The Platonist might say that height is real iff height is a mind-independent abstract object. — Michael

Hume gives a non-Platonic alternative to nominalism.

I wasn't really interested in pushing any particular account of abstract objects and universals. I was pointing out the problem with denying that they exist, which Hume's bundle theory explains pretty succinctly.

Your question for NOS4A2 should be "is an electron's spin a mind-independent abstract object?" rather than the ambiguous "is an electron's spin real?" — Michael

You've misunderstood the discussion between NOS and me.

I wasn't really interested in pushing any particular account of abstract objects and universals. I was pointing out the problem with denying that they exist, which Hume's bundle theory explains pretty succinctly. — frank

But Hume was a nominalist?

When the nominalist weighs a stone he understands he’s measuring the stone, not something called “weight”. This can be observed: he is indeed putting the stone on the scale. Nothing called “weight” even needs to be postulated.

The realist, on the other hand, implies that the stone possesses something called “weight”. So now we have two substances, the stone and weight. Yet there is only stone on the scale.

So why must we evoke two or more substances when there appears only one?

But Hume was a nominalist? — Michael

Sorry, I should have said his account is an alternative to traditional nominalism like Occam's. He didn't believe in objects. A thing is a bundle of properties and properties are identified by resemblance of perceptions.

I'm sure you realize stones don't have any weight in outer space. By your account, the nominalist is pretty confused.

I'm sure you realize stones don't have any weight in outer space. By your account, the nominalist is pretty confused.

How is he confused? He hasn't evoked "weight", so no property called "weight" has suddenly vanished. The stone has not changed. Instead the nominalist can focus on what has changed and come closer to accuracy in describing states of affairs.

Instead the nominalist can focus on what has changed and come closer to accuracy in describing states of affairs. — NOS4A2

I agree. My point is that he'll continue to speak in terms of universals and abstract objects while maintaining that the things he's referring to don't exist.

There's some arbitrariness in what he's decided to call real, or rather it's probably a matter of the bias of his times.

If he lived in 2nd Century Rome, he'd just as confidently speak of forms as the truest reality, with just as much justification. He'd argue that this talk of particulars is just a trick of speech.

Yeah I think abstract objects and universals are inescapable features of speech.

There is a Russian political philosopher known as “Putin’s brain”, Alexander Dugin, who claims that the advent of nominalism is the precursor to liberalism, and thus represents the inherent danger of The West. He claims that it serves to destroy notions such as community and family and has led to the worst kind of individualism. So I wonder if nominalism has had such an effect on the one hand, and if it is indeed a strictly western notion in the other.

Aren’t you a sight for sore eyes, friend.

There is a Russian political philosopher known as “Putin’s brain”, Alexander Dugin, who claims that the advent of nominalism is the precursor to liberalism, and thus represents the inherent danger of The West. — NOS4A2

Interesting. Some see in Plato's Forms a hint of the real anti-democratic sentiment of Plato. I guess the accompanying folklore is that Plato saw in Socrates' execution, which was part of wave of post-war scapegoating, just how ugly the People can be.

Liberalism was partly about wresting power away from the aristocracy, who were kind of like social icons. Liberalism definitely has an affinity for a mechanical outlook. So yes, I see what he's saying.

He claims that it serves to destroy notions such as community and family and has led to the worst kind of individualism. — NOS4A2

Russia has never really had a strong sense of identity. Russians are traditionally difficult to govern because they're so independently minded. Community has been a concern of Russian thinkers for some time. The West, on the other hand, is marked by potent super identities like the British and the Americans. The West never has to worry about the community being endangered by individualism because each person is deeply marked by the looming figures of cultural personality.

I guess I'm saying Dugin is probably right that Russia has an allergy to nominalism. That doesn't mean it's bad for the West though.

What are your thoughts?

That is a non-sequitor. Just because it varies with another value doesn't mean it doesn't exist. — khaled

As I said, it means that there is no such thing as "the temperature at which something boils", which is what your claim was. The same thing will boil at many different temperatures. Spin it however you want, but your claim was false.

I think you’re right and I like your take. I know in my own case that my politics is the inevitable conclusion of my metaphysics. I cannot put any value into abstract objects and universals when I cannot believe in them. But I disagree with Dugin that these valuations will lead us to a post-human world, where we will abandon the notions of “humanity” itself. And I doubt that nominalism is a prevalent as he claims.

