|
|
|
|
|
|
by BadThink6655321
1209 days ago
|
|
|
Earlier today I came across this on Scott Aaronson's site: "Also, are the ultimate equations that govern the universe “real,” while tables and chairs are “unreal” (in the sense of being no more than fuzzy approximate descriptions of certain solutions to the equations)? Or are the tables and chairs “real,” while the equations are “unreal” (in the sense of being tools invented by humans to predict the behavior of tables and chairs and whatever else, while extraterrestrials might use other tools)? Which level of reality do you care about / want to load with positive affect, and which level do you want to denigrate?" https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3628 |
|
|
Abstract things are representations of many different concrete things, they are abstractions of concrete things. Abstractions are "real" but they exist on a different ontological level than concrete things. They only exist in our head, and therefore many say they don't "really" exist by which we commonly mean that they don't exist in the physical world.
There is clearly a big difference between what exists in the physical world, and what we SAY or write about it. The latter are descriptions, which are often abstractions. Like say "redness" is an abstraction of the common properties of all red objects.