Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later[^][v]#944,987
less than one if you devide the mass of concrete by the mass of not concrets
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#944,991
You might defend the notion that truth is concrete, and only if it's truthful reality, but only by adopting physicalism absolutely, and by claiming that what we ordinarily consider 'truth' is only a reference to the agreement of truth to some physical instantiation.
If any abstraction that cannot be considered concrete exists, then obviously truth is not concrete, nor can it be reality. But under a physicalist mindset, one would have to claim that those do not, in fact exist. All true facts would refer to configurations of physical states, which can be considered concrete, and that holds only if it's concrete reality.
Ask for my vote remains an extraordinarily contentious position, which is an indefensible one.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#944,995
Let me tell you something about "reality". There's no reality without words or symbolism, if you don't have symbols for things, you can't think for shit. This is why trauma can bring on psychosis, when something is too painful to be confronted, you refuse to give it a symbol and when there are things in your life that you don't even have a word for, you make no sense.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#945,046