Page 1 of 5
The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 7:17 pm
by brain in a vat
What are the necessary conditions for something to be an object? I hope to provide a satisfactory answer by the end of this post. An example of creating an object might illuminate us. Take a bunch of ingredients for a cake, for example. Are all these separate ingredients a single object? Obviously not. But what happens when you combine them together? They become a mush which can be called an object.
This is my interpretation: In order for something to be an object it's parts must be connected. The ingredients only became an object when they were connected (the mush).
Do you think this correct? And, if is, are there any other conditions for something to be an object?
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 9:32 pm
by tillingborn
brain in a vat wrote: In order for something to be an object it's parts must be connected.
So is something without parts not an object?
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 10:01 pm
by brain in a vat
tillingborn wrote:brain in a vat wrote: In order for something to be an object it's parts must be connected.
So is something without parts not an object?
No.
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 11:08 pm
by tillingborn
tillingborn wrote:So is something without parts not an object?
brain in a vat wrote:No.
You might be right, but if the things that make components always have components, are there no fundamental components?
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 4:03 am
by brain in a vat
tillingborn wrote:tillingborn wrote:So is something without parts not an object?
brain in a vat wrote:No.
You might be right, but if the things that make components always have components, are there no fundamental components?
I can't imagine an object without parts. Even if you can't, even in principle, split it you can always divide it geometrically infinitely many times.
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 6:19 am
by tillingborn
brain in a vat wrote: I can't imagine an object without parts. Even if you can't, even in principle, split it you can always divide it geometrically infinitely many times.
Fair enough. So in order to qualify as an an object, something has to occupy space. Is anything else necessary?
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 7:36 am
by SpheresOfBalance
brain in a vat wrote:tillingborn wrote:tillingborn wrote:So is something without parts not an object?
brain in a vat wrote:No.
You might be right, but if the things that make components always have components, are there no fundamental components?
I can't imagine an object without parts. Even if you can't, even in principle, split it you can always divide it geometrically infinitely many times.
Can any human 'know' that relative size is 'infinite?' Or if not infinite, their relative position along the line of finite measure, of indeterminate ends?
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:47 am
by Ginkgo
brain in a vat wrote:What are the necessary conditions for something to be an object? I hope to provide a satisfactory answer by the end of this post. An example of creating an object might illuminate us. Take a bunch of ingredients for a cake, for example. Are all these separate ingredients a single object? Obviously not. But what happens when you combine them together? They become a mush which can be called an object.
This is my interpretation: In order for something to be an object it's parts must be connected. The ingredients only became an object when they were connected (the mush).
Do you think this correct? And, if is, are there any other conditions for something to be an object?
I think this is a really interesting question. I also think that the responses thus far have been interesting and insightful.
My response to the question would be something like this:
What makes for a metaphysical 'object' or a metaphysical 'substance' is a question for ontology. We can and do have physical objects and physical substances. It is also claimed that we can have metaphysical substances. Thinking is usually put forward as an example of a metaphysical substance. It's is lot harder to come up with an example of a metaphysical object. Although this doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Clearly there is a difference between metaphysical 'stuff' and physical 'stuff'. Without the difference the distinction wouldn't exist. Although we can't rule out the possibility that the distinction is imaginary. Leaving this aside for the moment I think the cake is a good example of a physical objects containing various mushy substances. So when you ask the question,"Are these separate ingredients a single object?" I think we can provide a satisfactory answer if hold it up to the following statement. That statement being:
"No matter how we choose to mix, reduce, blend various substances we still always end up with physical stuff."
If we take scientific reductionism as an example (leaving string theory aside), we can see that no matter how much we reduce something our reduced object will always retain its physicalness. So in the end, when does reduction of physical things give way to metaphysical-ness of the object in question?
From a scientific point of view the answer is never. A metaphysician would say that the scientist won't admit one last reduction. That reduction being the crossover from the physicalness to non-physicalness that explains the existence of that physical substance.
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 9:07 am
by tillingborn
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Can any human 'know' that relative size is 'infinite?' Or if not infinite, their relative position along the line of finite measure, of indeterminate ends?
