How I contextualize universals and particulars.

With a person first theology, particulars come first, universals are dependent on particular hosts, as it were. Particular hosts that have a particular nature, say human in the broadest sense, have certain universals in common. How they manifest these universals may vary. Just because these universals are dependent on a particular host, or group within a nature, doesn’t mean the nature, or those with the nature create the universal. I suppose universals are equivalent to forms, but not in the Platonic sense. Platonic forms pre-exist particular manifestations. I just found that this description is aka Aristotilean Realism. I must be a philosopher.

The idea for cats in general came about in God’s mind before particular cats were created. His plan for cats included at least two particular cats who would reproduce other particular cats with varying allowable differences between each one.

So if Schrodinger’s cat is a hypothetical cat, not a particular cat, then what harm is it to do the thought experiment? If universals do not exist apart from particulars, then what the experimenters have done is put all cats, past, present and future, into a potential situation where there is a 50% likelihood that he will die, just to satisfy the willing and unwilling thought experimenter’s curiosities. The unwilling thought experimenter will then be an accomplice if he doesn’t try to think of a way to save the cat, which I did in a prior post on the subject.

But will this change anyone? Animal rights activists will be horrified and will try to mentally stop it, and animal indifferents will not care and will either ignore it or be captivated by the idea that two realities can exist at the same time. I like that idea myself, so to keep it, I have to move the thing done or not done back to putting and not putting the cat in the radioactive, cyanide leaden box, which I would never have thought up by myself, but since Schrodinger did, I have to introduce the possibility of stopping it. People used to not care about animals and inmates, and didn’t mind them being sacrificed for science. There are other things with 50% probabilities that can go on behind a blind. Maybe beans sprouting. I guess people care less about beans than they do about cats. There must be something more stimulating about the idea of a cat dying, even if you think it’s ok if it does. I do think that animal torturers have a negative care factor that is not neutral. But even if I stop it, I also didn’t stop it, which caused the cat to die and not die. But I changed the odds. If I stop it, it does not die. If I don’t stop it, it either dies or does not die. Therefore the chance that it will die is now only 33.33%!

Advertisements