tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123492.post235255838943111684..comments2008-12-06T13:50:13.600-05:00jefehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01407714989987462536noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123492.post-84286761610980740842008-12-06T13:50:00.000-05:002008-12-06T13:50:00.000-05:00I've posted a reply at <A HREF="http://phiblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/all-things-great-and-small/#comment-2" REL="nofollow">the new blog.</A>jefehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01407714989987462536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8123492.post-87760311243513399822008-12-06T00:13:00.000-05:002008-12-06T00:13:00.000-05:00I'm not sure why you think hypergunk is any less spooky than sets. As you construe it, it seems like it would be a merely possible substance. Wouldn't hypergunk be just as inadmissible for the ontology of the nominalists as sets? Wouldn't it be no less abstract? I could be missing something, and this all seems interesting as hell no matter what. Thanks for posting it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com