I gave up on 'knowing' years ago; I think it's a fools errand, possibly a mental disease associated with conservatism. Obviously I don't know.
I don't understand what you mean by "relative size is 'infinite'". Nor the rest to be honest. In the context of the thread, I suppose you might mean that, on the scale of things we humans are somewhere between the very little and the very big; where exactly isn't clear and what we can 'know' about big and little, is limited by what we can see. If that's what you're on about, I agree.
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 9:33 am
by SpheresOfBalance
tillingborn wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote:Can any human 'know' that relative size is 'infinite?' Or if not infinite, their relative position along the line of finite measure, of indeterminate ends?
I gave up on 'knowing' years ago; I think it's a fools errand, possibly a mental disease associated with conservatism. Obviously I don't know.
Sarcasm eh? Do you 'know' your name?
I don't understand what you mean by "relative size is 'infinite'". Nor the rest to be honest.
Here you profess to not understand. Which soon, becomes dubious.
In the context of the thread,
As if this needs qualifying. Of course, what else? Do you really operate otherwise, or just see that 'those' other people do?
I suppose you might mean that, on the scale of things we humans are somewhere between the very little and the very big; where exactly isn't clear and what we can 'know' about big and little, is limited by what we can see.
And then you nail it; of course; what else; elementary, my friend!
If that's what you're on about,
I'm not sure! Is this warranted? Does someone use this to be nasty?
I agree.
And after all that, we can finally, agree. Hooray! I was beginning to worry!
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 11:34 am
by Bernard
brain in a vat wrote:What are the necessary conditions for something to be an object? I hope to provide a satisfactory answer by the end of this post. An example of creating an object might illuminate us. Take a bunch of ingredients for a cake, for example. Are all these separate ingredients a single object? Obviously not. But what happens when you combine them together? They become a mush which can be called an object.
This is my interpretation: In order for something to be an object it's parts must be connected. The ingredients only became an object when they were connected (the mush).
Do you think this correct? And, if is, are there any other conditions for something to be an object?
Something a bit more interesting than a cake perhaps is this object (headphones are mandatory)
http://youtu.be/oEgAcE7v67k
When I listen to this it is not an object. I'm travelling beyond earth with those voices. So much feeling.
Objectifying is just a convenient tool for help in getting through life with. We have to quantify and can't do so without separate units to quantify with. These units are formed any which way we wish to:whether units made of other units or just stand alone units. Both are just descriptions taken from consciousness. Being more aware through the proper use of descriptions is what matters.
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 2:57 pm
by tillingborn
tillingborn wrote:I gave up on 'knowing' years ago; I think it's a fools errand, possibly a mental disease associated with conservatism. Obviously I don't know.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sarcasm eh?
Not really. I do actually suspect that the need to have absolutes , commandments written in stone, a written unchangeable constitution for example, is associated with a failure to adapt to novelty that people not so afflicted cope perfectly well with. Religion, nostalgia, fantasies about golden ages and so on are characteristic of conservatives, as is the demand for certainty in the form of specific, usually harsh, legislation.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Do you 'know' your name?
Absolutely, but that's not the sort of knowledge being discussed in this thread.
tillingborn wrote:I don't understand what you mean by "relative size is 'infinite'". Nor the rest to be honest.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Here you profess to not understand. Which soon, becomes dubious.
Well it's only since you said as much that I 'know' I understand.
tillingborn wrote:In the context of the thread,
SpheresOfBalance wrote:As if this needs qualifying. Of course, what else? Do you really operate otherwise, or just see that 'those' other people do?
Joking apart, I really don't understand that bit.
tillingborn wrote:I suppose you might mean that, on the scale of things we humans are somewhere between the very little and the very big; where exactly isn't clear and what we can 'know' about big and little, is limited by what we can see.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:And then you nail it; of course; what else; elementary, my friend!
Well why didn't you say so?
tillingborn wrote:If that's what you're on about,
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I'm not sure! Is this warranted? Does someone use this to be nasty?
It's a bit glib and I'm sorry if it upset you; it wasn't my intention to cause offence.
tillingborn wrote:I agree.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:And after all that, we can finally, agree. Hooray! I was beginning to worry!
