Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Finite existence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Space is actually dragged along in the gravitational field. To me that sounds a lot like space is a kind of "liquid" which is stirred by the objects in it.
Meta's comments addressed entities: you switched the term to existent, but at the end spoke as though space is an entity. All entities are existents, not all existents are entities. Entities have edges. Liquids have edges. Space is not an entity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Entities have edges.

David, is the universe itself an entity or a relationship? if it is an entity, then according to your formulation, it has an edge, which i think would undermine your argument. I doubt you will say it is a relationship (or aspect of entities). If there is no third option, you will have to lose your edge. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, is the universe itself an entity or a relationship?
The universe is the sum of all that exists, i.e. all existents. It is thus not an existent, it is "existents", plural, that is, existence. An individual existent, which is separable from other existents, may have an edge (if it is indeed an entity), but since the universe can't be separated from other things, it can't have an edge. Let's only consider entities for a moment. Each individual entity has an edge, but a collection of entities (example, "water molecules") doesn't have an edge, except insofar as you can mentally extract them all and consider them all as parts of a new entity (example, Mercury, Earth, Neptune and the other planets -- unifies into "the solar system").

There are entities and relations (the latter can be divided into attributes and actions). "The universe" refers to all of that, meaning that the universe can't be an entity (which implies not a relation and thus excluded relations) and it can't be a relation (which implies not an entity and thus excludes entities). So the universe cannot be exclusively seen as exclusively one or the other.

So I claim that I still have my edge <_<.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe is the sum of all that exists, i.e. all existents. It is thus not an existent, it is "existents", plural, that is, existence.

The universe is, not are. IT is singular. A chess set is pieces and board, different (pluralistic) existents. But a chess set is a singular entity.

An individual existent, which is separable from other existents, may have an edge (if it is indeed an entity), but since the universe can't be separated from other things, it can't have an edge.

That may be true, but it does not mean it is not an entity. Remember i am not the one arguing that an entity needs to have an edge.

Let's only consider entities for a moment. Each individual entity has an edge, but a collection of entities (example, "water molecules") doesn't have an edge, except insofar as you can mentally extract them all and consider them all as parts of a new entity (example, Mercury, Earth, Neptune and the other planets -- unifies into "the solar system").

You begin by saying "a collection of entities doesn't have an edge" and end by giving an example of a collection of entities that is an entity (solar system) and that presumably has an edge.

A glass of water molecules (a collection), by the way, is conventionally called a glass of water. it is an entity. And if we could collect ALL the water molecules and put them in a huge glass, our collection would be an entity.

There are entities and relations (the latter can be divided into attributes and actions). "The universe" refers to all of that, meaning that the universe can't be an entity (which implies not a relation and thus excluded relations) and it can't be a relation (which implies not an entity and thus excludes entities). So the universe cannot be exclusively seen as exclusively one or the other.

A glass of hot water refers to not only the water molecules, but their relationships and movements as well, when viewed scientifically ("hot" means they are moving fast). Thus, a glass of hot water is both entities and movements. I'm sure i can think of a better example of an entity that essentially contains both entities and relationships if I think harder. Why can't the universe just be an entity that conceptually contains both entities and relations?

So I claim that I still have my edge <_<.

I think you're losing it :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell are you babbling on about? I am NOT sorry to burst your silly bubble, but even on the quantum scale, the Law of Identity remains valid. There is no scale of matter smaller than which something ceases to exist :this is what you are saying when "matter on a small enough scale might not be bound by Identity". EVERYTHING that exists is bound by it, to exist is to have Identity, if it has no Identity it does not exist.

Something cannot approach the end of existence, that makes no sense. If something exists, it exists, there is no "nearly on the edge of non-existence" or any such thing.

The laws of non-contradictoin hold for all matter, in all places, in all cases, nothing that exists can be an exception, no matter how weird it might seem. If you think QM implies non-contradiciton can break down, check your premises. Contradictions cannot exist in reality, if you think they do, one of your assumptions/preimises is wrong.

I agree. This post also reminds me of how it is possible to construct sentences and questions that are essentially meaningless. For instance "how big is the color red?" or "just how holy is that pine cone?" Vague queries such as this serve a philosophic purpose--in particular identifying vague statements!--however, for serious philosophic discussion we need to be able to weed these out of our discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be no talk of "IS" outside of existence or Identity.

By definition of existence it would include everything even the potential stuff "past the edge".

An interesting alternative to consider is to partition existence into two types: those things which are observable by humans and those which are not, and ask the question "what is the extent of the unobservables?" That direction necessarily ends in futility, but is not immediately ruled out by the definitions. Indeed, perhaps the fine structure of the universe is composed of particles which we will never be able to perceive the individual nature of as we do photons and atoms.

