On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:07:51PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > But in my view ontology > is theory dependent, i.e. you find a theory that works well as an > explanation and a predictor and then that theory provides an > ontology: the POVI (intersubjective observable) elements of the > theory. So I'm not clear on what is the reversal. The function of > bodies, including brains, is, we think, within the scope of physics. > Is this "reversed"...to what exactly? >
I am sympathetic to this notion of ontology, but suggest it is not widely shared. I am currently in a long-running debate with someone (not on this list) who vigorously argues that there must be a (theory independent) objective ontology which fixes what things are true or not. An anti-anti realist position actually, as I argue what we've agreed to call the anti-realist position, which is that all truths are observer dependent, with some truths being globally applicable to all observers being the equivalent of ontological truth. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
