….measured value…. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Gravitational force" is just another way of saying "gravity" — Metaphysician Undercover
No, by my logic, the value assigned to any specific instance of gravitational force does not exist — Metaphysician Undercover
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
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 — Metaphysician Undercover
So the value of gravitational force does not exist since it varies based on what units/formulas we use? Is that what you're saying? — khaled
But the "boiling point" is on exactly the same level as "gravitational force". We use both in formulas abstractly. And neither are talking about a specific value. — khaled
Yes, but in all of these cases, the boiling point exists yes? There exists a temperature at which something boils, although we can use arbitrary units to represent it leading to different values. — khaled
"Gravitational force" is something general and does not represent any specific value. But the specific value, 100 degrees, which we call the boiling point, is derived from the application of a formula. — Metaphysician Undercover
which is what you were saying, the temperature at which something boils) is a specific value — Metaphysician Undercover
But the specific value, 100 degrees, which we call the boiling point, is derived from the application of a formula. — Metaphysician Undercover
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. The boiling point of water is a specific value. — khaled
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
Yes. — khaled
No, there is not a temperature at which something boils. That is the point. There is no such thing as the temperature at which something boils. That's what I've been telling you. — Metaphysician Undercover
The value of the gravitational force depends on gravitational constant, the masses of the object, and the distance between them. Which for some reason makes it so that the value of the gravitational force doesn't exist
And yet the gravitational force exists.
The value of the boiling point depends on pressure, the type of liquid, and a bunch of other things. Which for somea reason makes it so that the value of the boiling point doesn't exist.
And yet the boiling point exists.
It's the exact same situation with the exact same logic. I don't know where you got this distinction: — khaled
"there exists a temperature at which something boils". This is completely different from the statement "the boiling point exists". The former, "a temperature" is a value assigned to the latter, the named thing, "boiling point". — Metaphysician Undercover
Please do not keep saying that you only want to talk about the pile of paper, implying that you think that if the pile of paper is determined to be existing, we can somehow infer from this, that the value is also existing — Metaphysician Undercover
instead of your original claim that "the temperature at which something boils exists" — Metaphysician Undercover
But if you honestly want to discuss whether the value which we assign to that thing named "the boiling point" exists, the thing which you call "the temperature at which something boils", then I'm ready to proceed. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sure, I believe they still exist. And to be clear we are discussing values correct? Like "100 degrees Celsius". I must say that seeing a realist that believes that "boiling point" exists but that its value doesn't exist is a first time for me.
I'll start with asking you, if you think these values don't exist, then what are we referring to when we use them? — khaled
What problems arise if we consider values to be real in the same way that boiling point is real? — khaled
I think there is a problem with saying values are fictitious, being that if they are fictitious, then changing them should not mean we are wrong.
Take the Santa Clause story. That's fictitious because even if you change the story so that Santa uses flying horses, you're not "wrong". It's a work of fiction after all you can do whatever you want. Santa could be a vampire.
However if you have 5 boxes lined up in front of you and you say there are 4 boxes, you are wrong. That tells me that values aren't works of fiction. They refer to something we commonly understand. — khaled
I think the principal issue is that there are different ways to derive "the value", as I described. — Metaphysician Undercover
So for example, if we think that 100 degrees Celsius is a "real" value for the boiling point of water, then we would tend to believe that the real cause of the water boiling is that it reached that temperature. — Metaphysician Undercover
So your analogy needs to premise that the evaluation has not yet been made, then you can see that evaluation is similar to a work of fiction.. — Metaphysician Undercover
What problems arise if we consider values to be real in the same way that boiling point is real? — khaled
is there a difference between saying that the boiling point is real and saying that things really do boil? — Michael
And that things really do boil does not entail that some universal or abstract object exists. — Michael
I think the boiling point can exist even if things don't really boil. If we lived in a world where the maximum temperature ever detected or achievable by us was 60 degrees celcius, the boiling point of water would still be 100 degrees celcius. — khaled
"John would die were he to be decapitated, therefore his death exists." — Michael
"this water would boil were it to be heated to 100 degrees celsius, therefore its boiling point exists." — Michael
Do you think math is discovered or created? — khaled
No it isn't. Let's first assume that all the items are boxes without a doubt, for simplificiation. Regardless of what system we make up, there will be a correct answer within it, not so for pure fiction. — khaled
you just define one so that it is the same as the other, deny the difference, and argue your point from a position of denial. — Metaphysician Undercover
Again, those were intended as the same claim. But I understand the difference you drew between. — khaled
Wouldn't it be "therefore decapitations exist" if we're keeping the same form? I don't find that ridiculous, for "decaptiations" to exist in the abstract in the same way as boiling point. — khaled
I can understand it in the sense of "it is possible for things with heads to be decapitated", but that has nothing to do with the realist existence of abstract objects. — Michael
but that has nothing to do with the realist existence of abstract objects. — Michael
And what does "decapitations exist in the abstract" even mean? — Michael
I can understand it in the sense of "it is possible for things with heads to be decapitated", but that has nothing to do with the realist existence of abstract objects. — Michael
It does, since you haven't escaped talking about abstract objects yet. I propose that you can't do that. Universals and properties are too embedded in the way you think to escape them. For instance, try imagining an object that has no properties. — frank
It doesn't follow from the fact that we talk about abstract objects that abstract objects exist in the realist sense. — Michael
It also doesn't follow from the fact that we talk about physical objects that they exist in the realist sense. — frank
That is also an unfounded notion. There is no evidence for it and no need for it.
But this abstract "thing with a head" is just a facet of our thought and language, not some object with a mind-independent existence. — Michael
They are just rocks, each individual. — Gregory
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.