Talk:Simple (philosophy)

Sources?
Is this for real? Why does a Google search turn up nothing about this? Please add sources. Badagnani 22:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * -What do you mean? The entry has references right in it (Hudson, etc.). Also, I did a google search, using the keywords "simples" and "philosophy", and got gobs of information, most of which seemed to be from university professors. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.162.115.174 (talk • contribs)

The article has no references or external links to back up the facts as they are presented in the article. Would the editor who began this article please add some? Badagnani 01:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is bountiful discussion in the academic arena about simples. I will put in some links -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.96.34 (talk • contribs)
 * I see that somebody deleted my references to Hudson, van Inwagen's, and Merricks' books. Why? Those are leading works in this area. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.96.19 (talk • contribs)
 * That edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simples&diff=80060642&oldid=80060540 doesn't have an edit summary, so you'd have to ask that editor. Or, just go ahead and add them back.  I think s/he may have thought you were trying to sell something with those Amazon links.  Badagnani 18:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This page's comments about atomism are unsupported. They also contradict the Wikipedia article on atomism, which states that "objects in the universe are composed of very small, indestructible building blocks - atoms."  This is quite different than mereological nihilism, which would assert that objects do not actually exist unless they are the most fundamental possible particles. Raeyin 00:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was skewed towards simples qua material objects, and I have no idea what 'simple theory' is intended to be. I recollect no usage of such a term from journals I've read. Nor, indeed, do many people write about whether or not the universe decomposes into simples or not, as 'Simple Theory' intends to be about. Not that that isn't an important issue, but the way the article is written is misleading and doesn't accurately represent the issues in mereology surrounding simples today. There was no need to talk about nihilism per se (here's a theory that this theory 'isn't'). Mistates DAUP quite severly: I whilst DAUPers generally admit that objects have a left and right half one wouldn't describe DAUP as 'stating' it, as it makes it sound like that is a definition of DAUP. The final sentence was badly formed and made no sense. Worse still the definition of what a simple is (an object without proper parts) comes in at the end of the article! I've rewritten the article to better reflect contemporary issues in the topic, and avoid this talk of 'simple theory'. Nikk50 19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

== The impersonal divine field might be a simple; the immaterial person-god never, because God is constituted of components as memories, chunks of information even interactions of information which are also considered objects (in philosophy; yes interactions and processes are philosophical objects; in some metalogical and physical approaches are the most fundamental objects) ==