A
ateista
Guest
A few random thoughts:
The idea of having a multitude of “possible” worlds, each of which “contains” all the abstract objects (even if no physical objects exist in them) is unneccessarily complicated, It would make much more sense to say that there are many “physical possible worlds” and one “non-physical abstract world”.
Another thought was that you gave expamles of abstract objects as the “numeral one”, the letter “Z”, etc… I could accept that the concept of “one” is universal in all those possible worlds which contain one or more physical object. But what on Earth would be the letter “Z” in other possible worlds? It is a totally meaningless “thing” (in and by itself) which relies on our physical throat, tongue, teeth, etc… just a sound we (as physical beings) can omit.
The idea of having a multitude of “possible” worlds, each of which “contains” all the abstract objects (even if no physical objects exist in them) is unneccessarily complicated, It would make much more sense to say that there are many “physical possible worlds” and one “non-physical abstract world”.
Another thought was that you gave expamles of abstract objects as the “numeral one”, the letter “Z”, etc… I could accept that the concept of “one” is universal in all those possible worlds which contain one or more physical object. But what on Earth would be the letter “Z” in other possible worlds? It is a totally meaningless “thing” (in and by itself) which relies on our physical throat, tongue, teeth, etc… just a sound we (as physical beings) can omit.