It seems the position is a form of “Ontological Relativism” or possibly “Relational Realism”. I want to explore this view, but can find little if any references to how I envision it. — noAxioms
Things exist only in relation to something (anything) else. There is no objective existence of anything, thus solving the problem of why existence exists. — noAxioms
I don't know what you mean by this, "based only on relations". I think a relation requires things that are related, and the recognition of the things is prior to the recognition of the relations. In other words we must acknowledge that there are things, before we can acknowledge that there are relations. Therefore it is impossible that there is only relations. So I would argue the exact opposite of what you are saying. Evidence that there are relations is based on the premise "there are things". Therefore the conclusion "there are only relations" is invalid because "relations" requires necessarily, that there are things which are related. — Metaphysician Undercover
Assuming that you must exist in order to argue, is not 'begging anything' and is not 'bias'. It's a simple statement of fact and not a matter for debate. — Wayfarer
If things need other things to exist and those things are defined by their relationships with other things, why would relationships themselves be excempt from this rule? Wouldn't relationships need the existence of non-relationships to exist as relationships?
— Harry Hindu
They don't need other things to exist since they don't exist. The structure simply has these relations, and those relations are independent of the existence of the structure. — noAxioms
and the recognition of the things is prior to the recognition of the relations — Metaphysician Undercover
I think I'm also saying that existence of things is not necessary for the experience of those things. Only a relationship between the experiencer and the experienced. — noAxioms
Pretty much agree. That the universe is a mathematical structure (and is not merely modeled by one) is not new. The latter half seems to be what I've been exploring, and one which I have not necessarily seen litterature, let alone even a name for the stance.
This is a key concept, demonstrating why objective ontology (or lack of it) makes no difference in the relations between different parts of the same structure.
It matters because empirical observation cannot be different, and therefore cannot be evidence one way or the other. This is an interpretation of observations, and like any interpretation, suggests no falsification test. If there is one, then it is science and the matter can be settled by running the test.Those are all relational observations.
— noAxioms
Even if they are, why does that matter? — Sapientia
That's right. There is no structure to relate to, but its components still relate to each other. A square's opposite sides are still parallel despite no explicit existence of the square. The structure still has those internal relations, and our empirical experience is nothing more than such internal relations of the structure of our universe of which we are a part, whether that structure exists or not.The nonexistent structure would still have those relations. There is something to see.
— noAxioms
That doesn't make any sense. You're committing the reification fallacy by talking about a nonexistent structure as if it exists. There would be no structure whatsoever, and nothing to relate to.
I am talking about the structure, whether it exists or not. It only needs to exist to relate to something outside the structure, and then only in relation to that outside thing. The reification fallacy concerns relating two things with different ontology (map and territory, horse and unicorn), not denial of the relation that the opposite sides of a square are parallel. The unicorn exists in my imagination, so that's a mental relation, but not in the same way I relate to a horse. So the unicorn doesn't exist in relation to the horse.There wouldn't be anything, there would be nothing. If there is something to see, then it can't be nothing. So what are you talking about? Something or nothing?
I guess I'm building from a different foundation here, experimentally perhaps. I don't really identify with any particular <something>ist, even if I have a particular distrust of anthropocentrism, or views where we're special.Well, I'm a foundationalist, because I think that being a foundationalist leads to a picture which can best reflect reality. Starting from a foundation, I can demonstrate a thing or two.
My simple example has been squares, not the concept of squares. I have examples of little universes like chess, Conway Game of Life. The chess one is interesting because it has entropy and the beginnings of quantum mechanics, but it has limited use in illustrating the point being pushed in this thread. The square seems to serve quite well for now.A concept is not the same as an instantiation. What do you want to talk about?
So squares must exist (in concept or other form) in order to have properties? My definition of a square doesn't include that requirement. The requirement seems only necessary for our knowledge of those properties, and I've really tried to emphasize that the stance is not an epistemological one.The concept of nothing, which I have no problem granting has relations, or nothing, for which there would be nothing to relate to anything, as there would only be nothing. There could only be nothing.
