Is Everything Really Just One Thing?

[Zantra]

But is a "collection" a "thing" or "many things"...that's part of the point of the original question.

The simple answer is that it is both simultaneously. Think of it this way. A woman can be a wife, mother,daughter, friend, etc all at the same time. It just depends on how you look at it. The same applies.

 

[Mentat]

The simple answer is that it is both simultaneously. Think of it this way. A woman can be a wife, mother,daughter, friend, etc all at the same time. It just depends on how you look at it. The same applies.

I agree with you entirely, I was merely countering a dogmatic statement (advocatus diaboli, remember?).

 

[Canute]

Why? If we get a good explanation of what it means for something to "come into existence" and then explain how it's accomplished...well, we could (in principle) apply that explanation across the board to an infinite number of objects...right?

I'm not so sure. If they are all the same thing then maybe you could argue that. But suppose, for instance, that mind and matter are two different substances. In this case each can come into existence independently, and in fact must come into existence independently. We would then need two theories of creation rather than one. If there is a third thing then we would need three theories. It seems to me that we would also need three 'first causes'. At this time even one makes no sense, that there were three would be astonishing.

I think I'm with Bartholomew on this one. Plurality is the appearance of plurality, the 'ten thousand things' that arise from what is fundamental, or perhaps, that are the appearance of what is fundamental as seen from one perspective.

 

[Mentat]

Just to through this in here...

Are any of you familiar with Putnam's analogy about the square peg into a circular hole...is it a property of any of it's constituents that doesn't allow them to go into the hole? Clearly not. But, as a whole, it is an obvious problem.

Just thought I'd mention that.

 

[Mentat]

I'm not so sure. If they are all the same thing then maybe you could argue that. But suppose, for instance, that mind and matter are two different substances. In this case each can come into existence independently, and in fact must come into existence independently.

Why? Is there a logical necessity, or is it just improbable?

At this time even one makes no sense, that there were three would be astonishing.

I wouldn't say that one "makes no sense" (sorry, Wuliheron), it's just hard to conceive when you don't consider it an a prori necessity that something exist. Indeed, if nothing existed, then there would be no time or space, so there would be "something" in no time .

 

[Canute]

Why? Is there a logical necessity, or is it just improbable?

I suppose it's just improbable (from our pov anyway). If x is a fundamental substance or entity then it's hard to explain (in scientific terms) why it should exist, rather than nothing at all. But that problem is magnified many times if y is also fundamental. By definition (both x and y are fundamental) they would have to come into existence independently, by pure coincidence with no connection between them. It seems less improbable to say that there is one 'thing' that is fundamental, and all else arises from that.

The trouble is that logically a thing that is one thing cannot have parts, and a thing with no parts cannot have physical extension (it must all be in the same 'place' cf Leibnitz)). This is one of the problems of monism as a doctrine. If it weren't for this problem (and other related problems) then monism would be an accepted philosophical doctrine. As it is many philosophers raise objections to it. Another problem is the one we're discussing, namely how can something that is one thing also be many things, a problem for Parmeneides and philosophers ever since.

I wouldn't say that one "makes no sense" (sorry, Wuliheron), it's just hard to conceive when you don't consider it an a prori necessity that something exist. Indeed, if nothing existed, then there would be no time or space, so there would be "something" in no time .

What I meant was that as yet philosophers and scientists have not made sense of it. Whether it really doesn't make sense or it's just that we are not thinking straight is still a matter of philosophical debate. Physicist Paul Davies speculates that we're not thinking straight (or we're thinking too straight) and Colin McGinn suggests that we are not capable of working it out. On the other hand Alan Guth speculates that science may be able to develop a coherent theory of ex nihilo creation. For myself ex nihilo creation is a daft idea, betraying desperation, but it seems difficult to show that it's impossible. Mathematician Robert Kaplan suggests that this fundamental 'something' is so singular that we cannot think about it, but he takes a rather 'Eastern' view of things.

I don't know if it's what you were referring to but yes, Taoists and the like say that plurality arises from 'something' which contains or gives rise to spacetime, the inverted commas signifying that it is not a 'thing' in the usual sense of the word, since it is both one and many at the same time.

 

[the_truth]

a+b+c+d+e+f does not equal a+b+c

problem solved

 

[Mentat]

a+b+c+d+e+f does not equal a+b+c

problem solved

But if a, b, c, d, e, and f are all of the same substance (different ways of referring to the same thing), then plurality -- in the typical sense of the term -- wouldn't really apply to this case, would it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

But if a, b, c, d, e, and f are all of the same substance (different ways of referring to the same thing), then plurality -- in the typical sense of the term -- wouldn't really apply to this case, would it?

