As I read the Stanford piece one thing seems right to me. If a proposition is found to be untrue, that does not make the proposition itself unreal. Similarly, if Donald Trump says immigrants are animals which is a falsehood, his contention is very real indeed. If I say to my wife I am fine when I have a particular pain, the statement may be false but it is real. When I say everything is real I mean everything and if there is a deity that can do more things than Kurzweil says we'll be able to do in 100 years, the scope of everything as a field from which to glean what is real (relatively speaking) is not an insurmountable challenge.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > A wonderful illumination of an unknown (to me) nook. I thought of O.R. > when I was writing but did not have the knowledge whereof I spoke. But I am > going to peruse further the excellent beginning and so forth. He joins my > small pantheon of great unknowns. Whoever wrote the Stanford piece must > join the group also Thank you. S > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:09 AM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 5/17/2018 9:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: >> >>> My point is simply that reality has all sorts of permutations and that >>> to disclude things is to complexify. >>> >> >> I agree. And I recommend the anti-razor by Walter Chatton, who engaged >> in years of debates with William of Ockham. Both Chatton and Ockham >> were students of John Duns Scotus. Ockham was a nominalist who rejected >> the realism of Scotus. But Chatton was a realist who defended Scotus >> in debates with Ockham. (All three of them were Scots at Oxford.) >> >> See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/walter-chatton/ >> >> Brief summary of the anti-razor: >> If a proposition p is true and its truth depends on the existence >> of something x, then the existence of x must be assumed. >> >> But Chatton stated his anti-razor in several different versions, >> all of which imply my summary. >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce >> -l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