I'm just being logical here.
Yes, I feel it does support it. But then the argument falls apart by not solving the problem. It just adds one more turtle under the current unexplained turtle pile, and violates the spirit of the argument by asserting that no more turtles are needed. If that is a valid option, no new turtle is needed. You just declare the bottom one not to need anything to stand on just like you did with the God turtle.What could I have possibly done wrong to deserve this? Now the next point the premise "that there is something" supports the cosmological argument. You still agree? — Metaphysician Undercover
I must have absolute existence to produce an argument that has absolute existence, but my arguments are all relative to the structure of which I am a part. Nobody addresses the square. Why must it exist for its opposite sides to have the relation of being parallel? It is perhaps a valid premise to assume, but it is still just a different premise than the one being proposed here.Assuming that you must exist in order to argue, is not 'begging anything' and is not 'bias'. It's a simple statement of fact, so if you wish to take issue with facts, you will no doubt find others willing to oblige. — Wayfarer
It matters because empirical observation cannot be different, and therefore cannot be evidence one way or the other. — noAxioms
This is an interpretation of observations, and like any interpretation, suggests no falsification test. If there is one, then it is science and the matter can be settled by running the test. — noAxioms
That's right. There is no structure to relate to, but its components still relate to each other. — noAxioms
A square's opposite sides are still parallel despite no explicit existence of the square. — noAxioms
The structure still has those internal relations, and our empirical experience is nothing more than such internal relations of the structure of our universe of which we are a part, whether that structure exists or not. — noAxioms
I am talking about the structure, whether it exists or not. — noAxioms
It only needs to exist to relate to something outside the structure, and then only in relation to that outside thing. — noAxioms
Is not he "recognition of things" entirely relational .. An aware subject in relation to phenomenal objects? — snowleopard
Yes, I feel it does support it. But then the argument falls apart by not solving the problem. It just adds one more turtle under the current unexplained turtle pile, and violates the spirit of the argument by asserting that no more turtles are needed. If that is a valid option, no new turtle is needed. You just declare the bottom one not to need anything to stand on just like you did with the God turtle. — noAxioms
And if oneself is one identified thing, then it is one and the same thing, and this is not a relation, it is the simple recognition of a thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
I am going to fall back to my square again. I seem to be on my own. The view must be faulty if nobody seems to grasp what I'm trying to describe.<These:> Wat? — Sapientia
The sides of a square are parallel, a relation. That relation does not make the square exist. I'm not claiming relation prior to existence. But one side of a square exists (existential quantification, not a designation of ontology) in relation to the other sides and to the angles. This doesn't mean any of it has objective existence.I think a relation requires things that are related, and the recognition of the things is prior to the recognition of the relations. — Metaphysician Undercover
A different premise, not fact.Assuming that you must exist in order to argue, is not 'begging anything' and is not 'bias'. It's a simple statement of fact and not a matter for debate. — Wayfarer
If things need other things to exist and those things are defined by their relationships with other things, why would relationships themselves be excempt from this rule? Wouldn't relationships need the existence of non-relationships to exist as relationships?
— — Harry Hindu
They don't need other things to exist since they don't exist. The structure simply has these relations, and those relations are independent of the existence of the structure. — noAxioms
Similar, the moon and I stand in relation to each other, and so I say it exists in relation to me, but that is not a declaration of absolute ontology. Yes, the view is a form of ontological nihilism, but I've read up on nihilism, and it is something else. — noAxioms
I just quoted what I just posted above. I am not being careful with my wording. I say the moon exists, but formally I say it exists only in relation to me. We're part of the same structure.I think I'm also saying that existence of things is not necessary for the experience of those things. Only a relationship between the experiencer and the experienced.
