The point here is there are various acceptable finer perspectives of reality.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:35 amThat doesn't help. Re 1, 2 and 3, aside from the fact that "comprised of waves" would be incoherent (waves have to be a processual function of some sort of material(s)), those three views are not forwarding anything different ontologically. (Sub-atomic) particles in dynamic relations are what atoms, molecules, etc. are comprised of, and atoms/molecules in particular dynamic relations, with particular properties, is what solidity is.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:09 amAs usual you are unable to infer what is common philosophical knowledge because you are dogmatic and don't bother to reflect more deeply and widely.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:24 pm
What the hell does "in the ultimate sense of reality" even refer to first off?
1. When we look at rocks, common sense of reality will represent them as solid physical things which is easily observable with the senses directly.
2. At the conventional senses, the reality of the rocks are represented by their various features in terms of molecules, atoms.
3. At the more refined level of reality, that solid physical rock could be comprised of waves or particles and other sub-atomic particles.
4. At the penultimate level of reality, as Russell implied, perhaps there is no physical rocks at all.
5. At the ultimate [not absolute] level of reality, what is solid rocks and all levels of reality are subsumed within the human conditions [collectively].
Hope you get it?
No. 5 is the fundamental principle of Philosophical Anti-Realism which oppose the unrealistic claims of Philosophical Realism.Making a jump from that to 4 and/or 5 is a non-sequitur, where 4 is also incoherent (the very notion of nonphysical existents is incoherent) and 5 is just gobbledygook.
gobbledygook??
That is typical of your response without arguments because you have been influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers.
At least Conde Lucanor is trying to provide some philosophical arguments against Philosophical Anti-Realism in this thread,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481&start=240
You, Peter, Sculptor, PantFlasher are triggered by some desperate psychology in merely making noises [throwing in all sorts of pejoratives like your philosophical ancestors] without any counter arguments.