The difference here lies of course in that we haven't posited existence outside of existence, merely existence outside the realm of human observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By definition of existence it would include everything even the potential stuff "past the edge".

An interesting alternative to consider is to partition existence into two types: those things which are observable by humans and those which are not, and ask the question "what is the extent of the unobservables?"

"what is the extent of...?" is a quest for knowledge. Knowledge is fundamentally gained by observation. Thus your proposed "interesting" alternative is to ask the question, "what can be known about those things that can not be known?"

You have just displayed for us a concrete example of what you meant by "constructing sentences and questions that are essentially meaningless" in your previous post!

The difference here lies of course in that we haven't posited existence outside of existence....

Another concrete example of the same!

:worry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"what is the extent of...?" is a quest for knowledge. Knowledge is fundamentally gained by observation. Thus your proposed "interesting" alternative is to ask the question, "what can be known about those things that can not be known?"

You have just displayed for us a concrete example of what you meant by "constructing sentences and questions that are essentially meaningless" in your previous post!

Another concrete example of the same!

;)

I disagree. To me your criticism sounds like the universe would be limited precisely by what is knowable by the human mind. This smacks of subjectivism. Indeed the world exists outside of the human mind and it is knowable. Bacteria were magic vapors before the microscope, sub-atomic particles were figments of mathematics before the right technology came about to observe them. It's conceivable that the extension of the human mind through technology could proceed ad infinitum OR that the fine structure of the universe eventually stops. My point was that it is an interesting question to ask yourself which of these is the case. There is of course no satisfactory answer (either you discover more or you don't, but your lack of discovery doesn't imply non-existence).

Eventually you tire of the game and eat a burrito, and hope you did something productive amongst your speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. To me your criticism sounds like the universe would be limited precisely by what is knowable by the human mind.

Yes it is.

This smacks of subjectivism.

No, it does not.

(The opposite is what smacks of subjectivism.)

Indeed the world exists outside of the human mind and it is knowable.

Brilliant point.

Bacteria were magic vapors before the microscope, sub-atomic particles were figments of mathematics before the right technology came about to observe them.

If they existed, they were knowable.

Eventually you tire of the game and eat a burrito...

I'm going to eat a burrito RIGHT NOW :lol:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps to pose the question is a more metaphysically careful way, let's put it this way:

For any arbitrary account of finite existence, is there always going to be some amount of existence which is not accounted for? So, for instance, if we account for some 100,000,000,000 light-years of physical being in the universe, will there be yet more?--and if we account for any arbitrary additional number of light years, be it one more or 100,000,000,000 more, or 10^(100,000,000,000) more light-years, will there always and necessarily be some number of light-years which we could have but have not accounted for?

Alternately, for any arbitrarily small account of existence, could there be a yet smaller account? So for any delimited account of three-dimensional space or matter, is there some smaller amount of space or matter not differentiated by that account? The same could be asked about space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still reifying the zero and sayng that "empty" space is an entity which has quantity. There are a finite number of entities in the universe and they exist "in" space. So lets say you got far enough away from the universe to be able to see all the entities that exist in one frame of consciousness. There would be an infinite amount of space surrounding it because space is a potentiality, not an actuality in the sense of being an entity. SO you could potentially split up half the entities in the universe and separate them ad infinitum in space so that if you separated them by a billion light years you could awlays separate them just a little bit more. Now this does not mean that there is always an infinite amount of space between two entities, only that the quantity of space is depandant on the existence and relationship between two entities and does not have any existence outside that context. Just as things like "jumping," "throwing," "vomiting" have no existence outside the things that jump, throw, and vomit, "spatial relationships" has no existence outside the things that relate spatially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still reifying the zero and sayng that "empty" space is an entity which has quantity.

How so?

There are a finite number of entities in the universe and they exist "in" space.

What is your proof?

So lets say you got far enough away from the universe to be able to see all the entities that exist in one frame of consciousness.

I am not convinced that this is a plausible supposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still reifying the zero and sayng that "empty" space is an entity which has quantity.

Hi Meta, I think you are also reifying space ("empty" or not), perhaps unwittingly.

There are a finite number of entities in the universe and they exist "in" space. So lets say you got far enough away from the universe...

That's a conceptually invalid "let's say". Not only can you not go "that far"; there is no such point, metaphysically or epistemologically, as "away from the universe".

There would be an infinite amount of space surrounding it because ...

Another invalid concept. There is no such thing as an infinite amount of anything.

space is a potentiality, not an actuality in the sense of being an entity.

Space is a potentiality? Potential of what? (i.e. a foetus is a potential human; space is a potential what?)