. I cannot put any value into abstract objects and universals when I cannot believe in them. — NOS4A2

That makes sense. For me, despite my attempts to see the issue in a neutral way, I lean toward realism, by which I mean that what each of us is directly aware of is a world of ideas. The mind can't do anything with a disparate hodge podge of data, which is what it would appear the brain is receiving.

I myself am an idea. I can't deny the existence of society without denying my own reality, and in fact, I see societies as being like giant people in some respects.

I can see why some people might see me as embracing the mythological as real, but I dont think they really have any contact with what they're calling real.

An “indirect realist” I suppose, at least according to the philosophy of mind and perception. I myself am a “direct realist”. It’s fascinating that these ancient philosophical quandaries will forever reappear.

Do you identify yourself as the brain, or some other internal locus? I ask because I can see such a belief orientating a person towards a belief in the reality of abstract objects, universals, representations and the like.

You’re just describing the state of the liquid. — NOS4A2

Ok. And what is a "state"? Is it a physical thing, a mental thing, or some sort of quirk in language?

Because your language certainly makes it seem like a "state" is something a liquid possesses.

"Sir, there is a sum of money you must pay to the government called taxes"

"Aha! But this sum of money changes for different people at different times in their life! Therefore there is no sum of money I must pay to the government called taxes! Taxes aren't real!"

If only it was that easy.

In this case it’s the liquid at any given point and under any given conditions, what it looks like, what it’s doing, how cold it is, etc.

We’re not talking about any particular liquid here so it’s entirely a product of the mind.

We’re not talking about any particular liquid here so it’s entirely a product of the mind. — NOS4A2

Ok. So the state of the liquid is entirely a product of the mind yes? (as long as we're not talking about a particular liquid)

We also know that when liquids change states they change their capabilities too correct? So if the liquid changes states such that its temperature is 90 degrees Celsius, it starts being able to cook food for example.

So if on top of that states were entirely products of the mind, then one would be able to change the capabilities of a given liquid by convincing themselves its at a different state. But we cannot do so. If I try to cook a piece of meat in liquid (water/broth/etc) with 30C temperature, it won't cook, even if every single person on earth convinced themselves that the liquid (water/broth/etc) is 100C temperature.

So it seems to me you either deny that a change in states changes the capabilities of a liquid, OR states are not entirely mental constructs.

No, you cannot change the capabilities of a given liquid by thinking about it. But you can imagine different values in its properties and get a fairly accurate idea of what it will do in that state.

if you were to describe the condition of any given liquid, do you believe the liquid possesses something called a “condition” by virtue of using such possessive language? If so, which is wet? the condition or the liquid?

"Sir, there is a sum of money you must pay to the government called taxes"

"Aha! But this sum of money changes for different people at different times in their life! Therefore there is no sum of money I must pay to the government called taxes! Taxes aren't real!"
. — khaled

That's right, because it's arbitrary. There is no such thing s the sum of money you have to pay, claim some expenses and other deductions, and lower the amount if you do not like it. And so tax issues can either be settled arbitrarily out of court, or become long drawn out court cases.

If only it was that easy. — khaled

You're wrong here though, it's not easy, but more difficult. The easy way is to just give in to what they say, give them what they ask for. The more difficult way is to find all the deductions you are eligible for, and reduce that amount of taxation.

That's the way reality is, the simple representation ('water boils at 100 degrees') is not the truth. The truth is complex and difficult. 'There is a temperature at which water boils' is the simple representation, but it\s not the truth, as the truth is much more complex and difficult.. We simply chop off the complex and difficult aspects, ignoring them, for the sake of making life simple. But that puts us in Plato's cave.

It’s fascinating that these ancient philosophical quandaries will forever reappear. — NOS4A2

I know. The notion that we've made philosophical progress in the last 2400 years is an illusion.

Do you identify yourself as the brain, or some other internal locus? I ask because I can see such a belief orientating a person towards a belief in the reality of abstract objects, universals, representations and the like. — NOS4A2

I guess I do identity with an internal locus. Plus I'm very protective of my privacy. So I guess when privacy is an ideal, I don't want to hear that I'm something that's socially mediated.

How do you see yourself?

if you were to describe the condition of any given liquid, do you believe the liquid possesses something called a “condition” by virtue of using such possessive language? — NOS4A2

It wasn't just me that used said possessive laguage:

You’re just describing the state of the liquid. — NOS4A2

But yes, the liquid possesses a condition.

