New Buddha Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 27 minutes ago, Plasmatic said: Nice arbitrary claim. Who does it apply to? It doesn't apply to you. Your replies (except to my post) have been spot-on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 Louie said: Quote If you read back, I referred to "null" as "empty set" as an adjective, not "emptiness". And that was just to phrase SK's idea so it was easier to comprehend. I don't think there's a such thing as a null object. I didn't claim any of this. "Null and "nothing" refer to SK's comments in this thread and the part about object and entity refers to both of your errors. Both parts are relevant to this thread. Louie said: Quote Atoms can't be irreducible, you can split them apart... You're talking about something else it looks like, not what I'm talking about. An apple is irreducible in a perceptual sense, but we know it can be reduced to distinct and distinguishable parts. I didn't say atoms are irreducible. "Perceptual" irreducibility is not what is being discussed when talking about fundamental entities. And no, apples don't technically have "parts", literally speaking. I am talking about the subject if this thread, which is what you are supposed to be addressing. If you dont understand something the onus is on you to ask relevant questions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted May 11, 2016 Report Share Posted May 11, 2016 11 hours ago, Plasmatic said: I didn't say atoms are irreducible. "Atoms are entities and the things that are irreducible are called fundamental entities." Looks like I misread. Yup, I know atoms are objects. If an object is metaphysically irreducibile, yes, it is fundamental. But if there are such objects, I'd say they'd be null as well. Null, as in empty. It'd be erroneous to call it nothing. If going "smaller" towards fundamental objects is valid, it would seem like going "bigger" is valid too. If an atom is made of objects, and we treat it as an object, then it may be possible the sum of all objects, e.g. the universe, is an object. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) On May 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Eiuol said: If going "smaller" towards fundamental objects is valid, it would seem like going "bigger" is valid too. If an atom is made of objects, and we treat it as an object, then it may be possible the sum of all objects, e.g. the universe, is an object. You are reiterating what has already been dealt with in this thread. Entities are an integrated whole making them "one". You keep making the "pin cushion" error concerning entities. Attributes are not "parts" of an entity, they are the entity. Entities are not empty vessels that contain attributes. Edited May 12, 2016 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted May 12, 2016 Report Share Posted May 12, 2016 22 minutes ago, Plasmatic said: You are reiterating what has already been dealt with in this thread. Entities are an integrated whole making them "one". Not sure how you think that I was saying attributes are parts (SK did implicitly, not me). Atoms are not attributes. Atoms are part of all things. Objects are indeed not empty vessels, I said I don't think "null objects" are valid. Regarding my claim of "universe as object", it is only intended to get at expanding on how or if there is some metaphysically unified totality (consisting of only objects) that's an -object- like an atom is a unified -object-. (I know where and how this may be wrong, be patient for my paper before taking the time to argue against it.). What do you mean pin cushion error? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NameYourAxioms Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) You are committing Heidegger's error of reifying "nothing", treating it as a thing rather than the absence of a delimited positive. Existence has no contrary: there is no nothing. Existence exists; non-existence does not. According to the Law of Identity: to be something is to have a specific identity. To be nothing in particular is to be nothing at all. Edited August 10, 2016 by NameYourAxioms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.