Two objects in the same place at the same time?

Don Wade

It has been written that: "The laws of science states that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time." Yet many of us are also familiar with the concepts of quantum mechanics that speaks of "waves" occupying the same space at the same time. I would like to offer an alternative view.
A thought experiment: Picture an apple placed on a table. We could state that no other apple, or orange, can occupy the same space, at the same time. However, what seems to be overlooked is - there are probably seeds in the apple even though the seeds are hidden inside the apple. The statement I believe I can make is: the seeds of the apple are occupying some of the same space as the apple itself. Therefore, two objects are, in fact, occupying the same space at the same time. The physical volume of the apple-seed is also the same physical volume as a part of the apple. Part of the problem of the original laws of science is: many people are probably thinking of two objects of approximately the same size occupying the same space.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪Don Wade

If the space that an object occupies is defined by the object's gravity, we see that objects overlap each other in space. The moon's gravity is effective here on earth, and so is the sun's. So it's really a matter of how you define the boundaries of an object. This is evident as well, in your competent example.

Don Wade

↪Metaphysician Undercover

"So it's really a matter of how you define the boundaries of an object." Speaking in generalities, I don't believe the boundaries of objects influenced what science has said about two objects occupying the same space at the same time. In some circumstances what you said is correct but, generally I don't believe boundaries are part of how we generally define objects.

deletedmemberTB

Using that line of reasoning, could we not conclude that Earth is occupying the same space as the Milky Way or even that your head is occupying the same space as the entire known universe?

What point of logic are we attempting to advance here?

Don Wade

↪Tres Bien

"What point of logic are we attempting to advance here?" Thank you! That is exactly what I was attempting to advance. Typically, our vision is very myopic - which has led us up to making statements such as; "no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time". You've just demonstrated there are many such instances where different objects occupy the same space at the same time. I define that phenomenon as "Levels". Stated simply, levels is the "hierarchy" of property groupings. The brain can only deal with a few (limited) properties at the same time, so the "objects" created by our brains are also very limited. We can visualize the apple; but we cannot visualize the apple, (and the seed), at the same time. The apple, and the seed, are two different property groupings.The brain cannot visualize two property-groupings at the same time, so it will attempt to group them toether such as we have learned in Gestalt. The rules of Gestalt then governs what we "see".

deletedmemberTB

↪Don Wade

Can we conclude, then, according to that line of reasoning, since an apple and a seed inside that apple occupy the same space, the descriptions of the space occupied by each would be identical?

Indeed, an assertion that an apple and its seed occupy the same space is easily demonstrated by describing the space that each occupies.

Further, can we not also conclude, therefore, that there is only one "space" in the entirety of the known universe?

It's starting to sound like this little intraversable [newly minted] rabbit hole is going to require a fair bit of camouflage to disguise the nature of its many contradictions.

Don Wade

↪Tres Bien

"It's starting to sound like this little intraversable [newly minted] rabbit hole is going to require a fair bit of camouflage to disguise the nature of its many contradictions." Contradictions may be illusions in our mind. Example: "Sorites Paradox": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox . The mind does not envision the concept that the pile of sand is made up of grains of sand because we think in property-groups. The group of properties that define the grain of sand is not the same properties that define a pile of sand - therefore the mind does not recognize both at the same time. Take another example: The "Rubin Vase":https://www.bing.com/search?q=Rubin%20Vase&pc=cosp&ptag=G6C9A11441EEDE3&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127 . The mind cannot reconize the face, and the vases, at the same time. Our minds tell us what is "real", and what isn't. I believe we just need to understand more of how our minds work - not just accept what we believe to be true.

Wayfarer

↪Don Wade

Hey Don - ever heard the expression 'angels dancing on the head of a pin'? It is usually used to contemptuously dismiss Medieval metaphysics by showing what ridiculous nonsense they debated. However, its' essentially the same argument. It started with a dispute about whether two angels could occupy the same location. Don't ask me the details, I don't know them, but I thought it worth mentioning.

Kenosha Kid

The statement I believe I can make is: the seeds of the apple are occupying some of the same space as the apple itself. — Don Wade

There are gaps in the middle of the apple for the seeds to occupy. That ain't a coincidence.

Don Wade

↪Wayfarer

I guess some folks see philosophy itself as being rdiculous nonsense.

Don Wade

↪Kenosha Kid

It is still a part of the apple, and occupies some of the same space.

Kenosha Kid

↪Don Wade

Yes, my nose is part of me and occupies some of the same space as the whole of me, since the whole of me includes my nose. That's implicit in it being a part. What you've got here is a case of double counting: a part (the seed) plus the whole (the apple including all of its seeds).

Don Wade

↪Kenosha Kid

When the apple is envisioned, the seeds are not included in the vision, and when the seeds are envisioned, the apple is not a part of the vision. The mind does not envision both at the same time. That is why we can conclude no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. We envision either the seed, or the apple, but not both at the same time. A famous example is: the Rubin Vase. One can visualize the faces, or the vase, but not at the same time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase .

Wayfarer

↪Don Wade

that wasn’t really my point, but in any case I agree with Kenosha Kid’s observations. What you’re really talking about, although possibly without realising it, is known as ‘mereology’, meaning the study of parts and wholes.

Kenosha Kid

That is why we can conclude no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. — Don Wade

I feel that probably isn't why, as shown in the example of my nose which is visible, part of me and therefore occupying the same location as part of me. I also think that early students of apples would probably have figured out that the seeds are part of the apple.

Isaac

When the apple is envisioned, the seeds are not included in the vision, and when the seeds are envisioned, the apple is not a part of the vision. The mind does not envision both at the same time. That is why we can conclude no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. — Don Wade

No, that's not what happens at all. The part of the brain doing the 'envisioning' as you put it does not deal with either the correct application of terms ('apple', 'seed') nor the matter of what is contained within what. These are all carried out by separate cortices and there's no reason at all why they need to produce a single non-contradictory result at any one time.

Two objects in the same place at the same time?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions