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. — Harry Hindu
What's the difference? — Harry Hindu
Try having an experience without eyes and a brain.
So, for example, I experience a boundary between the edge of the black text on this screen, in contrast to the whiteness of the screen, while still knowing that there is no actual boundary... — snowleopard
You perceive a boundary through sensation, but you claim that you cannot deduce a boundary. — Metaphysician Undercover
Going to need more time with this one. I think the question is important, but most of Platonic views are ones of realism, not relativism. Nothing exists as an external object, so no 'is real', but only 'is real to...'.Wait a minute, what are you talking about, "a square" or "any square". The former is a particular square, the latter is a general idea allowing for the possibility of a particular. Am I correct that you are assuming a Platonic Form, "the mathematical form itself"? Doesn't this mathematical form exist as an eternal object? — Metaphysician Undercover
Not following this. Are you talking about temporal existence? For that, the conversation requires sufficient proximity and simultaneous overlap of existence in spacetime to allow interaction. The square isn't a temporal structure, so I don't think this is what you mean.But each of us existed prior to our conversation. In order for our relationship to exist, we must exist prior to our conversation. Our conversation is a relationship, but not one that is necessary for each of our existence. — Harry Hindu
It's not worded that way in the relational view, and I've never seen it 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.
For purposes of this discussion, the relational stance says that opposite sides of squares are parallel, an ontology-independent property of parallelograms, and squares are parallelograms. — noAxioms
I see a white and gold dress. You see a black and blue dress. — Michael
But we're both looking at the same thing. — Michael
One can say that the object of perception is determined by the quality of the experience and not by the external stimulus. — Michael
Just as a painting is of a unicorn, even though there isn't a unicorn, the experience is of a unicorn, even though there isn't a unicorn. — Michael
That is exactly what 'existential quantification' means. It is not an assertion of the realism of the thing in question. But in the relational view, perhaps that is all there is.The wording ("there exists", "such that") is associated with first-order logic — Sapientia
Anyway, I want to explore this point about objects needing to be real for them to have properties and relations. Take the mandelbrot set. That set cannot be instantiated by any means known. We can sample it a bit and print pretty pictures of the result of that, but it is just a sampling, not the set itself. So how can it be said that it has properties like being everywhere connected? — noAxioms
Not a physical object. I didn't use the word. It is a mathematical structure, one that can be referenced but not really instantiated. Again, I'm not talking about our awareness of the structure (it's concept), but about the structure. Only the latter has that property of being connected. The concept only has an awareness of that property.Well, it seems to me that it would make sense to start by questioning what kind of thing the mandelbrot set is. You seem to suggest above that it's an object. But is it? What makes it an object, rather than anything else? — Sapientia
Not a physical object. I didn't use the word. It is a mathematical structure, one that can be referenced but not really instantiated. Again, I'm not talking about our awareness of the structure (it's concept), but about the structure. Only the latter has that property of being connected. The concept only has an awareness of that property.
I can draw a crude depiction of the set the same way I can draw a crude square. Neither of them has the properties we've been discussing, but it's all the instantiation either is likely to have. — noAxioms
Ah yes, so I did. And we're not using the word to mean physical objects.I used the word, "object", as you did. I said nothing of physical objects. — Sapientia
I admit that the word has connotations of being a member of something bigger. Earth is an object, but the universe isn't really thought of that way, unless in context of something larger like a god and his creation-object that he puts on the shelf next to his five other ones. So I suppose it was careless language use since those connotations are not intended. A side of a square is an object of sorts more than is the structure that is the square that is not in a larger context like a coordinate system.You said that you want to explore this point about objects needing to be real for them to have properties and relations, and, in relation to this, you seemed to be taking the Mandelbrot set as an example of an object. You are also calling it a mathematical structure. But, is the latter what you're saying it is specifically, or is it what you're saying it is instead of an object?
Well the OP mentioned that it removes the perplexing question of how existence comes to exist. I can't say how it was created since that puts existence inside the larger context of time, reducing it to an 'object'. Objects in our universe get created. The concept is confined to the rules here.Anyway, what I'm interested in, is what the consequences of committing to the alternative stance would be. That is, if objects don't need to be real to have properties and relations, then what does that entail? Anything of significance?
Well thank you for giving it fair consideration. Most of the responses have been knee-jerk protests based on assumptions of realist views. And hey, I identified as a realist for some time, but I'm learning not to identify as anything, because that just closes you off to further exploration. There are few stances I've not given fair consideration. I don't think idealism is incompatible with physicalism. Both are relational views, but relative to different things. Mine is sort of a generalization, but minus a fundamental core of reality.On the face of it, it seems to be right to say, for example, that a property of a unicorn is that it has a horn, or that a property of the Mandelbrot set is that it is complex or contains numbers. But you ask how it is that things like unicorns, which are not real, can have properties. That's a good question. There does seem to be something counterintuitive about that. I'm going to give this encyclopaedia entry on nonexistent objects a read, as I think that it relates.
Anyway, what I'm interested in, is what the consequences of committing to the alternative stance would be. That is, if objects don't need to be real to have properties and relations, then what does that entail? Anything of significance? — Sapientia
..or a multiverse.I admit that the word has connotations of being a member of something bigger. Earth is an object, but the universe isn't really thought of that way, unless in context of something larger like a god and his creation-object that he puts on the shelf next to his five other ones. — noAxioms
Surely I'm not the first to consider all this. It must have a name and maybe an article somewhere. — noAxioms
Non-relational use of 'existence', so no . We can converse partly because of our existence in relation to each other. That is not a sufficient condition. It also requires the relation of 'can interact'. I have only the former relation with Napoleon, and thus cannot converse with him. I have questionable existence in relation to Napoleon. I was presuming (as I stated many posts back) a mono-world deterministic interpretation of QM. If not, even that relation goes away.Is your existence dependent upon the existence of our conversation? — Harry Hindu
Not much difference. There is the additional relationship of 'can experience' that I have with the moon.What is the difference between the relationship of the Moon and a mailbox and the moon and yourself? Doesn't the differences lie in the attributes that make up the objects of those relationships?
Yes, it would need a relationship with something else in order for it to exist, and then only in relation to said other thing, degrading the 'no-longer-universe' to a component within a larger structure. For example, for there to be a way for a non-deterministic interpretation of QM to work, there would need to be a relationship between the physical sub-structure and whatever is rolling the dice for it.And you keep cherry-picking my post, ignoring the point I keep making about the universal structure itself needing a relationship with something else in order for it to exist. How do you prevent yourself from falling into an infinite regress?
I am using 'universe' as 'the whole structure'. Multiverse is another term for this, with multiple universes. I would alternatively call the complete structure 'the universe' with multiple worlds. The difference is just choice of terminology. For example, distant (say 30BLY away) stars do not exist in relation to our solar system. There is no direct relation between us. So the natural QM fit is the relational interpretation where the state of one thing is defined strictly in terms of specific other states. Such and such is true in relation to Alice, but a different state of affairs is the case for Bob or Bob a minute hence or the cat in the box. Other worlds do not exist in relation to any of them...or a multiverse.
Haven't watched it yet. The summary you give seems true of realism as well, so not sure if it is what I'm seeking.It must have a name and maybe an article somewhere.
— noAxioms
Process philosophy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6cDp0C-I8
"The universe is a set of relationships between relationships, between relationships - all of which change over time. None of these relationships is ever static."
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.