The phrase "a plurality of objects" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts discussing multiple items, entities, or elements, particularly in academic or formal writing.
Example: "In the study, we observed a plurality of objects interacting within the ecosystem."
Alternatives: "multiple objects" or "several objects".
He assailed the act as invalid; and, among other things, averred that it contravenes the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, that it is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that it violates the Constitution of Michigan, because it contains a plurality of objects, and its real object is not expressed in the title.
For relations can also be considered predicable and exemplifiable entities, although, at least in typical cases, they are attributed simultaneously not to single objects, but to a plurality of objects.
The former case defines a single generic "concept" with a plurality of objects; the relation between concept and object is one of subsumption; and the state of difference remains exterior to the thing.
Doubts about the intelligibility of such a plurality arise because of perplexities concerning the individuation and separation of any pair of necessarily indiscernible objects, and because positing the existence of a plurality of such objects is metaphysically extravagant and gratuitous.
Reynolds et al. accounted for their data by proposing that on each individual trial, the firing rate of a cell to a plurality of stimulus objects equaled a weighted average of the firing rates to the individual objects when these were presented alone.
For instance, if it could be proven that positing a plurality of concrete objects (or a plurality of anything, or even a single concrete object) led irrevocably to contradiction, this should turn the tide.
Or is the idea that the argument goes through to 3, but that the existence of the paraphrase provides an at least partially undermining defeater to the reason to believe in a plurality of concrete objects?
For instance, Horgan and Potrč (2000: 50–51) offer an indirect correspondence theory of truth, declaring talk of a plurality of discrete objects apt for tracking "lumps" and "congealings" of the blobject, saying that "such tracking would constitute an indirect kind of language/world correspondence" which "would be a very plausible candidate for truth" (2000: 50–1).
Typically, receptive fields that are so big will contain a plurality of distinct stimulus objects rather than just a single stimulus object [7].
Because a plurality of necessarily indiscernible objects is of dubious intelligibility, such a defense would not be credible.
The result is a plurality of pluralisms.
