Mathematical platonism is just a semantic mess over the definition of terms like "exists" imo. It's largely irrelevant to physicalism.
-
-
The core point I'm making is that even if they did "exist," there's no reason to not posit that they exist as part of the physical world.
-
Even if they have no materiality? I am hoping James is about to explain this in terms I can understand.
-
There are multiple ontological ways for things to exist. Mass "exists" as a property, for instance, even though it's just a description.
-
What I see in args using platonism to argue for dualism is an attempt to bait and switch between these different types of "existence"
-
Well, ideas and concepts are on a different plane to brains which come up with them & environments which provide them but so what?
-
I'm not sure why the existence of concepts which work is significant to the argument abt whether there needs to be more than brains & things
-
It's not. That's what I've been arguing :p
-
It's what I've been trying to argue too but when the conversation goes into the realms of maths, I can't know if it still works.
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.