1. Is it fair to say that physicalism is your most fundamental view here, since it seems to be the primary basis for your rejection of universals? — aletheist
If ideas are not properly characterized as nonphysical existents, then what exactly are they?
What minimum interval of time is required for an object to become a different object - i.e., something with different properties?
I wouldn't personal use the phrase "most fundamental," but it's definitely one of my core views. — Terrapin Station
Ideas, and all mental phenomena, are specific brain states. — Terrapin Station
An object changing or in motion is what time is in my ontology. — Terrapin Station
So whatever the smallest change would be, including the smallest relational change with respect to other objects. — Terrapin Station
"Existence before essence" means that presence (whatever it might be) has primacy over associated properties (essence). — TheWillowOfDarkness
I guess what I meant to ask is this: Do you reject the reality of universals because you embrace physicalism, or do you embrace physicalism because you reject the reality of universals? — aletheist
In that case, how is it that multiple brains can instantiate the same idea, or that a single brain can maintain the same idea over time? Or is it your view that no two ideas (brain states) are truly the same? — aletheist
As a thought experiment, what if one object changes, but another does not (at all)? Has time passed for the second object, simply because the first object changed, no matter how spatially distant the two objects are? — aletheist
what is the smallest possible change, and how much time does it take for it to happen? Said another way, how many changes occur to an object in one second of time - i.e., how many different objects come into and out of existence during that interval? — aletheist
Don't leave out "in this way"... that "the world logically precedes what we say about it". — Banno
With common objects, that it is a chair and that it exists are much the same. With humans, that they are and what they are differ - at least while they have the capacity for choice. — Banno
And precedes is ambiguous. — Banno
What about final causation, which is often subsequent (temporally) to the effect? — aletheist
Even most efficient causation is really simultaneous with the effect, rather than prior to it; e.g., application of force to a mass causes acceleration, which ceases when the force is removed. — aletheist
Some people use "cause" as a synonym for "reason"--a la "what's the reason" for something, where they're looking for an explanation or simply for something to be put into other words. That's different than a cause in the other sense. You seemed to be conflating the two at times. — Terrapin Station
With common objects, that it is a chair and that it exists are much the same. With humans, that they are and what they are differ - at least while they have the capacity for choice. — Banno
I see them as consistent with each other, not dependent on each other. — Terrapin Station
The smallest possible change is just the slightest motion or change of position (of at least a part or a relation to another object then). Time "passing" simply is these changes. — Terrapin Station
"Final cause" refers to the intent which brings about the existence of the object. — Metaphysician Undercover
The acceleration is subsequent to the application of force ... — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, there are times when people use "reason" to be synonymous with "cause", but not all uses of "reason" are synonymous with "cause". When "reason" is used as synonymous with "cause", then a temporal order is implied. — Metaphysician Undercover
Does this entail that space and time are discrete, rather than continuous? If not, why not? — aletheist
The point is measurement problems are incohrent because one does not achieve knowledge by relying on a set of associated properties.
To understand a state, one has to grasp the thing that exists. "Essence" is not a description or measurement of anything. It's just someone pretending to know what something must be. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't know why you'd say that we can't separate what is said from what it is about so that one logically precedes the other. — Terrapin Station
But that intent is not realized until the object exists and is employed for that — aletheist
Besides, human purposes are not the only kind of final cause. — aletheist
No, the (instantaneous) acceleration is simultaneous with the application of the force; F=ma at any given time. — aletheist
Someone could say, "What's the cause of the ∃ symbol in logic?" Where what they're asking is for an explanation of it: "It's the existential quantifier--you can read it as 'there exists a(n)'" — Terrapin Station
Can we be clear that for Sartre "existence precedes essence" only in the case of humans.
What is special about people, as opposed to chairs and hills, is that they get to choose what they are. — Banno
I don't understand what you mean by the intent is not realized until later ... — Metaphysician Undercover
Could you give me an example of final cause which is not human intent? — Metaphysician Undercover
F=ma is not an expression of causation though. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.