— noAxioms
This is confusing. Are you sure you mean what you just said? How can the experience be of those things, if those things don't exist? If a unicorn doesn't exist, then I can't experience it. I can experience something resembling a unicorn, but I can't experience a unicorn. — Sapientia
It not worded that way in the relational view, and I've never seen in worded that way anywhere. It seems weak, since there are no actual squares (since there are no actual line segments or planar objects for that matter. There can be no truth to the statement above, lacking anything real to give any weight to the right side of the statement. I might have well said that if there exists a square, then it is round. That isn't false since there are no squares outside of platonism. Hence my comment that platonism would be necessarily true, but nobody uses this line of reasoning to prove platonism.That can be better put logically, as folows: if there exists a square, then it is such that its opposite sides are parallel. — Sapientia
If you are not claiming the ontological existence of anything, then what are you actually saying? You are not saying anything interesting or meaningful.Well, the wording there wasn't my best effort. I'm not claiming ontological existence of anything, or of the relations. The opposite sides of a square have a relation of being parallel. That doesn't make the square exist or the relation exist. It means that squares have that property. If only existent squares have that property, then either platonic existence is necessarily true, or the opposite sides of squares are not parallel because there are no actual squares, only abstractions/concepts, and concepts don't have sides that can be said to be parallel.
Similar, the moon and I stand in relation to each other, and so I say it exists in relation to me, but that is not a declaration of absolute ontology. Yes, the view is a form of ontological nihilism, but I've read up on nihilism, and it is something else. — noAxioms
Similar, the moon and I stand in relation to each other, and so I say it exists in relation to me — noAxioms
How can the experience be of those things, if those things don't exist? If no unicorns exist, then I can't have an experience of a unicorn. I can experience something resembling a unicorn, but I can't experience a unicorn. How could I ever encounter one? — Sapientia
No, what I am is not a thing at all. There's awareness ... There's the contents of awareness ... but there's no actual boundary and no 'out there.' So it does seem that any relation is dependent upon an apparent duality. — snowleopard
The sides of a square are parallel, a relation. That relation does not make the square exist. I'm not claiming relation prior to existence. But one side of a square exists (existential quantification, not a designation of ontology) in relation to the other sides and to the angles. This doesn't mean any of it has objective existence. — noAxioms
Similar, the moon and I stand in relation to each other, and so I say it exists in relation to me, but that is not a declaration of absolute ontology. Yes, the view is a form of ontological nihilism, but I've read up on nihilism, and it is something else. — noAxioms
just quoted what I just posted above. I am not being careful with my wording. I say the moon exists, but formally I say it exists only in relation to me. We're part of the same structure. — noAxioms
So you have relations without boundaries, how? — Metaphysician Undercover
One could also say that the state of the sensory organs and the brain, along with the state of the object being perceived by said sensory organs, help determine what is experienced.I see a white and gold dress. You see a black and blue dress. But we're both looking at the same thing. One can say that the object of perception is determined by the quality of the experience and not by the external stimulus. — Michael
We are having this conversation since we stand in relation to each other, through this forum as well as other means. That is what ontology is in the relational view. The question is not "does A exist?", but rather "does A exist to B". You among others are reaching for non-relational assumptions. So the universe exists to me and you, and that means we can have this conversation.If you are not claiming the ontological existence of anything, then what are you actually saying? You are not saying anything interesting or meaningful.
Are you describing a state-of-affairs that exists, or no? Are we actually having this conversation or no? — Harry Hindu
Not a consciousness thing. The moon stands in relation to my mailbox, so each exists to the other, despite neither having awareness of each other.Really, when it comes down to it, all of these conscious machinations are doing nothing to address the 'hard problem' -- i.e. what is consciousness? — snowleopard
Not talking about a square in my mind. Talking about any square, the mathematical form itself, and not merely the concept of it, which would require a relation with a conceiver.OK, I'll see if I can make sense of this. You are assuming "a square", that is your premise. Now you are talking about the sides of that square. It is all in your mind, the square and the sides, so you say that it has no objective existence — Metaphysician Undercover
The moon stands in relation to my mailbox, so each exists to the other, despite neither having awareness of each other. — noAxioms
Perhaps we're running into some issue of semantics here. — snowleopard
Not talking about a square in my mind. Talking about any square, the mathematical form itself, and not merely the concept of it, which would require a relation with a conceiver. — noAxioms
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.