Are abstract objects real?

[BidenPresident]

2.1 What Does ‘Abstract Object’ Mean?

If we discover that abstract objects exist, then we can debate what type of thing they are. But the more fundamental question is whether there are any abstract objects at all.

Material objects, such as chairs, are commonly thought of as clearly not abstract. Numbers are commonly thought of as clearly abstract.

Abstract objects are sometimes characterised as ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ time. But this talk is puzzling: Believers in abstract objects think that they exist now.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/abstract-objects/456B66C9BAAFAB7E0DB066B101652508

 

[IBDaMann]

2.1 What Does ‘Abstract Object’ Mean?

But the more fundamental question is whether there are any abstract objects at all.

These questions have long-since been contemplated, answered and implemented by computer scientists and software designers, developers and engineers.

A class of something abstract means that there are no objects of that class, only notional characteristics of what all subclasses will have. For example, the class "animal" is abstract; you will not find any "animal" that isn't a specific subclass of "animal", e.g. "dog", "chicken," "lizard," etc. The abstract class "animal" will have features common to all subclasses, e.g. mouth, heart, brain, etc., and will have common methods, e.g. seekResources(), consumeResources(), striveToProcreate(), etc.

So, good news. We know what "abstract" means and no, there are no abstract objects, only objects of subclasses of abstract classes.

 

[BidenPresident]

These questions have long-since been contemplated, answered and implemented by computer scientists and software designers, developers and engineers.

A class of something abstract means that there are no objects of that class, only notional characteristics of what all subclasses will have. For example, the class "animal" is abstract; you will not find any "animal" that isn't a specific subclass of "animal", e.g. "dog", "chicken," "lizard," etc. The abstract class "animal" will have features common to all subclasses, e.g. mouth, heart, brain, etc., and will have common methods, e.g. seekResources(), consumeResources(), striveToProcreate(), etc.

So, good news. We know what "abstract" means and no, there are no abstract objects, only objects of subclasses of abstract classes.

Does the number 5 exist?

 

[Matt Dillon]

2.1 What Does ‘Abstract Object’ Mean?

If we discover that abstract objects exist, then we can debate what type of thing they are. But the more fundamental question is whether there are any abstract objects at all.

Material objects, such as chairs, are commonly thought of as clearly not abstract. Numbers are commonly thought of as clearly abstract.

Abstract objects are sometimes characterised as ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ time. But this talk is puzzling: Believers in abstract objects think that they exist now.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/abstract-objects/456B66C9BAAFAB7E0DB066B101652508

As if you can abstractly think.

 

[BidenPresident]

As if you can abstractly think.

Go kill yourself you piece of garbage.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Go kill yourself you piece of garbage.

See what I'm working with here?

 

[BidenPresident]

See what I'm working with here?

Go kill yourself you piece of garbage.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Someday in the future, some shnook will run across this thread and laugh their ass off!

 

[Matt Dillon]

Go kill yourself you piece of garbage.

GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH A SAGUARO, YOU SLIMY GREEN CUNT BITCH!

If you're gonna do it, do it right, babay.

 

[IBDaMann]

Does the number 5 exist?

If you aren't playing word games, and aren't pretending that representations of a five-symbol are five, then no, there is nowhere you can find a five. All representations of a five are exactly like idols to gods that do not exist.

 

[BidenPresident]

If you aren't playing word games, and aren't pretending that representations of a five-symbol are five, then no, there is nowhere you can find a five. All representations of a five are exactly like idols to gods that do not exist.

All of philosophy is "word games."

 

[IBDaMann]

All of philosophy is "word games."

Nope. Philosophy is all about avoiding word games and contemplating semantics. That's why logic uses symbols.

 

[BidenPresident]

Nope. Philosophy is all about avoiding word games and contemplating semantics. That's why logic uses symbols.

No, philosophy really is a conversation between people.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, philosophy really is a conversation between people.

I hope you are ready for a cold splash of reality. Philosophy is an open functional system of true assertions/predicates given specific assumptions. No conversations are necessary (but they are usually very helpful in this regard). Anyone can develop his own theories without anyone else's assistance or input.

 

[BidenPresident]

I hope you are ready for a cold splash of reality. Philosophy is an open functional system of true assertions/predicates given specific assumptions.

Not a single practicing philosopher believes that.

 

[Cypress]

2.1 What Does ‘Abstract Object’ Mean?

If we discover that abstract objects exist, then we can debate what type of thing they are. But the more fundamental question is whether there are any abstract objects at all.

Material objects, such as chairs, are commonly thought of as clearly not abstract. Numbers are commonly thought of as clearly abstract.

Abstract objects are sometimes characterised as ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ time. But this talk is puzzling: Believers in abstract objects think that they exist now.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/abstract-objects/456B66C9BAAFAB7E0DB066B101652508

The universal gravitational constant, pi, and Planck's constant are real, even if you can't point them out in physical space.

 

[IBDaMann]

The universal gravitational constant, pi, and Planck's constant are real, even if you can't point them out in physical space.

Stupid. You can't find a "pi" anywhere except in your mind. The constants you mentioned pertain only to models. A map of a metro system is not the actual metro system. Science models are not themselves nature.

 

[Cypress]

Stupid. You can't find a "pi" anywhere except in your mind. The constants you mentioned pertain only to models. A map of a metro system is not the actual metro system. Science models are not themselves nature.

^^ Doesn't understand that Pi is a neccessary mathmatical constant in certain physical natural laws.

--->

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

 

[Cypress]

Material objects, such as chairs, are commonly thought of as clearly not abstract. Numbers are commonly thought of as clearly abstract.

If your definition of reality is physical material objects, then gravity, dark energy, and time are abstract realities because you can't point to them as material objects in physical space

 

[IBDaMann]

Doesn't understand that Pi is a neccessary mathmatical constant in certain physical natural laws.

That's what I wrote. Obviously you didn't understand.

How did you ever manage to acquire such a rapier wit?