If so, which is wet? the condition or the liquid? — NOS4A2

The liquid. Why would it be the condition? A condition doesn't possess any of the qualities that would make up "wet". It can't as it's not material.

No, you cannot change the capabilities of a given liquid by thinking about it. But you can imagine different values in its properties and get a fairly accurate idea of what it will do in that state. — NOS4A2

Alright but that can't be mere coincidence right? Why does it happen to be the case that what we imagine matches up with the behavior of the liquid every time?

That's why I posit that the liquid itself has "laws" that determine its "states". We merely discover those laws. We don't make them up. If they were entirely mental constructs, then how come when we alter them, the things bound by them don't change behavior accordingly?

Also I am curious what the "gravitational constant" is in your view. Is it a mental thing, a physical thing, or something else? Unlike temperature and such, it's not really a property, just a value (6.6743 × 10^-11), but an important one. Where does that land?

That's right, because it's arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet taxes exist....

You're wrong here though, it's not easy, but more difficult. The easy way is to just give in to what they say, give them what they ask for. The more difficult way is to find all the deductions you are eligible for, and reduce that amount of taxation. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

My point is simple. The amount you have to pay in tax varies a lot. And yet taxes exist. Hence just because the value of it varies does not mean the thing does not exist.

Same with gravitational force. Gravitational force exists even though the gravitional force changes based on distance.

Taxes aren't real!"
.
— khaled

That's right — Metaphysician Undercover

(I hope this isn't an unfair quote, it seems to me to be what you mean)

there is no such thing as "the temperature at which something boils" — Metaphysician Undercover

A system where "taxes do not exist", "the boiling point does not exist" and "gravitaional forces do not exist" are true just sounds silly to me.

And yet taxes exist.... — khaled

So what? Boiling water exists too. But that wasn't your claim

My point is simple. The amount you have to pay in tax varies a lot. And yet taxes exist. Hence just because the value of it varies does not mean the thing does not exist.

Same with gravitational force. Gravitational force exists even though the gravitional force changes based on distance. — khaled

You've changed the subject with your analogies. You were not talking about whether boiling water exists, you were talking about the existence of the temperature at which water boils. So the existence of gravity, and the existence of taxes is irrelevant. What you were talking about is the specific quantity which is assigned to a thing, a measured value, and whether that measured value exists or not.

So what? Boiling water exists too. But that wasn't your claim — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, my claim was that the boiling point exists. That a "temperature at which something boils" exists. You said it doesn't because that temperature varies with a lot of factors.

I then said taxes exist. You said they don't because they vary with a lot of factors.

So the existence of gravity — Metaphysician Undercover

But I didn't say the existence of gravity. I said "gravitational force". Specifically because it is also a value that varies with a lot of factors. But it exists.

But by your logic, since the gravitational force depends on distance, and the mass of the two objects, it doesn't exist. Similar to how since the "temperature at which something boils" depends on the something and the pressure, therefore it doesn't exist. Similar to how since the "amount of money you owe the government" varies based on a lot of factors it doesn't exist (again, I wish it was that easy to dismiss taxes).

A question for you. If the "temperature at which something boils" doesn't exist, then when chemists use the boiling point in a formula, what are they talking about?

But I didn't say the existence of gravity. I said "gravitational force". Specifically because it is also a value that varies with a lot of factors. But it exists. — khaled

"Gravitational force" is just another way of saying "gravity", it is not an expression of a gravitational value. That gravitational force is just a general reference, rather than a specific value is evident from the fact that the gravitational constant expressed by "g" in the formula "mgh" is applicable in approximation on the earth only. If we want to produce a gravitational value for other places we must employ a different formula. This might be a formula such as you proposed, a relation between two masses and distance, or it might be something more vague like what is expressed in general relativity.

But by your logic, since the gravitational force depends on distance, and the mass of the two objects, it doesn't exist. — khaled

No, by my logic, the value assigned to any specific instance of gravitational force does not exist, because it is somewhat arbitrary depending on the formula chosen to figure the value. Likewise, the value assigned to the boiling point of water at average seal level air pressure might be 100 degrees, or 212 degrees, or even 373 degrees, depending on the formula employed. And this does not even account for the formula required to determine average sea level air pressure.

I am making no claims about whether gravitational force exists, or whether boiling water exists, I am making claims about the measured value of such things.