Sarcasm eh? Look, I'm sorry if it upsets you that I treat things lightly, but I think you need to toughen up.
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 7:39 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
tillingborn wrote:tillingborn wrote:I gave up on 'knowing' years ago; I think it's a fools errand, possibly a mental disease associated with conservatism. Obviously I don't know.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sarcasm eh?
Not really. I do actually suspect that the need to have absolutes , commandments written in stone, a written unchangeable constitution for example, is associated with a failure to adapt to novelty that people not so afflicted cope perfectly well with. Religion, nostalgia, fantasies about golden ages and so on are characteristic of conservatives, as is the demand for certainty in the form of specific, usually harsh, legislation.
Maybe you're correct, but I see it differently, for instance, I see that absolutes exist, and that it's not because of needs, it's just the way it is, and I assure you I'm no conservative.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Do you 'know' your name?
Absolutely, but that's not the sort of knowledge being discussed in this thread.
I saw no stipulation, as such.
tillingborn wrote:I don't understand what you mean by "relative size is 'infinite'". Nor the rest to be honest.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Here you profess to not understand. Which soon, becomes dubious.
Well it's only since you said as much that I 'know' I understand.
I just found it funny that you said this and then preceded to nail it.
tillingborn wrote:In the context of the thread,
SpheresOfBalance wrote:As if this needs qualifying. Of course, what else? Do you really operate otherwise, or just see that 'those' other people do?
Joking apart, I really don't understand that bit.
I'm expressing the fact that I find it hard to believe that you would think that anyone would not respond contextually.
tillingborn wrote:I suppose you might mean that, on the scale of things we humans are somewhere between the very little and the very big; where exactly isn't clear and what we can 'know' about big and little, is limited by what we can see.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:And then you nail it; of course; what else; elementary, my friend!
Well why didn't you say so?
I did! are you saying that my method, though different than yours, you believe to be flawed/wrong?
tillingborn wrote:If that's what you're on about,
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I'm not sure! Is this warranted? Does someone use this to be nasty?
It's a bit glib and I'm sorry if it upset you; it wasn't my intention to cause offence.
No worries, are you an Englishman? Maybe it's a dialect problem.
tillingborn wrote:I agree.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:And after all that, we can finally, agree. Hooray! I was beginning to worry!
Sarcasm eh? Look, I'm sorry if it upsets you that I treat things lightly, but I think you need to toughen up.
So you think that it's incumbent upon me to see things your way? I think that if you actually saw me in person, you'd change your mind, and think I should lighten up, as it would be apparent, that I was far too tough.
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 3:02 am
by Ginkgo
When it comes to infinity I guess it can depend on whether you are talking real numbers or natural numbers or both. I think science makes use of both depending on purpose. However, in the end science doesn't seem to like infinities as an explanation for the observations.
For a long time the universe was considered to be a singularity prior to the Big Bang. The problem was that a singularity involves infinities. For example, the singularity needed to be infinitely dense. Not surprisingly, the move was on to come up with an alternative theory that did away with infinities.
It seems as though we have an aversion to infinities. Apparently Georg Cantor was the first person to treat the concept of infinity seriously. Unfortunately, for him he bore the brunt of personal criticism for doing so.
Re: The metaphysics of objects
Posted: Sat May 11, 2013 7:41 am
by Dimebag
I'm not sure the connectedness of multiple things is sufficient to be called an object. Is a bike an object? I would say yes. Is a team an object? A team of people are connected by information which passes through the air in the form of pressure waves, or sound. Or can be separated even further and be connected by electronic devices. I guess what I am getting at is, connectedness isn't as straight forward as you might think. You might say the parts in the bike are connected physically and each part serves a function, but members of a team are also connected physically (albeit indirectly through a long change of connections), and also serve a purpose.
But i still dont think a team qualifies as an object, so, what is missing from the definition?
Well, an object is something which is not typically viewed as a living animated thing, and also has some specific purpose, function, or use by us as humans. A plant can still bean object even thought is alive, because it is not animated nor self directed. However a cat is not an object as it has its own director, it is not used by humans.
There is still more to say, of of which I haven't thought of yet.