What is the true nature of an object: beyond its properties?

  • Thread starter Thread starter madness
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Properties
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of objects and their properties, questioning whether objects exist independently of their properties or if they are merely a collection of those properties. Participants explore the philosophical implications of defining objects solely by their attributes, such as height, mass, and position. The conversation delves into the idea that properties may not constitute material existence, suggesting that what we perceive as objects could be transient and subject to change. The concept of an object as a substance that remains constant despite changing properties is debated, with some arguing that all existence is in a state of flux, challenging the notion of enduring objects. The dialogue also touches on the limitations of physical theories in explaining the fundamental nature of reality, proposing that consciousness may play a role in shaping our understanding of existence. Participants highlight the difficulty in conceiving of an object without properties, likening it to a word without meaning. The discussion raises the question of whether properties can exist independently and whether the distinction between objects and properties is a false one.
  • #31
nameless said:
From the micro to the macro, there has long been evidence, even empirically quantifiably and qualitatively in any well equipt lab. Superlocation.

Got any hard evidence for this claim?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally Posted by nameless
From the micro to the macro, there has long been evidence, even empirically quantifiably and qualitatively in any well equipt lab. Superlocation.
selfAdjoint said:
Got any hard evidence for this claim?
Is this a trick question?
If you are really interested, perhaps you'll Google 'bilocation' for some 'introductory information. On the 'micro-level', in the lab, you'll find the 'hardest' (what I think that you mean by 'hard'. Some people mean 'hard' to indicate 'hard' for them to 'accept', as a challenge...') evidence there. But you will find a whole netful of other 'types of evidence', such as anecdotal. I realize that 'anecdotal evidence' is rather 'anathema' to certain types of minds. That does not mean that there is not some validity somewhere. If you do an honest search, really read the relevant info. and try to understand, you'll have no problem, I guess...

In the end, we seem to still 'believe' what we must.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
51
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 212 ·
8
Replies
212
Views
44K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
15K