Sure it does. Do you think all the grains of sand are the same one? They are the same KIND of thing - sand grains - but each one is unique.

 

[the_truth]

4 perfect spheres of platinum sitting side by side on a table. Exactly the same mass. 2 are taken and melted together and the finished product which is exactly double the mass of one of the untouched spheres is placed on the table with the 2 spheres. A person walks into the room, takes the 2 untouched spheres and states 'I am holding the same object which is on the table.'. Is he right?

 

[Mentat]

Sure it does. Do you think all the grains of sand are the same one? They are the same KIND of thing - sand grains - but each one is unique.

I was trying to keep the anti-plurality argument alive...I seem to be alone in this now...but I'll keep kickin' this dead horse 'till it neighs!

How do we define "unique"? What makes a single grain of sand different from others? If we consider consciousness as a continuity of awareness, then would the experience of seeing one grain be of the same continuous experience as that of seeing any other grain? Could they be considered the same in that sense?

 

[Mentat]

4 perfect spheres of platinum sitting side by side on a table. Exactly the same mass. 2 are taken and melted together and the finished product which is exactly double the mass of one of the untouched spheres is placed on the table with the 2 spheres. A person walks into the room, takes the 2 untouched spheres and states 'I am holding the same object which is on the table.'. Is he right?

Is he right to say that he's holding the object that "is on the table"? Or do you mean to ask if he's holding the same object as those that used to be on the table?

 

[Mentat]

You know what? I'm going to quit now. I was going to play Advocatus Diaboli for a while longer, but this is even more pointless than usual. Plurality is an obvious necessity, even if just for reference purposes (what other purposes there could be, I don't know).

 

[PIT2]

Sure it does. Do you think all the grains of sand are the same one? They are the same KIND of thing - sand grains - but each one is unique.

You could view them as a whole, which contains all the properties of the smaller 'parts'.

The whole sandpile would be even more unique than one unique sandgrain.

 

[Bartholomew]

It is not right to say that one area of the universe cannot be differentiated from another area of the universe. But because it is impossible to pin down any boundaries on any real object, the idea of counting objects "1, 2, 3..." is only a convenience, with no greater significance than that it helps us think.

 

[Zantra]

ok I'll be a total geek and use the star trek reference (no I'm not a trekkie, but it's pop culture). So anyhow, the Borg are incapable of individuality- I think this in a sense is what mentat is getting at. If we thought like the Borg, there would be no singularity. I think this goes to the core of humanity- uniqueness is what separates us, and thus requires definition.

If we were like the Borg, and we were all alike with the same thoughts, wishes, bodies, etc then we could say that plurality was unecessary, but as human individuals who are each unique, plurality doesn't fit into context. This naturally extends to the world around us. Our need for infinitessimal definition leads us to break things down. This can be applied universally. you can't just sum up the universe as a bunch of galaxies, because those galaxies have solar systems, which have planets, and so on and so forth.

This leads into unified theory and knowing everything from the smallest particles to the all encompassing universal existence in all it's forms (planes, etc). But I digress..

Plurality necessitates individuality, which is a core part of humanity, and thus for us plurality must exist or we lose ourselves to conformity in a sense.

 

[the_truth]

Plurality is a method of understanding occurances.

"2 armies marching towards each other" is easier to understand than "Bill Colins of hubberswick armed with a spear walking next to Darren harbsworth armed with a sword walking next to ... Jaques Larien armed with a potatoe peeler"

If we were omnipotent we would probably list all the details.

2 objects are not the same if they do not occupy the same space

2 identical objects with identical properties do not share the same property of being in the same sarea of space at the same time, otherwise I would not use the plural term objects


Are there still any pluralists out there?

 

[kcballer21]

Plurality is an obvious necessity, even if just for reference purposes (what other purposes there could be, I don't know).

Plurality necessitates individuality, which is a core part of humanity, and thus for us plurality must exist or we lose ourselves to conformity in a sense

I just want to say that I agree with both of these statements. But just because humans find it necessary that plurality exists, and although we find comfort in the fact that it seems to exist, this does not mean that plurality does exist.

Our need to be individuals (or to be existing as distinct 'things') may cloud our reasoning abilities. It reminds of the free will argument, in which I think many are persuaded to believe that there is free will largely because it would be depressing if there wasn't. If there aren't separate parts, then essentially we do not exist (I can admit that is a little depressing). But even if this were the case, I personally do not find it troubling that our reality may be less than we once thought, even if just some illusion.

I still think that I think, even though Parmenides tells me that there is no such thing as thinking in a differentiated sense. Whatever it is we are experiencing at least feels real, and that is worth something.

I still find it hard to wrap my mind around the question "If you take one atom away from a human, is that human still a human? What about two? What about taken away enough atoms that the human is now only barely visible? At what point did the switch from human to nonhuman occur?" It seems more plausible that it just seems like there is a plurality of atoms that consititute things, when in reality there is just one thing. I find Parmenides theory to be inescapable, I don't see how it could ever be disproven.

 

[Loren Booda]

All pluralities can be reduced to a series of dualities.

 

[Canute]

Good point. It's one that's been made by many people over the millenia, that dualism is a conceptual error. On the individuality and plurality of human beings the Upanishads assert it is an illusion. Usually this view is associated with Buddhism, Taoism etc, but Erwin Schroedinger argued the same.

 

[the_truth]

"But just because humans find it necessary that plurality exists"

I find it necessary because I am not omnipotent, there is no way can understand absolutely everything. Instead I categorize occurances so that I can understand more complex occurances with my level of intelligence. I don't actually believe that the plurals that I create are actually 1 body, though I do give them properties and assume that they can be created, destroyed and reorganized so they have different properties etc etc etc... I know fully well that it exists as a definition of what it is and nothing else.

I do not find it necessary because if I didn't use it I would go insane. I accept that I am not omnipotent.

I'm not!

Neither are you!


People believe they have free will because they sit there and think to themselves 'I do not have the will power to boil my hand to the bone, whilst being fully conscious of the pain and able to simply pull my hand out. However I do have the will to throw a pencil across the room.'. You can't willingly ignore something because it doesn't suit you, if you know it is true you must acknowledge it, it is impossible to do otherwise.

I'm not sure why you believe otherwise, are you a member of a political group? You have to be lying or mislead or something. I cannot recall any time in my life when I have done this. Sometimes I am bored and can't be botherred to find out why something works and just do it anyway, but only becasue I have seen other people do a certain action succesfully. Sometimes I have lied or been mislead, when somone plays a practical joke on me or I just tell someone sometihng so they stop botherring me. Though in each case I have reacted to what I believe to be true and not contrary to what I believe to be true.

You are either lying or have been mislead. I think you are communist or something because communists believe they have the level of intelligence to manage an entire country, often disallowing firms to micro-manage themselves. They believe quasi-omnipotence is attainable and not restricted to the IQ of a single person.

Or maybe I have been mislead? By mislead I mean mislead by a mixture of both other people and my own observations, I'm open, but stubborn.

 

[kcballer21]

"But just because humans find it necessary that plurality exists"

I find it necessary because I am not omnipotent, there is no way can understand absolutely everything. Instead I categorize occurances so that I can understand more complex occurances with my level of intelligence. I don't actually believe that the plurals that I create are actually 1 body, though I do give them properties and assume that they can be created, destroyed and reorganized so they have different properties etc etc etc... I know fully well that it exists as a definition of what it is and nothing else.
I do not find it necessary because if I didn't use it I would go insane. I accept that I am not omnipotent.
I'm not!
Neither are you!

I believe that my position is one that reflects how ignorant of reality I surely must be, I believe I am pretty much the opposite of omnipotence. To me it would be just as legitimate to state that there is just "the existent" as it would be to state there is a plurality, at least judging by the seeming impossibility to provide absolute proof either way (especially since one of the positions argues that proof itself can't exist).

People believe they have free will because they sit there and think to themselves 'I do not have the will power to boil my hand to the bone, whilst being fully conscious of the pain and able to simply pull my hand out. However I do have the will to throw a pencil across the room.

Come on, I'm not going to sit here and start from scratch on the whole free will argument, but I could say you are claiming to be omnipotent by asserting without doubt that it was your free will that led to the throwing of the pencil. Could it have been a predetermined action? I find it easy to admit that it could have been predetermined, so why should I be so quick to say that it's not? Because of common sense?

You are either lying or have been mislead. I think you are communist or something because communists believe they have the level of intelligence to manage an entire country

Do you consider it an insult to call someone a communist? Anyway, no I'm not a communist. I honestly don't believe that I understand the point of your post. Now, that's either an admission of my less than perfect intelligence or.....
I understand you may be bothered by a somewhat non-scholarly person telling you that it just might be that you don't exist, so if you want someone smarter than myself to better explain the position (that I hold to be a possibility), look up Peter Unger.

 

[the_truth]

People believe in free will because if we didn't have free will it would be depressing?

I can understand if a person did not believe in free will because it has been proved to them that if there was a supercomputer powerful enough it could predict every thought and action they are bound to undertake or some other reasonable explanation.

I can understand if someone believes they do not have free will and they lie and state "I have free will." to avoid depression.

I can understand somone creating a fallacious argument which 'proves' free will exists and exposes it to somone with the intent of preventing this person from becomming depressed that he does not have free will.

However somone cannot actually believe something contrary to what they believe. It is contradictory. No matter how they feel they will react to what they believe. If someone feels that if it were proven that free will does not exist that they would depressed and then it was proven to them and they believed they did not have free will, they would be depressed, but still would not stop believing they did not have free will.


I believe you to be communist because marxists are always yammerring on about free will and materialism how we are all just molecules or a brain sitting in a head or an animal/machine a clean slate, how we are really not conscious at all how we deny everything they say to be right because we are scared. I used to be a quasi-marxist, I know how marxists think! If there's one thing I've learned about marxism it is how they condescend people, it's like something straight out of George Orwell's 1984!

They do exactly what you've done now. They say something like, we are all economic units and anyone who denies this is scared of the truth. Never minding that the idea of an economic unit is just a way of looking at something, they continue. They go on to say something like, people who believe different are stuck in their own little worlds, where science and their conscious lives are seperated, when in fact all they are just workers and that's all they are. Never minding the fact that as conscious human beings we are capable of realising that we are part of reality and that the molecules we see through our electron microscopes are as much a part of our reality as a ham sandwich.

Basically, they take scientific method, apply it to something and state this is your harsh reality and if you disagree you are denying reality, despite the fact that saying that it is harsh reality is merely a mirror image of the condescending image they are trying to portray.

Do you understand?

 

[kcballer21]

You just beat the crap out of that straw man.
Supercomputers have nothing to do with resolving the argument.

However somone cannot actually believe something contrary to what they believe. It is contradictory. No matter how they feel they will react to what they believe. If someone feels that if it were proven that free will does not exist that they would depressed and then it was proven to them and they believed they did not have free will, they would be depressed, but still would not stop believing they did not have free will.

point?

I believe you to be communist because marxists are always yammerring on about free will and materialism how we are all just molecules or a brain sitting in a head or an animal/machine a clean slate, how we are really not conscious at all how we deny everything they say to be right because we are scared. I used to be a quasi-marxist, I know how marxists think! If there's one thing I've learned about marxism it is how they condescend people, it's like something straight out of George Orwell's 1984!

Ok, once again, I am not a communist or marxist (ad hominem- you sound like rush limbaugh when he calls someone a liberal). But... if you feel better categorizing me that way then go ahead, do your worst.
If you feel my post did nothing for the argument against pluralism and free will, you may be right. But how does your post provide any points to the contrary? The most I got out of it was that you have a severe dislike for marxists.

Do you understand?

That's not condescending.

 

[the_truth]

No, this is condescending...
"you sound like rush limbaugh"


If you agree that a person cannot believe that free will exists and does not exist at the same time. Then you also agree that a person cannot choose to believe in something on the basis of how they can stop themselves from getting depressed and thus

"It reminds of the free will argument, in which I think many are persuaded to believe that there is free will largely because it would be depressing if there wasn't."

is wrong.


I am postulating that you came up with the above due to a certain value of Karl Marx. Which is the idea that if you stick something which suits you and something which suits the person you wish to believe the finnished product together, the finnished product will be willingly accepted by this person and he will agree to whatever idea you stuck to one of his values, without question. This was simply represented by George Orwell in the slogans of his famous big brother totalitarian government (war is peace, slavery is freedom etc..), though in the real world they are more subtle.

In your case you have just admitted that you agree that a person cannot believe that something exists and does not exist at the same time, but admit that you believe a person can choose not to believe in something depending on how much pain this belief will cause him, even though this would require a person to believe and not believe the same thing. This is because a marxist said to you something along the lines of "Marxists only believe in something if it can be proven, religious people do not do this because they disagree with marxism.".

I have to admit, the works of Karl Marx are genius, even if the word 'cunning' is more appropriate.