OBSCURE: Then you say:"OUR ABILITY TO PREDICATE SAMENESS OF AN OBJECT AND DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHERS DEPENDS ON THE APPARATUS OF REIFICATION WHICH INCLUDES WORDS : THIS, THAT, IT IS THE SAME, IT IS DIFFERENT AND SO ON... HOW DOES THE BABY KNOW THAT THE TREE HE SEES IN THE YARD IS THE SAME EVERY DAY? THE SUN IS THE SAME SUN EVERY DAY IN THE SKY, AND THE MILK HE DRINKS IS A DIFFERENT QUANTITY EVERY DAY? THINK ABOUT IT !!!HAVING LEArNED A LANGUAGE AND THrOUGH IT A LOT ABOUT THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN ,YOU REASON RETROACTEVeLY ATTRIBUTING TO THE CHILD THINGS SHE CANNOT KNOW YET. THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THAT PERIOD IS A VERY DIFFICULT JOB, WE DO NOT HAVE THE LANGUAGE TO EVEN EXPRESS THIS ANTE LITTERAM KNOWLEDGE. SEE ALSO NATURLIZED EPISTEMOLOGY, IS THE NAME THAT USUALLY IS GIVEN TO A NATURAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF KNOWLEDGE.Basically what I just said applies to this too. A child can instinctively (and because of his senses) feel and see differences between objects. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily making separations between them and certainly not that he understands “meanings” of any kind. That was never the point. I don’t know how to explain it any simpler and maybe that is my fault…I don’t know MY ANSWER Ahaahahaha Obscure you are just reinforcing my points: if the child does not distinguish among what we may call (retroactively) objects he does not share our ontology, much of WHICH depends on meaning . In addition to that you have just described a case of under determination of theories: for suppose that we can say that the child has a theory of the world, DIFFERENT with respect to our theory of the world( folk theory, everyday theory of the world) the two theories are logically incompatible and yet they work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111 This is the point I am trying to make you understand to no avail. If two contradictory theories of the world both work, it is not necessary that language ( mind) grasps what reality is all about: different ontological assumptions are irrelevant to truth and therefore to evidence. Finally you explained to yourself what under determination of theories is all about. Next step is will be simply to label your argument with the name ’underdetermination of theories” full stop. OBSCURE 　 The positron was predicted by theory as a result of the symmetries of group theory, which is pure mathematics, yet nature behaves according to group theory. To say that you could simply have one theory with one particle and another that doesn't have that particle means you have thrown out the entire structure underlying quantum field theory, which constitutes a successful unification of quantum mechanics and special relativity. The kind of statement made above is exactly what you expect when someone fails to appreciate the statement that 'nature is mathematical' MY ANSWER Ok OBSCURE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW COME SOME PHYSICISTS BELIEVE IN MUONS AND SOME DON’T, SOME BELIEVE IN SYMMETRY AND SOME DON’T. AND YET ALL ARE SUPPORTERS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS. THE FACT THAT THE MATHEMATICS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS PREDICTS THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN PARTICLES, HAS NO AFFECT ON REALITY: THEY MAY STILL EXIST OR NOT. HENCE YOUR RELIGEOUS FAITH IN MATH! ANOTHER RELIGEOUS ACT OF YOURS IS THAT SCIENCE PROGRESSES AND NEW THEORIES ARE JUST BETTER THEORIES THAT SUBSTITUTE THE OLDER ONES; READ THOMAS KUHN OR IF YOU DON’T WANT TO WASTE YOUR PRETIOUS TIME TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT NEWTON DID IN HIS DAYS. THE OLDER THEORY WAS THE DESCARTES’ ARISTOTELIAN CONTACT PHYSICS. NEWTON HAD AN INTUITION THAT THREW THE OLD PHYSICS IN THE GARBAGE, AND STARTED HIS NEW PHYSICS THAT MADE PEOPLE COMPARE HIM TO GOD FOR 300 YEARS. THERE WAS NOTHING BUT REALLY NOTHING IN THE OLD THEORY THAT WAS SALVAGED BY NEWTON . SO MUCH FOR YOUR IDEA THAT SCIENTISTS ARE FORCED WITHIN A PREASTABLISHED SETTING OR INTELLECTUAL FRAMEWORK ALIEN TO ART. EINSTEIN COULD HAVE NOT DONE WHAT HE DID IF WE HAD MORE RESPECT FOR THE DIVINE NEWTON. IN NEWTON GRAVITATION WAS A FORCE IN EINSTEIN IT BECOMES A MODIFICATION OF GEOMETRY. BOTH NEWTON AND EINSTEIN DIDN’T CARE A LESS ABOUT THE PREEXISTING PHYSICS, ONLY AFTER HAVING THEIR INTUITIONS ONE FOUND OUT THAT HIS IDEA WAS CONSISTENT WITH GALILEI’S EXPRIMENTS AND THE OTHER FOUND A SUPPORT IN MAXUELL WORK. LAST POINT: IT SEEMS THAT YOU HAVE NOTIONS OF INTUITION OF CREATIVITY OF FANTASY AND INSPIRATION That only you know WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE. JUST LIKE THE VAGUE NOTION OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH OCCURS IN YOUR WRITINGS, THESE NOTIONS ARE PUT FORWARDS BY YOU WITH THE ARROGANCE OF ONE WHO HAS DEVOTED A LIFE TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF THEM BY MAYBY STUDYING THEM WITHIN COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND COMPUTER MODELING OF BRAIN FUNCTIONS. APART FROM TRUTH, OF WHICH YOU KNOW NOTHING, ALL THE OTHERS ARE USED ON AN EXPLICATORY BASIS AND NOTHING ELSE. SDO PLEASE, SPARE ME YOUR TAKEN FOR GRANTED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTUITION AND CREATIVITY. I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS, SHOW ME THAT I AM WRONG!