Essential metaphysical question: what constitutes an object?
What seperates one entity from another that we could call them distinct? What isolates them in such a way that object a and object b could rightly be called different objects? Would they not be traits of a collective of all properties of the ACTUAL object, or is there a particular method for distinguishing between them?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
The thing that usually distinguishes objects are bindings and electron collisions. An object is a collection of molecules that are bound together in such a way that lifting it away from any other object is significantly easier than separating the molecules in the object, and that has electrons that prevent it from being partially or fully molecularly integrated from any other object.
That is my basic physical definition of an "object".
Beware! Nerd genes on the prowl.
INFj - The Holy CPU Saint
Dishonorary INFp
Baah
(Very good place for emoticons. Right-click on the one you want and select "properties" for direct link)
One could argue that if an object is the totality of all its properties, then there is no such thing as an object, because it is constantly changing due to the non-existence of anything static, i.e. everything is dynamic.
Thus, we would have to define the symbol "object" as the totality of all its properties and consider concepts like "essence" and "existence" as being nonsensical. So if we want to know if object A is either different or the same as object B, we would simply compare and contrast their properties and look for differences.
For example, ignoring the possibility that I am insane or otherwise visually impaired, I can say with reasonable certainty that the keyboard I am typing on is different than the keyboard connected to the adjacent computer. They are in different positions, thus keyboard A != keyboard B.
Another thing: there is no such thing as a "class" object. Object A and object B are NOT derivatives of some general concept of "object", but rather independent sets of properties in their own rights. The idea of a "class" object is a metaphysical (i.e. nonexistent) concept that only exists in the mind.
At least, this is how a logical positivist would see things.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
"One could argue that if an object is the totality of all its properties, then there is no such thing as an object, because it is constantly changing due to the non-existence of anything static, i.e. everything is dynamic. "
That only applies if:
1. The objects exist temporally.
2. The time in which it exists is not a property of the object.
"Thus, we would have to define the symbol "object" as the totality of all its properties and consider concepts like "essence" and "existence" as being nonsensical. So if we want to know if object A is either different or the same as object B, we would simply compare and contrast their properties and look for differences. "
Well, existence is an essential property of ANY object, as that which does NOT exist is NOTHING. In other words, saying that something does not exist is, semantically, the equivalent of saying it contains no properties.
As for objects having an "essence", would those properties not BE its essence?
And logical positivism is still complete bull. :/
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Edited for gayness.
How exactly could an object NOT exist temporally?Originally Posted by MysticSonic
Yes, but you must realize that "existence" is not a genuine predicate, i.e. that "existence" is NOT a property in itself."Thus, we would have to define the symbol "object" as the totality of all its properties and consider concepts like "essence" and "existence" as being nonsensical. So if we want to know if object A is either different or the same as object B, we would simply compare and contrast their properties and look for differences. "
Well, existence is an essential property of ANY object, as that which does NOT exist is NOTHING. In other words, saying that something does not exist is, semantically, the equivalent of saying it contains no properties.
I suppose so.As for objects having an "essence", would those properties not BE its essence?
Why? I ask this question from the opinion that metaphysics is complete bull.And logical positivism is still complete bull. :/
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Is that not self-evident?
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
"How exactly could an object NOT exist temporally?"
By being static.
"Why? I ask this question from the opinion that metaphysics is complete bull."
The "verifiability theory of meaning" ITSLEF is unverifiable empirically, hence undermining the entire notion that logical positivism can be taken as an a postiori truth.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Edited for gayness.
So have you ever seen a static object or held a static object?
So I will take your argument to be a postmodern argument, that is, unless you can show me something that CAN be verified empirically."Why? I ask this question from the opinion that metaphysics is complete bull."
The "verifiability theory of meaning" ITSLEF is unverifiable empirically, hence undermining the entire notion that logical positivism can be taken as an a postiori truth.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Don't worry, I have a strong background in computer science and I am currently pursuing the foundations of mathematics.Yeah, but I am trying to get my mind around why this is an essential question. I think that philosophy has already been as philosph'd as it can be in normal english...Is that not self-evident?
