Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2009, 12:58 PM #22
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
I was talking about David Lewis, author of The Plurality of Worlds.

As for Van Inwagen, do you agree with his views about the passage of time, time and identity, and the existence of fictional characters?
I haven't read that book, but I've discussed possible world theory. I think it has a few issues such as nominalism, that is giving our phrases or the idea of "possibility" a concreteness that is assumed rather than proven, not to mention the issues with time and decision making that aren't addressed. It has a bit of the same issue that cartesian thinking does, that is, you can't define something into existence.

I only remember Van Inwagen's argument about the existence of fictional characters, and like I stated before, he is a quintessential neoplatonist in my eyes and while I haven't heard his arguments about the others, I'm probably very safe in assuming I disagree with him.

My main problem with platonists is that the divison of any object in order to carve out the "real object" is arbitrary. Basically, the space between where the chair ends and the floor begins is filled with an infinite number of "real objects". the "right way"(his words) that constitutes an object is arbitrary. I assume he does the same thing with time, saying we can't divide up moments and where do we draw the line, etc.? my response is, why are we dividing up that which only exists in perception anyways?
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2009, 01:26 PM #23
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
I haven't read that book, but I've discussed possible world theory. I think it has a few issues such as nominalism, that is giving our phrases or the idea of "possibility" a concreteness that is assumed rather than proven, not to mention the issues with time and decision making that aren't addressed. It has a bit of the same issue that cartesian thinking does, that is, you can't define something into existence.
I would say that using possible worlds as a logical tool is absolutely necessary in metaphysics. Whether they exist in actuality is up for debate. Also (and I've brought this up before), one way to look at it is that we can infer the existence of other universes to explain the specificity of our universe, in the same way we can infer the existence of other star systems to explain the life supporting specificity of our own.



Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
My main problem with platonists is that the divison of any object in order to carve out the "real object" is arbitrary. Basically, the space between where the chair ends and the floor begins is filled with an infinite number of "real objects". the "right way"(his words) that constitutes an object is arbitrary. I assume he does the same thing with time, saying we can't divide up moments and where do we draw the line, etc.? my response is, why are we dividing up that which only exists in perception anyways?
Objects and time are very separate things. It's difficult to imagine there being an infinite number of objects. I assume we will eventually discover a truly basic particle/object/field...whatever.

Time, on the other hand, is a little more tricky. Are you sure that time only exists in perception? Either way it's very arguable.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump