The objectivity of the Mathematico-physical

The mathematico-physical world is not the God’s eye view of nature but the perpective of the universal animal. It’s what’s left of reality that all animals can agree on after they set aside all their peculiar and local insights. It’s a catalogue of features shared by all the canvasses in the gallery, with no perfections peculiar to any artist or picture.

The human world is painted in the familiar colors between infrared and ultraviolet, where comfort is found around 70 degrees F, all things are fixed to the ground and are seen from a perspective about 4-6 feet off of it, cheese is soft and wood is hard, cellulose is indigestible and water drowns, the infrared sensation of pit vipers has no qualia but is a theory or reading on a meter, etc. Mathematico-physics leaves aside all but the faintest trace of this experience, but it turns out to be the trace that any experience leaves. It’s a set of propositions common to all possible worlds qua sensible.

The M-P world is more real and more objective precisely insofar as the necessary is more true, real, and objective than the contingent. The premise re-asserts itself the light of the fact that the sensible world as such is contingent.



  1. Will Farris said,

    December 13, 2016 at 1:43 pm

    Please elaborate on the necessity vis-a-vis continent aspect of the M – P world and how it relates to aseity. Nothing in P is necessary, methinks, while abstract objects are, but must be defined as due to God ultimately. I am probably missing something here, especially when things wax heavily metaphorical.

    • December 13, 2016 at 2:12 pm

      The sensible as such is contingent because animals are not necessary, and the world apart from sensation is not an object of M-P.

%d bloggers like this: