Anyone thinking wholes and parts are ontic categories is either a fraudester or a stupid philosopher (i.e. doubly fraudster). There is no such ontic categories. You construct new wholes to reveal the underlying fragments, you glue the fragments to uncover new wholes ad infinitum.
-
-
Their necessity and nature within the frame of this discussion is established by this being about the possibility of access in any meaningful sense, which is why this is an epistemological question and seeking to make it one of (the rhetoric of…) ontology is familiarly misguided
-
Yes, isn't this what I was talking about? However, you need to be careful here. We can still talk about them ontologically within the established epistemic frames, but we can't do is to treat them ontically . I mentioned ontic in my post, not ontological.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The aestivation hypothesis is a fairly straightforward example. Deep future (T+>100BY) is uncovered as a 'cosmic locale' by computational processes engaged in existential (temporal) price discrimination on the basis of cosmological budget projections for irreversible computation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.