Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The distinction between 'real' and 'ideal' spheres collap... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Ontological modalities ground the differences between the real, ideal, knowledge, and logical spheres of being.

    The distinction between 'real' and 'ideal' spheres collapses if, as nominalists contend, ideal objects like mathematical entities have no mode of being independent of real instantiation or mental representation.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mathematical entities like numbers behave identically whether conceived mentally or instantiated physically, suggesting no independent ideal realm exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Positing an independent ideal sphere creates an unsolved interaction problem: how do causally inert abstract objects affect our concrete thoughts?
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nominalism's parsimony principle is justified: we should not multiply ontological categories beyond what empirical reality demonstrably requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mathematical truths hold necessarily across all possible worlds and minds, suggesting independence from particular instantiations or representations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The same mathematical structure applies to countless different physical systems, implying the structure transcends any single real instantiation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If numbers depend on mental representation, mathematical truths would vary by mind or era—yet they remain invariant, contradicting nominalist reduction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    Mathematical entities(what the argument is about—whether they're real)
    Abstract objects that mathematicians study, like numbers, sets, functions, and geometric shapes—things that exist in mathematics but not as physical objects.
    Mode of being(Used by James to characterize the ontological status of relations)
    A way a thing is that does not differ from the thing so as to constitute another essence or thing
    ideal objects(as examples of things whose reality is being questioned)
    Abstract things that exist only in thought or as concepts, like numbers, geometric shapes, or mathematical ideas—as opposed to physical objects you can touch.
    instantiation(Lowe's trope-involving pluralism)
    The formal relation between a mode and the universal attribute the mode instantiates; it is part of a mode's essence that it instantiates the specific attribute it does
    mental representation(as another way ideal objects might exist through our minds)
    A thought, image, or idea that exists in someone's mind as a representation of something.
    nominalism(Metaphysics; opposed to realism about universals)
    The view that abstract entities such as properties or universals do not exist, and that predicative facts must be explained without appealing to such entities.
    the real and ideal spheres(as the two categories whose distinction the statement claims collapses)
    Two separate categories of existence—the 'real sphere' contains physical, concrete things; the 'ideal sphere' contains abstract things like numbers and concepts.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    If numbers depend on mental representation, mathematical truths would vary by mi...Mathematical entities like numbers behave identically whether conceived mentally...Mathematical truths hold necessarily across all possible worlds and minds, sugge...Nominalism's parsimony principle is justified: we should not multiply ontologica...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    +3 moreShow less
    Ontological modalities ground the differences between the real, ideal, knowledge...Positing an independent ideal sphere creates an unsolved interaction problem: ho...The same mathematical structure applies to countless different physical systems,...