Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How is Change Possible?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1. The Skewer

Premise1: An existent is itself.

Premise2: An existent is completely characterized by a set of properties, a collection of statements which are true of the existent.

Premise3: An existent cannot come from nothing, and an existent cannot become nothing.

Premise4: An existent can change, and when an existent changes, at least one of its properties becomes negated (i.e. false if it used to be true, and true if it used to be false).

Conclusion1: By Premise2 and Premise4, the existent A, after it changes, is no longer the same existent as before the change. After the change, we have a different existent, B, because A and B differ in at least one property.

Conclusion2: By Premise3, A is B. This contradicts Premise1.

2. The Fork

We are now forced to do at least one of the following:

1) Deny premise 1. I.e., an existent is not necessarily itself. That is, there is at least one existent which is not itself. I think this is a contradiction.

2) Deny premise 2. Existents are not completely characterized by a set of properties.

3) Deny premise 3. Either something can come from nothing, or something can become nothing, or possibly both.

3) Deny premise 4. Existents are incapable of change.

3. The Sacrifice

Honestly, I think option 2 is our best bet. Let us consider carefully what it means.

If an existent is not completely characterized by its properties, then either A), its properties undercharacterize the existent or B), they overcharacterize the existent.

4. The Checkmate

If we go with option A), then there are other epistemological entities besides propositions which help to completely characterize the existent. These epistemological entities, however, could not be amenable to reason, since they cannot be propositions (i.e. they cannot be statements which are capable of being true/false, or, more bluntly, they are ideas whose validity cannot be determined by their correspondence or lack of correspondence to reality). Thus, there are aspects of the mind (or of epistemology) which are independent of reality and hidden from reason. If we interpret these entities metaphysically instead, then two existents could have all of the same properties and yet be different, implying the existence of hidden aspects of reality.

If we go with option B), then there are some properties which could change about the existent but which would leave the existent essentially unchanged. Thus, existents must have both mutable and immutable properties. However, I cannot think of any properties of an existent which are both immutable and which completely characterize the existent.

 

Edited by SpookyKitty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dream_weaver said:

5. The Historical Obfuscation
Doesn't Aristotle address this very same issue that arose between Heraclitus and Parmenides?

 

I'm not sure. I know they certainly asked whether change was possible, and I think that it is, but I don't think that Aristotle reached the same conclusion as I did about the existence of properties which are both immutable and which also completely characterize an existent. What I want to know is whether my argument is correct and what these immutable and characteristic properties are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am remiss. The passages from ITOE searched on 'essential'.

9 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

Thus, existents must have both mutable and immutable properties. However, I cannot think of any properties of an existent which are both immutable and which completely characterize the existent.

OPAR, pg. 16:

The law of causality does not state that every entity has a cause. Some of the things commonly referred to as "entities" do not come into being or pass away, but are eternal—e.g., the universe as a whole. The concept of "cause" is inapplicable to the universe; by definition, there is nothing outside the totality to act as a cause. The universe simply is; it is an irreducible primary. An entity may be said to have a cause only if it is the kind of entity that is noneternal; and then what one actually explains causally is a process, the fact of its coming into being or another thing's passing away. Action is the crux of the law of cause and effect: it is action that is caused—by entities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For premise 2, are you just saying that for something to be a property, it must be able to be stated as a proposition? I don't see why a property must be a statement. So, if a property can be something besides a statement made about an existent, that would mean properties in the sense you meant undercharacterize existents. To make any sense, property would have to encompass anything about an existent, even things besides statements.

I am assuming you're trying to say that if there are facts about the world which can't be put into propositions, then there will be things about reality that no one can apprehend with reason. I don't think that follows. Consider that you can see a tree, and since it is not the actual tree in your head, you can call that a percept, but it is not a proposition. The percept still has information about reality itself, and the tree. You can then reason about the percept. So, there is no particular problem if you go with A.

It seems far more important to say that premise 3 is wrong. Things do go out of existence, Aristotle is dead, he no longer exists. The toast I ate this morning no longer exists. Literally speaking, the toast is nothing, and Aristotle is nothing. However, by characterizing this as a change, as opposed to annihilation, it's pretty simple to say that not everything about the existent has disappeared, but it has completely changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

An existent is completely characterized by a set of properties, a collection of statements which are true of the existent.

Off the top of my head I'd say that those properties have to include the possibility of change, under certain circumstances. If one were to make a list of every single fact about "ice cubes", somewhere on that list I'd expect to see "will become liquid water above 32° Fahrenheit".

 

Also, this sounds a lot like Achilles and the Tortoise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITOE distinguishes between an Entity and an Existent.  This may help clarify the question the OP asks.

p. 5

"The building block of man's knowledge is the concept of an 'existent' - of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action."

p. 241

AR: " 'Existent' is a very convenient term in that it subsumes entities and attributes and actions and even mental events.  They exist."

Prof. B: Relationships too?

