[b_sharp]

Thanks for the ping betty.

Alamo-Girl, I appreciate the comparison between Realism and Nominalism but is it not possible to have a view between those two extremes?

If all red things, all those objects that reflect wavelengths within what we define as red, were eliminated, the only 'red' left would be in the minds of those that predate the elimination. In other words, in the minds of those with prior experience of redness. Conversely, if all the minds that define red as those same wavelengths were to disappear before the 'red' objects could be eliminated, the objects would indeed still exist and would still be 'red' (within the wavelength range we call red). However if both situations (elimination of the minds and the objects) occurred at the same time and baring the creation of new objects of 'red' the concept of 'red' would disappear. There would be no 'essence' of red still existing.

[betty boop]

You're welcome, b_sharp!

Please take a look at this excellent analysis by Physicist:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1377514/posts?page=39#39

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your engaging thought experiment!

But truly, a Realist would say that the existence of "redness" is not dependent on any factor "in" space/time, it is "beyond" space/time. Thus, time passing - bringing observers into and out of existence would have no bearing on the existence of "redness". Neither indeed would the collapse of the universe altogether, which would obviously eliminate all corporeals, wave lengths, etc.

A Nominalist on the other hand, would require a physical universe and "redness" would have no existence whatsoever.

I don't really see how the two views can be reconciled - though it would be nice if they could be...