abe smith

owleye dear, your initial post/question doesn't mean a dang thang! until you define yer terms. And then, according to MY personal definitions, as an out-&-out not-quite-Pyrrhonian Ockhamist/Nominalist, I wd say the answer is "No.". (Of course, no Nominalist is allowed to categorize theirself as one; because we Thus not-allowed-to-labelreject the existence of categories.) OH! what a tangled Web we weave. Welcome, and carry-on. Abe

WJ

John, do you mean to say that math does, or does not, describe/explain the nature and meaning of the thing itself?

Walrus

John Page

To repeat: math can be used to partially describe/explain an object. It does this in terms of numbers and the relationships between numbers that can be correlated with the attributes of the object concerned. This in turn produces a mathematical "meaning" for the object but only in the context of mathematical descriptions of other objects not an absolute "meaning".

I'm hoping this explanation is accesible to you and makes clear that "nature" and "meaning" are not things-in-themselves but are generalized adjectives for adjectives that describe the object. For example, the mathematical nature of an object, the gravitational nature of an object.

Does this make sense?

Cheers, John

owleye

Abe...

The question, as I understood it, was to examine what it would mean to hold the position that abstract objects are real. I did not understand it as a request for opinions on whether or not abstract objects are real. In no sense, therefore, does my response indicate whether or not I hold that position. Moreover, I have no interest in your position on the matter (nor do I expect you would have an interest in mine).

owleye

John Page

Owleye:

Surely it does. You state a belief that I am confused as to what abstract means "and so he chooses some concrete thing, such as one's imagination". Working back from here, you are clearly contra-indicating my simple statement "IMO your imagination is real".

Now, I made no direct statement as to the abstract, never mentioned concrete and I'm not confused! As a result of your original statement in this thread, it follows you think a) concrete things are real and b) abstract things are neither concrete nor real. Perhaps you could clarify if the truth is somewhat different.

IMO your imagination exists as part of reality. It contains things that are imaginary and have no direct physical correlate. Note that imaginary things are different than sense images or analysis thereof. In case you're wondering, imaginary things are real also - they just reside at a higher level of abstraction within the real but abstract imagination.

Hope this clears up any confusion there might have been about your imagining that I was confused.

Cheers, John