MS, If you are really interested in Philosophy itself (as opposed to History of Philosophy) you should look into Mathematics and Computer Science.
Why computers? Well, it is the closest thing we have to make up an entire world completely from scratch.
As for your question, it is essential because it shows that a proposition is nonsensical unless it is defined. And this is important because it disproves the notion of "existence", "existence" being the entity left when you remove all properties of an object.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
i think mystic means object in the sense of a "thing" not an object like an apple or whatever. so what if the properties of objects were seen as objects?
Edited for gayness.
"So have you ever seen a static object or held a static object?"
If you have to ask that then you know nothing of big-bang cosmology.
"So I will take your argument to be a postmodern argument, that is, unless you can show me something that CAN be verified empirically."
The issue only holds within the field of logical positivism; other such fields have no such criterion that a concept must meet in order to be "sensical."
"so what if the properties of objects were seen as objects?"
Exactly, just as a part of a car is seen as an object in-and-of-itself.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Even though I deny your sources, I suppose it's off to the library with me. I swear, philosophy stops for no man."So have you ever seen a static object or held a static object?"
If you have to ask that then you know nothing of big-bang cosmology.
So if there are no criterion in other fields, how can I ever prove something to be sensical or nonsensical?"So I will take your argument to be a postmodern argument, that is, unless you can show me something that CAN be verified empirically."
The issue only holds within the field of logical positivism; other such fields have no such criterion that a concept must meet in order to be "sensical."
But that's a poorly defined metaphysical concept, the idea of "existence". It's nonsensical that "existence" can imply itself."so what if the properties of objects were seen as objects?"
Exactly, just as a part of a car is seen as an object in-and-of-itself.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Well, it's the idea that a proposition is a picture of reality. If a proposition has no corresponding object or event, then it's invalid.Shouldn't a correctly stated proposition have all definition implcit within it?
Yes. A strange, supernatural entity is appearing in the definition of "existence", for some reason.Assuming that "object" isn't just shorthand for properties.And this is important because it disproves the notion of "existence", "existence" being the entity left when you remove all properties of an object.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
"
So if there are no criterion in other fields, how can I ever prove something to be sensical or nonsensical? "
You can't(as far as I can tell), but you seem to speak as if such an act is neccessary; why?
"But that's a poorly defined metaphysical concept, the idea of "existence". It's nonsensical that "existence" can imply itself."
It's more like:
Objects===Properties
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Because it's fun. :wink:
And also because it helps rid the world of poor, shortsighted theories about stuff in general.
"Objects===Properties"? Is that supposed to be a diagram or something?"But that's a poorly defined metaphysical concept, the idea of "existence". It's nonsensical that "existence" can imply itself."
It's more like:
Objects===Properties
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Objects are the same thing as properties.
I saw someone use that notation and decided it might be nifty to use it.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Oh, well that works.
Is this discussion over then?
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Socionic thinking might help. Don't know if anyone touched on this or not but I'll give it a go:
An object is extraverted information.
If that's true, then that would mean that introverted information is a subset of extroverted information.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
and there you have objectivity and subjectivity.
Well, I'll be damned...
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Re: Essential metaphysical question: what constitutes an obj
The fact that your intention could be projected into one without being projected into the other. For example, if I have two desires, to eat and to buy a new pair of pants, I can say that the two desires are actually one,(to feel good in my body) but in order to get there I have to go to McDonald's, which I cant do if Im at H and M. So I have to make sense of the situation, and decide to do two different things, two different objects of reflection.
Does that make sense? :wink:
what if the removal of the property of an object is seen as an object?
Im too sure I have the energy to get into these super complex metaphysical discussions these days.
Re: Essential metaphysical question: what constitutes an obj
You can only decide that for yourself, mysticsonic
and what makes you think that someone else has to decide that for another person, maybe as advice?
aren't you deciding that he has to decide that for himself?
we are all just individuals, take it if you want it.
Are you implying that an event could be considered as an object?what if the removal of the property of an object is seen as an object?
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
possibly. also what if "absence" is considered an object.
In that case, then everything conceivable (and perhaps even unconceivable) is an object.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote