altonhare

David: you said "Actually, laws are expressions of fact, so every law is "posited" (or, to get etymological, "given"). Hence the law of gravity F=GMm/d^2 is an expression of actual facts of existence which was discovered and posited (by Newton)." I am saying that the universe obeys certain laws and rules whether any "body" discovers or posits them. Whatever you call them, laws, rules, etc. It's a system where every cause has a specific effect. Nobody decided what the laws of the universe were to be, they just are. Also, my argument about an indivisible, continuous, homogenous entity could simply say that "The identity of an object is directly related to the sum of its constituents". This leaves out the assumption that an object is exactly the sum of its constituents. Arguing that assumption would probably horribly derail the thread. You also said "This is basically the Pauli Exclusion Principle, right; but that is a "scientific result", not an axiom (and it's applicable to fermions)." No, what I am saying is more general. What I am saying is not a scientific result but a matter of the logical extension of ubiquitous observations (namely the observation of identity). The PEP is a theory of quantum that is built upon the corpuscular hypothesis specifically. It requires an assumption that is not axiomatic (a hypothesis) and draws conclusions from that assumption. The existence of the indivisible follows from the axiom of identity and leads to the conclusion that no two indivisible objects may remain at 0 distance. Upon this conclusion based on ubiquitous observation it is now the job of physicists to elucidate the architecture of these indivisible objects through specific experimentation. Once they have discovered the architecture they can then explain how these entities interact and produce the objects we observe and manipulate in general (i.e. they tie the specific experimentation back to ubiquitous observations). Trivas: you said "What distinguishes the subset of entities from existents?" Entity: Shape and location Existent: An entity or a relationship among entities Existent is the more general category. It can be subdivided: 1) Independent Existent: A continuous, indivisible entity. Essentially synonymous with "entity". 2) Concrete Dependent Existent: A collection of independent existents (entites) with one or more particular set(s) of spatial arrangements. 3) Abstract/Conceptual Dependent Existent: A collection of independent or concrete existents with two or more consecutive set(s) of spatial arrangements. These go from the conceptually simple (1) to the conceptually complex (3). Thus, tables and cows fall into category 2. Love, justice, and consciousness fall into category 3. It may be difficult to understand the difference between 2 and 3 at first glance. The important thing to realize is that 2 is a *static* relationship whereas 3 is *dynamic*, the keyword is "consecutive" implying time. For the sake of discussion lets assume that the atom is the fundamental constituent, the argument works whatever we call the fundamental constituent. For instance, you may refer to a particular collection of atoms as a tree. The atoms are not always in precisely the same location, but you can assign a set of locations for all the atoms such that you still identify it as a tree if all the atoms are at one of the locations you assigned it. Mathematically this could easily become outrageously complicated, but conceptually it is not hard. So if some bark gets scraped off and a few trillion of the atoms are carried to the Andromeda Galaxy you still identify the tree because you can decide that, as long as a certain minimum number of atoms remain at some minimum proximity, it is still a tree. If the tree is chopped in half you may not identify it as a tree anymore although the two pieces lie within inches of each other. Instead of a tiny fraction of the atoms being separated you're now dealing with half the atoms in the tree, which may be above your minimum number. No matter what your criteria, it is always static. You always look at where all the atoms are simultaneously and decide if it's a tree right then. On the other hand, category three is dynamic. Love is not simply a picture of specific atoms at specific locations whether they are in someone's brain or body or whatever. It takes more than two people at some proximity for love to exist. There must be interaction, motion, etc. Love is not just a candlelit fancy restaurant with two people sitting at a table. It is one person talking to the other, looking at each other, thinking, planning, feeling, etc. Consciousness is the quintessential example. There is simply no single set of spatial locations of entities that results in consciousness. Consciousness involves consecutive locations, motion, interaction, etc. Justice is not simply a courtroom, it is an action or set of actions. It is a judge pronouncing sentence or a revolutionary fighting for the neglected common folk. Category three is the ubiquitous experience of everyday, our lives, our experiences. It is without a doubt the most complex.

Okay I see. The objectivist perceives and thus concludes that s/he exists and is conscious, otherwise how would s/he perceive. Also that s/he perceives someTHING, and therefore identity is also self-evident by virtue of existence. I think I have it now. David: Indeed we would be at odds. I don't see a difference between "physical laws" and "linguistic laws", they both simply state that "situation X results in Y results in Z... etc.". They are both a chain of internal consistency (consistent with rules/laws posited at the outset). In the case of indivisible constituents no "body" posited the rules. They simply are, they are axiomatic. An indivisible is axiomatic as a result of dentity. In a hypothetical universe with no indivisible there is no identity since every single thing's identity is a sum of other thing's identities which are the sum of other thing's identities... which never ends and so a single entity can never be assigned a single identity. Because of the axiom of identity and the extension to the indivisible, two indivisible constituents (such as spheres) cannot remain at 0 distance or they would now possess a single contour, a new continuous object, and would be called something else, a dumbbell or something. Being continuous this new object would be defined as indivisible, yet it was clearly produced from two parts. This is a self-contradiction. Therefore, repulsion is axiomatic by extension of the axioms of identity and indivisible constituent. There is no existence without repulsion/collision. I am referring to these laws, required by the very nature of existence, a form of "language". In the absence of this "language" there is not existence. That is why I state that "language precedes existence". Better stated perhaps "non-contradiction precedes existence". However, I can see the fallacy in that, to conceptualize these rules/laws I must exist, therefore existence precedes them. On the other hand, these laws/rules must have held before I ever conceptualized them. So perhaps non-contradiction IS existence, and non-contradiction IS rule/law consistency. Non-contradictory rules/laws inherently produce goal-directed activity (consciousness and life) as opposed to chaos, which inherently cannot, so we cannot imagine existence without life, life is a natural consequence of existence. Non contradiction ("language" as I poorly put it) is existence is consciousness is life. People who make contradictory statements confirm their own error every moment of their life. Non-contradiction IS life. Also David, it sounds like objectivist epistemology would examine the appropriate ways to apply man's reasoning? The example of the table is, perhaps, poor. Let's say "rock" instead. Everyone loves to discuss the "rock" when illustrating a universe without life. If I make my point with the rock I think it is illustrated better. Now, life is a natural consequence of non-contradiction, but there is no axiom or anything that requires there to *always* be life. If all life was vanquished from the universe there is not "rock". A person is not there to name it so. There are merely indivisible constituents acting in accordance with their identities. Thus there are "independent existents", indivisible structures. However with the very first perception by a consciousness there are now "dependent existents". The life-form perceives and concludes axiomatically that it exists and has perceived someTHING (identity). There is now "rock" when the perceiver looks at it and conceptualizes the cluster of indivisible fragments. The rock is a "dependent existent". Does this make my point clearer? Khait: Thanks for the clarification on Descartes and Rationalism. Also in response to the "mind dependent and independent" existents. I don't think this is what I'm talking about. There is a difference between "table" and "red". While both classified under the broad term "dependent existent" (just as humans are classified as mammals) but are contrasted by an additional classification. There are "dependent concrete existents" and "dependent conceptual existents". They can be distinguished by how they are defined/understood. A concrete existent is defined/understood by pointing. I point at the rock, the table, etc. A conceptual existent is defined by comparing. This can be a series or combination of pointing, but it is still a comparison and fundamentally distinguished from a concrete. The example of color is a good way to illustrate this. To understand "red" you cannot simply point at an apple or look at an apple. Objectively all you see is "apple". The fact that it has *some* color is only understand by, then, seeing a green apple for instance. With two red apples you still only understand "apple". However with two differently-colored apples you now understand that what you previously termed "apple" is broad, that the term "apple" can refer to objects with a different quality. You can then name the different objects as "green apple, red apple, etc.". However, you still only understand the color as a comparison to what it is NOT. These are conceptual existents. Other examples are "up", "justice", and "dishonest". They are all ultimately understood by comparison of two or more concrete existents. Again, I do not think this is at odds with the fundamental core of objectivism. I am saying that red, big, etc. exist, but that they are simply fundamentally different than table, rock, and tree. Also these are fundamentally different from "indivisible constituent", an independent existent. Finally, it's true that the actual nature of the indivisible is irrelevant to philosophy, philosophy simply says that there is one. Its architecture/shape is the primary study of physics. Whether there is just one or fifteen trillion is also the primary study of physics. Philosophy, in starting from axioms, states that there is at least one.

Thanks everyone, very much, I know you all took a good bit of time with this. By the way, to avoid confusion, by "language" I do not mean symbols or sounds even, but simply a set of rules. A good example is, picturing two continuous (indivisible, undeformable) spheres approaching and coming to 0 distance, what is the rule that governs their behavior? Well, at 0 distance the rule is that distance must then increase. This is self-evident and we term it "collision" which gives rise to repulsion between entities. I called this, possibly in error, language. I'm not sure what else I would term it. I think a lot of the problem is that I'm starting from a different context than objectivism and I did not see that at first. As one poster said, I am starting from a point termed "rationalism". With my lack of experience I confused the two philosophies. I have studied practically no philosophy in my lifetime so thank everyone for your patience. I believe objectivists essentially start from Descartes' "I think therefore I am" point? Their consciousness and perception precedes everything. Their constant experience and perception IS existence, they need no definition, it simply IS. Existence simply IS because they perceive/identify/are conscious; existence is what they perceive. Do I have this correct? Assuming that is correct, I do not have a problem with it. I do not deny my consciousness, my perception, my existence, nor any other existence. However, in the interest of objectivity, I am compelled to ask "What exists independent of me?". This is not in the interest of removing myself from or denying my existence, but rather gauging the effect of my consciousness. I can imagine that, indeed, there are entities with shape and location (indivisibles) whether I ever point to them or think of them or, by extension, whether there is ever consciousness. However, immediately upon gaining consciousness I must accept (even implicitly) my consciousness and existence. These do not exist independent of my consciousness (to avoid contradictoin) and I would call them dependent existences whereas I would call indivisible objects independent existences. This does not make dependent existences any less "real" because I have accepted them implicitly, axiomatically. However it is unavoidable that they be distinguished from independent existences in order to avoid self-contradiction and maintain consistency. I conclude that the effect of my consciousness is the existence of my consciousness as a dependent existent. Additionally, all of my thoughts are dependently existent and any concept is a dependent existent (if it is a concept that is a relationship among concretes). So the table is a dependent existent, if I were not conscious and nothing else was there is no "table" here, only a collection of fundamental constituents. However, I exist, my consciousness exists, I identify, and I identify the table. Therefore by virtue of my identification/consciousness the table exists. I do not think this technically disagrees with objectivist philosophy, I hope that it merely clarifies. I do not see a way around distinguishing independent and dependent existents (entities?) if one is to maintain objectivity. I also do not see any reason that making this distinction interferes with the current core of objectivist philosophy.

"I suggest looking into the idea of an ostensive definition. "Exist" is an axiomatic concept." -DavidOdden An ostensive definition is exactly that which I use to define "exist": That which has shape and location. I can theoretically point at anything that has shape and location. I cannot point at that which lacks shape or location. One cannot ostensibly define anything that does not have shape and location. Did you read my opening post? "Language precedes consciousness." -David In the sense that a language is a set of rules/laws. There can be no consciousness (no goal-directed activity) if there are no rules. Therefore, the universe must behave in accordance with specific rules. Language/rules/laws inherently give rise to goal-directed activity. "What is a "fundamental constituent"? I'm managed to not refer to such a thing previously in my life, so I'd like to know what it's an alternative name for." -David I already defined it in my opening post. Did you read it? It is a continuous object, not made of smaller objects.

How can anything have meaning if the words composing it are undefined? Language precedes consciousness. If we are to discuss and inquire the language must absolutely be unambiguous. If we leave it at "self-evident" then how am I to know that, when I utter "exist" and someone else does, we are communicating effectively? Even more to the point, when I communicate with myself, i.e. think, how do I know what I'm talking about unless the word "exist" is unambiguously defined? I think some are misunderstanding me. Please listen carefully. There are abstract concepts and concrete concepts. When you utter "justice" you are uttering a concept (no shape or location) that refers to a relationship among concrete objects (a judge or a courtroom, or whatever it is you associate with justice). A concept that refers to a relationship among concrete objects is relevant to existence. This can be distinguished from when someone utters "rotation of a tribar". A tribar is not a concrete object (it lacks location) and thus any relationship involving it is an abstract concept (a concept with no relevance to existence). Thus, sounds/symbols that refer to a relationship among concretes cannot be said to exist because the symbol does not refer to that which has shape and location. It refers to a RELATIONSHIP among those that have shape and location. In a universe with no life there would be no relationships because there would be no consciousness to name and categorize them. There would just be a collection of FC's changing location. Relationships do not have an independent "existence" whereas concrete objects have shape and location independent of the presence of life. This seems an important distinction to me. khaight: You posted that just before I posted. Thank you very much for your well thought out post, I will need to think on it a while. For the time being, though, I do not see how one can avoid "fundamental constituent". Denying it results in an infinite loop paradox.

So objectivists define "entity" as shape+location and exist as?

I hear many objectivists saying "consciousness exists" or "perception exists" when, according to the definition of exist (shape and location), they cannot be said to exist. They are concrete concepts, not concrete objects. Consciousness does not have location in my brain anymore than justice has location in a courthouse.

I would like to state outright that I am not an anti-objectivist. I am just someone who, after learning some about objectivism, has some unresolved issues. First off, I must state an axiom that I have not heard elsewhere. Perhaps it is not axiomatic, but I consider it beyond refute: One or more fundamental constituent(s) exist. I consider this irrefutable because, without a fundamental constituent, there is instant paradox. It would imply that there are no true concrete entities because all such entities would be made of other entities which are made of other entities. Nothing would have shape because shape is defined by a border, thus there would be no concretes. A collection of concretes separated by space does not possess shape, they are simply a collection of concretes with a specific spatial arrangement. One could IMAGINE drawing lines between each concrete and giving it a shape, but this is artificial. Only that which is not composed of parts INHERENTLY has shape (i.e. has a border all by itself, without human conceptualization). Therefore, I submit that the universe is, objectively, only fundamental constituents changing location by interacting (touching) each other. Now, I believe my definition of exist is in agreement with the objectivist community: Exist: Shape and location Therefore, the computer in front of me exists because it has a perceivable shape and I can establish a distance between it and the wall. The leprechaun I am imagining does not exist because I cannot establish a distance between the leprechaun in my head and the wall. It has shape but no location. I divide objects into two categories: Concrete Object: Shape and location Abstract Object: Shape And concepts: Concrete Concept: Relationship among concrete objects Abstract Concept: Relationship among abstract objects Therefore, the circles and squares of geometry are abstract objects. They are conceptually 2-D, I can visualize something in 2-D but such an object has no location. There is not a two dimensional object anywhere in the universe. I try to touch the square on the paper but I just touch ink and paper. Geometry is the study of abstract objects. On the other hand, physics is the study of concrete objects. The concrete objects of physics are conceptually composed of the abstract objects of geometry, but these geometrical shapes have no existence on their own. Now, I have difficulty with the statement that "consciousness exists". I think my difficulty is a tendency to veer toward what you call "reductionism". To state that consciousness exists begs the question "what is consciousness?". If it is defined as the motion and interaction of fundamental constituents (FCs) resulting in goal-directed/purpose-driven activity, then it does not exist. The word used this way is a concept, it is a relationship among concretes, specifically their spatial arrangement and motion. Now, I do not "deny consciousness", for me this is simply a matter of consistency of definitions. We have one definition of exist and it simply cannot be used another way. I cannot establish a distance between consciousness and the wall, it does not have location, it does not exist. However, I do not deny goal-directed activity (life). To even make this inquiry requires it. It is axiomatic because of language. Language is simply a set of rules/laws. Rules inherently produce goal-directed activity whereas having no rules does not. The universe must obey laws/rules because this is the only way to produce inquiries about laws/rules. This is purely an issue of defining the words we use in speech in a single way and always using it that way.