No, no, this is not what I'm saying. Mereology is all good. What I'm referring to is that parts and wholes can't be ontically hypothesized such that we can claim parts are ontologically prior or wholes are ontologically prior.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
Atoms are not parts but entities in their own right? And the bigger entities made up of atoms are not just composites nor causa finalis for the existence of those atoms, but entities in their own right? We should look at them in their unilaterality, non-relatedness?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kkolozova
No, atoms are not entities in the way we use that term in colloquial or traditional philosophical sense. I highly suggest the text that van Fraassen wrote on whether electrons are real or not.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
But in the traditional philosophical terminology, yes, they would be entities, ta onta.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kkolozova
Sure, but I really don't think that the talk of ta onta can be seamlessly comeensurated with how sciences or particularly physics and complexity science talk about such entities.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
Yes, you said that in colloquial and philosophical speech they aren't, not in scientific. I was responding to that comment only. Since Aristotle's Categories on they would be termed entities. I'm not sure about colloquial speech, and don't think it's relevant in this context
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kkolozova
Aristotle's definition is precisely what has become the colloquial version, or at least a watered down version of it. Nonetheless, this Aristotelian talk is precisely the kind of scholasticism that has no room in modern sciences.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
Reza, you told me that was not how it was used in colloquial and traditional terminology. I say, it's precisely how it's used in philosophy and perhaps in colloquial language. Go back to your original comment
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kkolozova
No I guess you are misunderstanding me. I said that the concept of physical entities is not commensurate with either Aristotelian vocabulary or the colloquial sense which is in fact a watered down Aristotelianism.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
But yes, I misread it, true. Sorry for the confusion
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No need. I'm sure it was my Penglish that wreaked havoc.
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.