How do we get people to believe in universals again?
>>18481859Simply make it illegal not to
>>18481859I was going to say something, but then I realized that there’s a whole world out here. I’ve gained what I could from 4chan. It’s an addiction, like a drug. It makes me feel alive to learn and discuss and argue and troll, but it’s not life. Don’t we deserve better than this? Just 10 minutes from my house I can be in the most picturesque parts of the world. I hope you guys get out of here too and find some joy in this world. The clock is ticking.
>>18481859Math. Anyone who believes in set theory believes in universals. Mathematical nominalism might be theoretically possible, but in practice often leads to roundabout ways of doing math that is otherwise easily accomplished via sets, and only a small fraction of math can be treated in a nominalist fashion. All of physics, chemistry, biology, the sciences, use sets to frame their language, and by extension employ universals. Nominalism doesn’t exist in the common populace’s mindset, it only exists in ivory tower philosophical texts.
>>18481859Most of the western civilization already does. The Human Rights have their origin in Christianity. Thus they are based on western morals. And now we bring them to the other parts of the world. The parts that aren't fans of our Human Rights, get eradicated by (((USA))). It basically natural selected, which isn't natural anymore. So if time continues we will make the world more homogeneous and form different cultures in the image of our own. The only way this can be stopped is if the Islam will do their stuff to the western world or people start to realize that Human Rights of based of nothing.
>>18481859It's a shame his geographic treatise is lost to history
>>18481927Math is just the study of amounts. All things have amounts so it's useful for looking at that aspect of all objects. But sets don't actually exist apart from the things they contain. They aren't universals. In a world with no objects, no sets exist. "Empty set" is just a synonym for "nothing".
>>18483338True in math, but in the sciences? The set of electrons is an implicit assumption in physics, where every member of that set (an electron) has the same fundamental properties. Likewise, there’s some overlap in properties with other lepton particles (neutrinos, etc). Set theory as it is used in science is in the universal form. In a universe where such physical quantities don’t exist, say a lepton-free universe, a physicist would still argue that quantum fields of fundamental forces that gave rise to leptons still exist, it’s just that they express themselves differently under different physical laws in a new universe. These fields and laws are about as literally universal as it gets.
>>18481887Great post.
>>18483349>Set theory as it is used in science is in the universal formSet theory isn't used in science.
>>18483365Idk, looks kinda set theoryish to me
>>18483349>The set of electrons is an implicit assumption in physics, where every member of that set (an electron) has the same fundamental properties.Isn't this just saying "electrons are electrons"? >These fields and laws are about as literally universal as it gets.Those are physical objects and their behavior though. They aren't some sort of abstract thing beyond the world. If you've felt magnets repel each other or seen them draw in bits of metal at certain distances, what you're physically experiencing is an electromagnetic field
>>18483597That's not set theory; it's differential geometry formulated using some minimal naive set theoretic language. You can get rid of all references to sets if you want to.
