Space or time (or "spacetime") doesn't exist as anything on its own. It's a way of talking about matter and the relations of matter.Consul wrote: ↑July 5th, 2020, 3:14 pmRegarding the structure of matter or space/spacetime, there are four options:
1. point-based&continuous (with an infinite number of matter-points or space-points in any given volume or region of space)
2. point-based&discrete (with a finite number of matter-points or space-points in any given volume or region of space)
3. point-free&continuous (with no matter-points or space-points in any given volume or region of space, and with no non-0D matter-"granules" or space-"granules" in any given volume or region of space)
4. point-free&discrete (with no matter-points or space-points in any given volume or region of space, but with a finite number of non-0D matter-"granules" or space-"granules" in any given volume or region of space)
Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
I'm surprised that you'd confuse concepts and what the concepts are about.
And if you believe that, let me tell you about a bridge I have for sale.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
Well I'm not surprised that you completely missed what I was saying.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 5th, 2020, 3:23 pmI'm surprised that you'd confuse concepts and what the concepts are about.
And if you believe that, let me tell you about a bridge I have for sale.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
Yeah, that must have been it. But you have to get in line behind creation/evolution for that.Atla wrote: ↑July 5th, 2020, 3:42 pmWell I'm not surprised that you completely missed what I was saying.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 5th, 2020, 3:23 pm
I'm surprised that you'd confuse concepts and what the concepts are about.
And if you believe that, let me tell you about a bridge I have for sale.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
Actually you have a lot in common with that guy.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 5th, 2020, 3:47 pmYeah, that must have been it. But you have to get in line behind creation/evolution for that.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
True. We can name many commonalities and differences between any two things, really.Atla wrote: ↑July 5th, 2020, 3:49 pmActually you have a lot in common with that guy.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 5th, 2020, 3:47 pm
Yeah, that must have been it. But you have to get in line behind creation/evolution for that.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
If you're talking about measurement then size is the measured distance from one part to another. Parts have non-zero size, therefore measurements cannot ever be 100% accurate. They always have tolerances. But they can approach arbitrarily close to 100% accuracy by making the sizes of the parts approach arbitrarily close to zero, while never actually reaching zero. "Arbitrarily close" means whatever value of closeness you care to think of you can always think of a closer one. We're talking about the theory of limits now.Terrapin Station wrote:So size isn't just the extension between parts then, right?Steve3007 wrote:So you're talking about measurement now? What would constitute an accurate measurement in your view? Would it be measuring the distances between literal points? It can't be, can it? Measurement is something that happens in the real world and points don't exist in the real world. They're abstract concepts.
To talk, as you have above, of the extension between parts, we'd be talking about the extension between the nearest points on each part. But that introduces the abstract concept of a dimensionless point again which is incompatible with a consideration of the real activity of measurement.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
Here you're specifying this sphere as being the size of itself. Equivalent to saying that 1 metre is 1 metre long or that time passes at a rate of 1 second per second. Since it's logically impossible not to be the size of itself this doesn't say anything.Terrapin Station wrote:We could have an indivisible, single, spherical particle with a diameter of 1 unit, defined by the sphere itself
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
Above, you wrote, "Because size is the distance between one part and another part," didn't you?Steve3007 wrote: ↑July 6th, 2020, 2:59 amIf you're talking about measurement then size is the measured distance from one part to another. Parts have non-zero size, therefore measurements cannot ever be 100% accurate. They always have tolerances. But they can approach arbitrarily close to 100% accuracy by making the sizes of the parts approach arbitrarily close to zero, while never actually reaching zero. "Arbitrarily close" means whatever value of closeness you care to think of you can always think of a closer one. We're talking about the theory of limits now.Terrapin Station wrote:So size isn't just the extension between parts then, right?
To talk, as you have above, of the extension between parts, we'd be talking about the extension between the nearest points on each part. But that introduces the abstract concept of a dimensionless point again which is incompatible with a consideration of the real activity of measurement.
Doesn't that imply that parts have no sizes? Otherwise why wouldn't size be pertinent to parts as well?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
Yes, I did.Terrapin Station wrote:Above, you wrote, "Because size is the distance between one part and another part," didn't you?
Note: The second paragraph was referring to the non-inclusive distance between the two parts. i.e. the distance between two points on those parts - the two points that are closest together. It was a continuation of what I said in the first paragraph: that the idea of a measurement of a distance between two literal points is incoherent because measurement is real and, as you've pointed out, points are abstract concepts. As I said, the way in which we resolve these things is via the theory of limits.
No. Parts have non-zero size.Doesn't that imply that parts have no sizes?
It is. The size of the parts represents the tolerance of the measurement. As I said, we can make that tolerance arbitrarily small by making the size of the parts arbitrarily small. That's not the same as making the size of the parts zero.Otherwise why wouldn't size be pertinent to parts as well?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
Apologies if you've already covered this.Consul wrote: ↑July 5th, 2020, 3:14 pmRegarding the structure of matter or space/spacetime, there are four options:
1. point-based&continuous (with an infinite number of matter-points or space-points in any given volume or region of space)
2. point-based&discrete (with a finite number of matter-points or space-points in any given volume or region of space)
3. point-free&continuous (with no matter-points or space-points in any given volume or region of space, and with no non-0D matter-"granules" or space-"granules" in any given volume or region of space)
4. point-free&discrete (with no matter-points or space-points in any given volume or region of space, but with a finite number of non-0D matter-"granules" or space-"granules" in any given volume or region of space)
What does the ''point'' in ''point-based'' refer to?
And what is the current scientific theory of the most fundamental nature of the universe?
I've seen the notion of wave fields 'collapsing' into material particles with specific locations, but I don't understand what they are thought to be waves or fields of?
If you could explain in simple lay terms that would be great - I am a simple lay person!
Thanks.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Can Physicalism be defined non-instrumentally?
If the parts have non-zero size, then size isn't the same thing simply as the distance between parts. We have to include the size of the parts, right?Steve3007 wrote: ↑July 7th, 2020, 4:04 amYes, I did.Terrapin Station wrote:Above, you wrote, "Because size is the distance between one part and another part," didn't you?
Note: The second paragraph was referring to the non-inclusive distance between the two parts. i.e. the distance between two points on those parts - the two points that are closest together. It was a continuation of what I said in the first paragraph: that the idea of a measurement of a distance between two literal points is incoherent because measurement is real and, as you've pointed out, points are abstract concepts. As I said, the way in which we resolve these things is via the theory of limits.
No. Parts have non-zero size.Doesn't that imply that parts have no sizes?
It is. The size of the parts represents the tolerance of the measurement. As I said, we can make that tolerance arbitrarily small by making the size of the parts arbitrarily small. That's not the same as making the size of the parts zero.Otherwise why wouldn't size be pertinent to parts as well?
Say that you had an indivisible part that was a 1-meter sphere. And then you had another indivisible 1-meter sphere suspended 1 centimeter away. The size of that system wouldn't be a 1-centimeter length, would it?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023