Joao Leao wrote:
> > James N Rose wrote:
> > "If there are no qualia but there are universals --
> > which cannot be identified except via qualia --
> > something is awry.
> Why so? Why can universals only be identified
> via qualia if they are, by definition, what
> is not reducible to qualia !!!
> > If the Ideal "need not share relational
> > aspects with any other domains"
> > then that right off the bat kills
> > any statements attempted between Ideal and Real."
> What do you mean by "statements attempted
> between Ideal and Real"? Give me one such
> statement and I will let you know...
> > These are not superfluous issues. They challenge
> > the consistency and fundamentals of Platonism.
> > James
An etheric uncorruptable realm is a excellent mythos,
IMHO. That we act upon and relate to the notion of
it speaks to the fact that it is possible to establish
an authentic relationship with presumed or virtual extants
versus empirical/encounterable extants.
Modern Platonists allow that mathematical entities
carry this quality and allow exploration of relations
that may not have real physical correlates but that
eventually, somewhere somehow, expose relations which
The square root of a negative number has no physical
reality (or so it is presumed, because no abject
examples have yet been shown/proven) but it has a most
definite platonic ideal existence.
Plato identifies ideals such as Beauty, Justice,
not just the essences of chair and other 'things'.
And these -seem- to be requisitely a priori to
instantiation, and so, eternal if also intangible.
In support of platonism, one correlate would be like
trying to educe 'wet' from the equations of QM and
atomic interactions. First, most would say it cannot
be done (albeit that no one has taken the time to
define or make argument doing so). Second, the language
of QM doesn't transduce to 'wet' or similar qualia.
Yet such qualia would not occur if the primitives
(QM) didn't have the relational properties that
included eventual conditions and relations which
could be labeled as and qualify as this or that
Is 'wet' a platonic realm in the QM tier of existence?
Is QM a shadow of instantiated 'wet' which is in turn
an instance of the true extant/ideal 'Wet'?
So is 'wet' an invisible inherent aspect
of QM interactions?
There is currently no way to transduce and
correlate meaningful information between
tiers of systems. But that does not mean it
will never be accomplished, or as correlate,
that Universals will always stand as some
The universe is an holistic operant. Any aspect,
meaning or pertinance must have an information
relationship with other aspects of existence.
"Between" cannot instantiate except in conjunction
with reals. But instantiate it does. It is an
intangible, a relation, even as it can be subject
The Platonic 'ideals' - all of them (however anyone
perceives them) are -relations-, and are perforce
transcribable information and identifable coordinations,
in spite of whether anyone has made effort to clarify
the associations and relations which coordinate to
the identifiable attractors that qualify as 'ideal'.
There is and will be shown to be a way to de-mystify