Edited by blackdiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps to pose the question is [sic] a more metaphysically careful way, let's put it this way:

For any arbitrary account of finite existence, is there always going to be some amount of existence which is not accounted for?

I'm not sure i fully understand your question, but if what you are asking is what I think you are asking, then the essential answer is that the universe has always existed. So, even if we know the age of the earth, or whatever else, we have still not accounted for the age of the universe because there is no such thing. You can't find the age of something that has always existed; it's a meaningless quest. Does that help?

Alternately, for any arbitrarily small account of existence, could there be a yet smaller account? So for any delimited account of three-dimensional space or matter, is there some smaller amount of space or matter not differentiated by that account? The same could be asked about space.

That's properly a question for science, not philosophy, even though you've clouded it with philosophical terms like "existence". (Although, like Meta hinted at, i'm not sure i understand your conception of "space" in this question. Do you mean it as an actual thing? What does that thing consist of? What properties does it have?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure i fully understand your question, but if what you are asking is what I think you are asking, then the essential answer is that the universe has always existed. So, even if we know the age of the earth, or whatever else, we have still not accounted for the age of the universe because there is no such thing. You can't find the age of something that has always existed; it's a meaningless quest. Does that help?

No, I wasn't talking about time. You might have been misled by the term "light-year", which is a measure of distance and not time.

That's properly a question for science, not philosophy, even though you've clouded it with philosophical terms like "existence". (Although, like Meta hinted at, i'm not sure i understand your conception of "space" in this question. Do you mean it as an actual thing? What does that thing consist of? What properties does it have?).

Philosophy or not, it's the question the original poster has asked.

As for space, I don't have a precise theory of space--I don't think anybody does. I know that it's not matter or energy. Is it that within which all physical things exist? In that case, it would be an actual thing. Of course, it would not be like any other thing; it wouldn't be physical. Perhaps the only property it has is that all things exist in it. Depending on your particular theory of space, maybe it's an absolute frame of reference, perhaps it's really space-time and has the property of being "curved". I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a conceptually invalid "let's say". Not only can you not go "that far"; there is no such point, metaphysically or epistemologically, as "away from the universe".
Its a thought experiment.

Another invalid concept. There is no such thing as an infinite amount of anything.

What I mean is that if you can collect all the amount of stuff in the universe in one frame of consciousness and be able to say that all of it is "here" then surrounding that would be empty space strecthing off into infinity, that there would be no place where space ends.

Space is a potentiality? Potential of what? (i.e. a foetus is a potential human; space is a potential what

Space is potential because it doesn't actually have existence without the entities that spatially relate, that probably why my hypothetical is a little confusing, because in order for the space around the universe to make sense we have to have a reference point of some other entity to relate to the rest of the universe. But the point is that the potential for the existence of the relation between existents is infinite in number. Think of it terms of feet-between in stead of "amount" of space. This is how I am not reifying space. Space is an existent, not an entity, I am no more reifying space when I say it has existence then when I say that a jump has existence, and it would make as much sense (disregarding gravity) to say that a jump is potentially infinite in height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I wasn't talking about time. You might have been misled by the term "light-year", which is a measure of distance and not time.

Ah, of course. The way you asked the question is what really confused me, actually, because the distance question has already been addressed here, i think. When you say "account for x light years", that's like a floating abstraction. It's the distance between what and what? That's all that matters. The answer is similar to the answer i gave on time; it's always about the duration of something; in short, it's also between what and what. You can't meaningfully talk about the distance of the universe just as you can't talk about the age of the universe.

Philosophy or not, it's the question the original poster has asked.

There are specific forums for specific subjects. We are in "Metaphysics and Epistemology".

As for space, I don't have a precise theory of space--I don't think anybody does. I know that it's not matter or energy. Is it that within which all physical things exist? In that case, it would be an actual thing. Of course, it would not be like any other thing; it wouldn't be physical. Perhaps the only property it has is that all things exist in it. Depending on your particular theory of space, maybe it's an absolute frame of reference, perhaps it's really space-time and has the property of being "curved". I don't know.

Yes, that's precisely the answer i was looking for. You are essentially saying "no one knows anything about space". So, how do you expect me (or any one) to answer any scientific questions about "it"? (Note that your post is filled with "perhapses" and "may be's", and finally ends with three words that aptly summarise your conception of space!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a thought experiment.

A thought experiment has to be grounded in reality, at least conceptually, or it will not involve any rational thought.

This is how I am not reifying space. Space is an existent, not an entity, I am no more reifying space when I say it has existence then when I say that a jump has existence, and it would make as much sense (disregarding gravity) to say that a jump is potentially infinite in height.

