Re: what is reification?
- From: mbstevens <NOXwebmasterx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:19:43 -0500
John Jones wrote:
We have our own experience to show
that there are non-physical laws, and a unicorn would fit in with
these laws without any trouble.
But, John, there are no unicorns to fit into any such laws.
There are pictures, stories, and movies that you and I
can recognize as being _classifiable_
as unicorn-pictures, unicorn-stories, or unicorn-movies.
A unicorn-story might have a unicorn-character that interacts
with other characters in the story. But there are no unicorns.
It isn't a reification to suggest that
there are such entities, its simply a reasonable denial of the
exhaustive extent of physical laws.
There is a difference between reification and a fallacy of reification.
See the Quine definition from earlier in the thread for plain old
reification.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: what is reification?
- From: John Jones
- Re: what is reification?
- References:
- Re: what is reification?
- From: mbstevens
- Re: what is reification?
- From: John Jones
- Re: what is reification?
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor's definition of set
- Next by Date: Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- Previous by thread: Re: what is reification?
- Next by thread: Re: what is reification?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
