I have never understood why this may not be a satisfactory answer. It seems to me that the one sure property we can point to it is differences in arrangement. This applies even to our concept of mental artifacts.Ginkgo wrote:...
If all physical things are ultimately made of the same stuff, then way are physical things so different? This would be a fair question since the idea that arranging particles in different ways may not be a satisfactory answer.
...
What is an object
-
FallenDevil
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:33 am
Re: What is an object
-
FallenDevil
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:33 am
Re: What is an object
Hate to do three in a row but...
In the OP James made immediate reference to fundamental particles. That admits to the discussion the concept of particles which admits space and time. So we have some manifold or four dimensional cube and it this particles have location. At a lower resolution we have further property attributes for each of these plain particles in locations. For these discussions it is best to bracket the consideration of substance and level up to a resolution of atoms and elements.
So the idealist has already admitted at least a model of a space time world with substances. Of course we know nothing about where they things come from or what they are. We could have imagined them, a god could have imagined them or a Big Bag could of emitted them. This gives us an ontology free model.
In our 3D subset of this 4D manifold we place some objects. A shaker of salt. A human being. A 6 pin silicon AND-gate or 'computer chip'. Finally, for now, a squirrel.
Along the axes of our graph we have atoms in some spots and not in others. An object is a cluster of adjacent atoms or patterns of atoms of some homogeneous type. We notice that moving in time this cluster sticks together and holds it's shape for a spell. We have proper objects.
This type of analysis is how I like to answer metaphysical questions. I'm new and you guys may want to throw me out before I do too much of this.
In the OP James made immediate reference to fundamental particles. That admits to the discussion the concept of particles which admits space and time. So we have some manifold or four dimensional cube and it this particles have location. At a lower resolution we have further property attributes for each of these plain particles in locations. For these discussions it is best to bracket the consideration of substance and level up to a resolution of atoms and elements.
So the idealist has already admitted at least a model of a space time world with substances. Of course we know nothing about where they things come from or what they are. We could have imagined them, a god could have imagined them or a Big Bag could of emitted them. This gives us an ontology free model.
In our 3D subset of this 4D manifold we place some objects. A shaker of salt. A human being. A 6 pin silicon AND-gate or 'computer chip'. Finally, for now, a squirrel.
Along the axes of our graph we have atoms in some spots and not in others. An object is a cluster of adjacent atoms or patterns of atoms of some homogeneous type. We notice that moving in time this cluster sticks together and holds it's shape for a spell. We have proper objects.
This type of analysis is how I like to answer metaphysical questions. I'm new and you guys may want to throw me out before I do too much of this.
Re: What is an object
I think you are right when it comes to our mental perceptions. The binding theory and unity theory of consciousness explore this particular aspect.FallenDevil wrote:I have never understood why this may not be a satisfactory answer. It seems to me that the one sure property we can point to it is differences in arrangement. This applies even to our concept of mental artifacts.Ginkgo wrote:...
If all physical things are ultimately made of the same stuff, then way are physical things so different? This would be a fair question since the idea that arranging particles in different ways may not be a satisfactory answer.
...