No, it does not make sense to say a jump has existence and it makes even less sense to say it is "potentially infinite in height". The concept jump exists but "a jump" as such does not "have existence". Whose jump? Man? A snail? Michael Jordan? (you have to be specific, and when you get specific, you can't disregard gravity or any facts of reality, I'm afraid).

What I mean is that if you can collect all the amount of stuff in the universe in one frame of consciousness and be able to say that all of it is "here" then surrounding that would be empty space strecthing off into infinity, that there would be no place where space ends.

Space is potential because it doesn't actually have existence without the entities that spatially relate,...

So, how would it be there where there are no entities (i.e. "beyond" the universe)? I'm surprised that you still can't see why all this is meaningless, Meta.

... that's probably why my hypothetical is a little confusing,

No, that's why it's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, of course. The way you asked the question is what really confused me, actually, because the distance question has already been addressed here, i think. When you say "account for x light years", that's like a floating abstraction. It's the distance between what and what? That's all that matters.

Actually, it doesn't matter at all. Pick any two objects arbitrarily, that are each apart by the arbitrary distance you're dealing with.

The answer is similar to the answer i gave on time; it's always about the duration of something; in short, it's also between what and what. You can't meaningfully talk about the distance of the universe just as you can't talk about the age of the universe.

I'm not talking about either. That's precisely why I phrased the questions the way that I did.

There are specific forums for specific subjects. We are in "Metaphysics and Epistemology".

Then suggest that the topic be moved.

Yes, that's precisely the answer i was looking for. You are essentially saying "no one knows anything about space". So, how do you expect me (or any one) to answer any scientific questions about "it"? (Note that your post is filled with "perhapses" and "may be's", and finally ends with three words that aptly summarise your conception of space!)

I find it ironic that you use the phrase "your conception of space" when I don't have one. I was just making the question more specific. If you want an account of space, though, take this: That which separates all physical objects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how would it be there where there are no entities (i.e. "beyond" the universe)? I'm surprised that you still can't see why all this is meaningless, Meta.

I am not saying that it would "be" "there" outside of the universe, at least not in the sense you are implying you think I mean. Do you not understand what I mean by "space is a potential" and it is that potential that is "around the total sum of entities?"

I'm surprised that you still can't see why all this is meaningless, Meta.

If you want to continue having discussions with me, THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING: Stop making insulting comments like this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying that it would "be" "there" outside of the universe, at least not in the sense you are implying you think I mean. Do you not understand what I mean by "space is a potential" and it is that potential that is "around the total sum of entities?"

If you want to continue having discussions with me, THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING: Stop making insulting comments like this one.

Look. Since I too would not care to have discussions with someone who is so paranoid, can you show me what's so insulting about that statement you quoted? The fact is that your propositions ARE meaningless. The second fact is that I have seen you debate in other threads, and I am surprised that it's taking you so long to see the meaninglessness of your theory, even after it is clearly demonstrated to you. So, can you tell me what's insulting about that? Is it an insult to express surprise?

I have shown you that it is meaningless to speak of a potentiality which has no metaphysical relationship with any specific existents. The concept of "empty space" is metaphysically and epistemologically impossible. You think i am just saying it's metaphysically impossible (hence your last response about "being" "there"), but i am saying it is also epistemologically impossible (what is empty space?). To say it is "around the total sum of entities" is therefore absolutely and totally meaningless, given those facts.

Can you also say that "a jump" would surround all human beings if they were "collected in one frame of consciousness" and that this jump would extend to infinity? What. the hell. would that even mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it doesn't matter at all. Pick any two objects arbitrarily, that are each apart by the arbitrary distance you're dealing with.

If what you are asking is, can the distance between any two objects be increased (barring any other irrelevant limitations)? the answer is yes (in other words, there is no metaphysical limit on the distance that can exist between any two objects in the universe). And similarly can the size of any material object be reduced further, the answer is still yes**. I'm still not sure, though, what the application of your question is.

Then suggest that the topic be moved.

The original question had epistemological and metaphysical aspects, so it can stay here.

I find it ironic that you use the phrase "your conception of space" when I don't have one.

But that's precisely the point. Your application of the above questions to "space" is what i am questioning if, as you say, you don't know what space is.

If you come to me and ask me "what would happen if you cut x in half?" I would naturally respond with the question, "what is x?"

And then you would say, as you basically did, "I have no idea what x is."

How can you ask a real question about x without identifying what it is? How can i answer a question about its length, for example, when you don't even know whether length is one of its properties?

As far as I'm concerned, if you know NOTHING about x, then x does not exist in reality.

I was just making the question more specific. If you want an account of space, though, take this: That which separates all physical objects.
As i said, if you know nothing about x, how can you know that it separates ALL physical objects?

**[Disclaimer: I don't know what the official Objectivist position is here; what I'm giving are my own conclusions from logic.]

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...