> >...Take for example that old naive physics stuff I
>>did. I started wanting to talk about how liquids
>>can be contained in spaces, what it meant to be
>>wet, and so on. In order to do that I had to
>>introduce a lot of other things, like directed
>>surfaces (the thin 'film' of free space on one
>>side of a surface which is where the water is
>>when the surface is wet) and two kinds of liquid
>>object with different identity conditions, and a
>>vertical falling piece of liquid, etc. etc.. Now,
>>is this metaphysics?
>
>I would say so, if you are serious about ---
>
>>... They are
>>all things which I can say with a straight face
>>exist in the actual world...
>
>I agree with this only if we insert a "for all practical purposes
>(FAPP)" caveat. (01)
Yes, of course. But contrast with, say: tropes, continuants,
dependencies, roles, ... none of which I would ever have thought
about, I suspect, during my entire life, had I not had the misfortune
to get involved with philosophers. (02)
>
>To be very precise, though, I would have to say I believe there
>actually are observable effects in the real world that are described
>to excellent approximation by speaking as if things like directed
>surfaces and vertical falling pieces of liquid actually exist.
>
>(Got that???) (03)
Got it, but I don't believe it :-) (04)
>
>Maybe that's what you mean when you say directed surfaces and falling
>pieces of liquid really exist. (05)
Actually, I really do mean that they exist. Which is not to deny that
they are made up of very peculiar, very small things about which I
have no intuitions at all. (06)
>The problem is, if you try to put together a logically consistent
>description of all the things you'd want to say really exist, you
>rapidly get into a tangle. (07)
That hasn't been my own experience. Keeping the real (observable, if
you like) world in mind as one writes axioms is a pretty good way to
avoid inconsistencies, in fact. (08)
> In fact, the attempt to do so drove
>physicists from naive physics to Newton's laws to quantum theory and
>general relativity, which still have not been reconciled with each
>other.
> Nevertheless, for purposes of practical ontology-building,
>I'm all for declaring that these things exist (in the FAPP sense) and
>moving forward. (09)
Glad to hear it. (010)
>
>>...>Regarding use/mention.
>
>I can't resist an amusing anecdote -- I remember my daughter Allison
>at age three telling me, "I start with 'A'". (011)
:-) (012)
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (014)
|