AR: Yes--everything that exists on which you can focus, anything which you can isolate, whether it is an entity, a relationship, an action, or an attribute.  The concept 'existent' refers to something which exists.  And it is wider than the concept 'entity', because it permits you to subsume under that concept, and focus on, attributes or relationships or actions -- on that which depends on an entity but can be studied separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All "existents" are entity derived. "Existent" like "existence" are concepts.  Treating "existent" as though it were a metaphysical primary is context dropping reification.  

One can only point to entities, that is all that exists mind independently. "Existent", qua concept is a first person relation to 3rd person facts. 

"focus on" is a term relating epistemic-cognitive isolation, that is abstraction....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 11:04 PM, SpookyKitty said:

Conclusion2: By Premise3, A is B. This contradicts Premise1.

This conclusion2 is unfounded, it is not implied by the premises.

All that conclusion1 with premise3 implies is that "B WAS A" or "A caused B" or "B came from A" or "A changed into B" or "there was A now there is B".  If you are concerned that the premises at most only point toward the concept of change itself, without bringing it actually into question, your concern is understandable.

 

Premise3 says

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 11:04 PM, SpookyKitty said:

Premise3: An existent cannot come from nothing, and an existent cannot become nothing.

 

Assuming for the moment that the following premise4 is true:

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 11:04 PM, SpookyKitty said:

Premise4: An existent can change, and when an existent changes, at least one of its properties becomes negated (i.e. false if it used to be true, and true if it used to be false).

You can only conclude that any "change" (consistent with premise4 and premise3) CANNOT be, "A becoming nothing" AND "B coming from nothing". Notice accepting premise4 merely requires we accept negation of "at least one" of an entity's properties in some as of yet undefined (certainly not defined by your premises) process of change.

These premises leave open every other possibility for what change "means".

 

Your intent was that the "skewer" be sharp and capable of metaphorically piercing "something", but unfortunately, as it is, it is at most a wooden spoon.  Good for poking and stirring I'll grant.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

Thank you, StrictlyLogical, you really live up to that name.

I would also like to thank everyone else for their contributions, but I think StrictlyLogical's was the best by far, and it really clears things up for me.

SK

Your kind words exceed the scales of justice, and clear up a misapprehension on my part of the tone of your original post.  My "wooden spoon" comment, rather snarky in retrospect, is not in balance with your genuine sincerity, and I would rather have merely stated that your "skewer" needs a little sharpening.

As for my post clearing anything up, the other posts here presented are far more substantial in asserting the positive.  Mine, directed towards the negative, does little more than show what your original set-up does not show. 

Discerning what your original set-up does not show, however, was not meant to discourage you from your inquiry, but to point you away from a particular fruitless path, and the dangers of taking a logical leap which is not supported by the premises/evidence.

I encourage you to look deeper into the matter if you find anything at all interesting or left unresolved.

 

Generally there are many causes for the kinds of confusions we see here which are similar in many respects to other philosophical "paradoxes" (I have not had time to work this out but my general observations follow). 

I observe the biggest mistake usually manifests in a leap of logic which is unfounded; i.e. the premises (or concretes if one is looking at the process of induction rather than deduction) do not actually logically imply the conclusion or generalization. I observe that this can result from two different errors: 1) stowaway implicit, unstated, or subconscious premises.  These get smuggled in, they fly under the radar unbeknownst even to the thinker, and when they have not been validated and are in error undermine the process, and 2) insufficient analysis in the step of arriving at the conclusion from the premises/concretes.  Because these can happen at any stage of a logical process, checking premises as Rand so often stressed is crucial as they are also products of thinking farther back in the hierarchy of knowledge. I would add to that, and I stress these equally or as two sides of the same coin:  In every step going from premises/concretes to a conclusion check for stowaway implicitly held or subconscious premises and make sure the product of the logical step to the conclusion is valid, truly following from the premises/concretes.

A second big mistake is a confusion between metaphysics and epistemology.  The "it" and the "what we think of it" so to speak.  Oftentimes a conundrum does not present itself clearly in terms of dealing with identity or of working out a problem of identification.  Since all "paradoxes" are products of the mind (there are no paradoxes in reality) the investigation should most often squarely be set in the realm of identification, what and how we think of it.  Of course we must refer to reality to validate the proposed solution to our error of thought.

 

Change, is interesting, but not metaphysically.  We know of and depend on change from our earliest moments of life and it is undeniable.  In fact consciousness, not only as a natural process but as experienced introspectively, is immediately and unmistakably graspable as a process involving time, i.e. requiring change.  What really is interesting is not THAT we know of change, but how an unexamined process of thinking can be confused about the concept of change to the point one can "feel" it is both possible and impossible. 

Working out the errors, the kinks and knots of thought is important because it helps us to understand why they occur, and helps us to avoid them in all future thinking processes.  This the probably the most rewarding and important reason to ruminate on any "academic" conundrum or paradox, not "the conclusion" of whether Theseus ship "really" is "the same ship" or a "different ship".

 

To wrap up.  Keep pondering.  It's a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...