Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Objects and distinction is object vs subject incoherent?

  1. Aug 14, 2008 #1
    I have a question I've been wondering for a long time, I'm not sure if it belongs here but I assume that QM people might be able to answer it.

    Einstein said the following:

    If physical objects are not "in space", then what are they existing "in" per se? And most importantly when we consider "insideness" vs "outsideness" (an idea in our minds vs the "outside world"

    Is the concept of subject vs object incoherent? is an object both an object and a function at the same time? if we look at a car in the "outside world", the notion of a car in our minds is directly connected to the car in the outside world, i.e. there is no inside vs outside because reality is all connected at all times (no symmetry of existence, i.e. if existence exists, then everything that exists, must ultimately derive itself from a prior existence or the whole concept of naturalism breaks down completely). If we are derived from a prior existence (i.e. we are born from our parents, made of pre-existent matter and energy, etc), and everything in the universe is uniformly connected in ways we don't (fully)understand, and that this interconnectedness is the basis for naturalism. (i.e. naturalism becomes incoherent if we DON'T believe nature is all connected at all times).

    How is anything technically an "object" that is in the ultimate sense 'disconnected' from anything else in the universe? It seems to me that all objects are also functions at the same time. i.e. how is a particle of matter/energy distinct from all the rest of the energy in the universe, doesn't it all share and is made of the same ultimate energy? i.e. conceptually if we were to represent each object inside space it would look like everyone is trapped in a kind of strange gelatinous fluid in which we could move in interact.
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 14, 2008 #2
    Is the concept of subjectivity incoherent?


    –noun, plural -ties for 2. 1. the state or quality of being subjective; subjectiveness.
    2. a subjective thought or idea.
    3. intentness on internal thoughts.
    4. internal reality.

    But if your thought exists, and you are a derived from objective existence (i.e. you are made of matter and energy that pre-existed, and you are derived from objective matter and energy, and your thoughts are derived from your mind and ACTUALLY exist or you wouldn't be able to detect them) then how can anything be "subjective" because it is all derived from objective reality? there is no disconnection in the chain here:

    matter and energy exist--> you are born from this-->your body is formed--> your mind is formed --> your mind forms thoughts from matter and energy, which are made of matter and energy.

    How can existence be subjective, if existence by definition is objective reality? The concept of inheriting the property of objective reality (because you believe you exist right, and that you can detect, see, change and modify your really existing thoughts, right?)

    If this is true then this can only mean one thing: There are only objectively existing statements who are more or less correct in mapping to things we can detect exist.

    How can subjectivity be the antonym of objectivity, if by definition anything that exists, must exist objectively because we can detect that it exists? You can't detect something that is not existing by definition.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook