Finite existence

Metaphysics and Epistemology
21

I think this point is important. You must realize that “space” is a relational concept and as such only describes relationships among entities and is not itself an entity, therefore it need not be bound by such limitations as finitude.

So since space is not material, it can not possess and edge, only entities possess edges.

I think this is interesting and it could very well be correct, but why couldn’t space be an existent? Given how Einstein’s theory of relativity works, space (and time) seems to be something more than just relations. When the Earth makes one full rotation around the sun, it hasn’t in fact rotated 360 degrees due to “frame dragging.” 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.

22

That may be how many interpret relativity theory … but no. Even under the mathematical framework of relativity theory, space and time (taken inseparably together) are relationships among entities.

23

That may be how many interpret relativity theory … but no. Even under the mathematical framework of relativity theory, space and time (taken inseparably together) are relationships among entities.

Tell me again why relations between existents cannot themselves be existents?

24

They are existents, that is they exist, but they are not entities, but attributes (more specifically relationships among) entities.

25

This passage might clear things up further:

…entities are the only primary existents (Attributes cannot exist by themselves, they are merely the characteristics of entities; motions are motions of entities; relationships are relationships of entties).

  • Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology page 18.

And this:

  1. An entity means a self-sufficent form of existence - as agaisntg a quality, an action, a relationship, etc, which are simply aspects of an entity; that we sepeerate out by specialized focus. An entity is a thing.
  • Leonard Peikoff, 'The Philosophy of Objectivism"
26

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. E__ntities have edges. Liquids have edges. Space is not an entity.

27

E__ntities 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. <_<

28

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 <_< .

29

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:

30

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.

31

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.

32

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:

33

I understand that space *could* be a relation, but what if space is ether-like, essentially a liquid? Then it would be an entity. I for one have not totally given up on the ether.

34

Then it would be an entity.

And so?

35

“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!

:wink:

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.

36

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: .

37

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.

38

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.

39

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.

40

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?)