Talk:Popper's three worlds

message: Popperian cosmology dovetails neatly with Unification Church theology, which posits:
:a material world - containing the earth, our physical bodies, and the computer I'm typing this on
:a spirit world - where your soul lives, even before you "enter the afterlife"
:the "outer sung-sang" or world of ideas (see Unification Thought and the theory of the original mind.
Sorry if there are a lot of red links in the above. I'm not a philosopher, just a layman who has an abiding interest in the pratical uses of philosophy. Uncle Ed 15:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Popper, Eccles, and Rev. Moon

message: Would it make more sense to call this article Popper's (or Popperian) ontology? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: "Frege's 'third realm' ('drittes Reich') and Popper's 'World 3' are alike in so far as they contain thought contents, mathematical objects and other abstracta" - from Imre Lakatos and Theories of Scientific Change, Frege and Popper, p 417.
There is a discussion about redirecting Dritte Reich away from Nazi Germany. Discussion is here. ParkSehJik (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imre Lakatos essentially equates World 3 with Frege's Third Realm - discussion of translations is on another talk page 

message: I like very much this article and I do believe that most if not all its content is verifiable, but I cannot say that I know that it is verifiable. Many sections contain no reference at all. Inside the text, we need inline references to specific pages or sections in books that are secondary sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of exact references 

message: There is an entire (but brief) section that mentions that the relation between the three worlds is seen in the discipline of geography. It would not be surprising at all that the three worlds are seen in this specific discipline or in any other discipline for that matter. But, the way it is inserted suggests that a three ways relationship, in contrast to two ways relationships as in the previous sections, is seen in this discipline. If that is the case, then secondary sources are missing, because it is special. In fact, I have no idea what it could be. My guess is that it is simply that the three worlds are seen in this discipline as they can be seen in any discipline.  In this last case, it might deserve a mention in the article, but not an entire section. Since I cannot verify the content and the way it is currently inserted makes no sense, I am going to remove the section. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about the relation between the three worlds in terms of geography 

message: This is not directly related to the article, but indirectly related because it is about a point made in the main secondary source for this article, Heller's book. Heller wrote "Robinson Crusoe on an uninhabited island cannot have objective knowledge." But this is based on an analogy used by Popper in 1945 in The Open Society and its Enemies to explain the importance of critical analysis in objective knowledge. It is an anachronism, because Popper used the concept of three worlds much later in 1967. It is not obvious that Popper would have used this analogy to define the third world. He might have said that the quality of the third world of Robinson Crusoe is very low, because the scientific method used missed the social aspect, but without saying that there is no third world for Robinson Crusoe. I mean, if we insist to equate third world with objective knowledge, we must still consider the possibility that Popper has reconsidered the definition of objective knowledge between 1945 and 1967. Popper himself often said that he was not a fanatic of definitions. One must always consider the meaning of a word in its context.  It's related to the article, because it says to me that it is useful to consider many sources to be certain not to base the article only on a specific thesis. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robinson Crusoe 

message: The recent edits of  92.22.53.131 are not vandalism, but I see two important problems with these modifications. First, the claims are not sourced and they are controversial enough to require sources. Second, the text added does not integrate well with the existing text and the result is a badly organized article with useless repetitions. The original organization was good and the modifications should have tried to respect it. There is also a third problem: The very short descriptions of the three worlds were not incorrect. They were useful and should not have been removed.  A lot of work is needed to correct these problems.  It's not vandalism, it's clear, because the added introduction seems very useful, though it needs to be sourced (and modified if needed so that it matches better with the sources). Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits of  92.22.53.131