Metaphysical Explanation for the Number Three

The 3 rd metaphysics will explain what number 3 is. In the study of the presence of the third existence, we must first accurately understand its relevance in the physical world. First, the third big presence is not visible; a man can not cross the forest and three wild, beautiful, silky, burnt orange and shrimp petals and green leaves I can not find. Secondly, third parties themselves can not do anything to insist on their physical existence.

The first three are basically the same. The atomisticists argue that the movement is eternal and therefore refuse to explain it. In the first book of metaphysics (985b20), Aristotle was opposed to they "abandon" the problem; elsewhere he implied that there is a reason for denying it It was. Their reasons - like the debris of Abrad - stated that the need for affiliation is not fully expressed. There is no "unlimited" origin (1/41 / 4 € Ï Ï), the reason is the origin, and "always" is infinite. So the reason for asking things is to explore infinite origins like this

For hostility towards metaphysics, positivists "dilute" various concepts of the metaphysical circle. For example, they replaced the explanation with a causal relationship and explained it in a rule similar to law, so "causal" interpretation was discussed. According to the deductive (DN) interpretation model pioneered by Hempel (1965), the event b occurring for the event is elliptical for the following discussion: "if any a class A event, b In the event class BA event, a B event occurs; it occurred; therefore b occurred Interpretation logic is derived from interpretation, one of which is regularity like law.

Introduction After opening the definition of the dictionary with "Interpretation", the author introduces many difficult concepts in the following three sentences. For example, "Explanation must be based on solution" (line 3) and she stabilizes itself. We have laid the foundation. Evaluating whether interpretation can be regarded as two good criteria: It must respond to evidence of facts and serve as a basis for prediction. She did not say that her papers use these criteria to evaluate various types of interpretation, but rather the second criterion was "more used in the rational era, Analyzed "(lines 12 - 12). She finished introducing by adding another standard - the truth. This introduction is very confusing and does not provide an analytical framework that she can continue.