On 11/7/2012 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Arithmetic explains why they are observers and how and why they make theories.
Dear Bruno,

This is a vacuous statement, IMHO. Absent the prior existence of entities capable of counting there is no such thing as Arithmetic. Your belief to the contrary cannot be falsified! Forgive me, but I need to let others explain my argument as I have run out of patience with my inability to form sentences that you will understand. This article (which I cannot asses completely due to the paywall) seems to make my claim well: http://www.springerlink.com/content/052422q295335527/

Nomic Universals and Particular Causal Relations: Which are Basic and Which are Derived?

"Armstrong holds that a law of nature is a certain sort of structural universal which, in turn, fixes causal relations between particular states of affairs. His claim that these nomic structural universals explain causal relations commits him to saying that such universals are irreducible, not supervenient upon the particular causal relations they fix. However, Armstrong also wants to avoid Plato’s view that a universal can exist without being instantiated, a view which he regards as incompatible with naturalism. This construal of naturalism forces Armstrong to say that universals are abstractions from a certain class of particulars; they are abstractions from first-order states of affairs, to be more precise. It is here argued that these two tendencies in Armstrong cannot be reconciled: To say that universals are abstractions from first-order states of affairs is not compatible with saying that universals fix causal relations between particulars. Causal relations are themselves states of affairs of a sort, and Armstrong’s claim that a law is a kind of structural universal is best understood as the view that any given law logically supervenes on its corresponding causal relations. The result is an inconsistency, Armstrong having to say that laws do not supervene on particular causal relations while also being committed to the view that they do so supervene. The inconsistency is perhaps best resolved by denying that universals are abstractions from states of affairs."



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to