Ontology of Being
- Chasw
- Posts: 153
- Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
- Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
- Location: Seattle, USA
- Contact:
Ontology of Being
Abstract: Everything that exists in the universe at this instant, all matter, energy, fields, life forms, everything we perceive, imagine or do, can be rationally assigned to one of four mutually exclusive, metaphysical classes of extant entities: These four classes are: a) the physical universe, b) life forms, c) mental activity in the minds of higher order animals and d) beings and actions in an unseen spirit realm. Each has its own characteristics and each can only be described and explained with its own particular form of analysis and language framework, viz. physics, biology, psychology and metaphysics or religion, respectively. - CW
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
Hi Chasw. If we were to adopt a principle of parsimony (not multiplying the number of classes of entities beyond what is necessary to describe and predict what we observe to be the case about the world) do you think it would be possible to reduce your four classes at all?Chasw wrote:Abstract: Everything that exists in the universe at this instant, all matter, energy, fields, life forms, everything we perceive, imagine or do, can be rationally assigned to one of four mutually exclusive, metaphysical classes of extant entities: These four classes are: a) the physical universe, b) life forms, c) mental activity in the minds of higher order animals and d) beings and actions in an unseen spirit realm. Each has its own characteristics and each can only be described and explained with its own particular form of analysis and language framework, viz. physics, biology, psychology and metaphysics or religion, respectively. - CW
For example, (a) and (b). Would you say that anything about life forms (b) is physical (a)?
It's true that there are distinct disciplines describing and predicting the behaviour of distinct classes of things. So, for example, you can't use the laws of physics to do sociology or to predict the outcome of a horse race. (I know a joke about that one. If you want to hear it I'll tell it to you). But do we have to conclude from this that each discipline is dealing with an entirely different class of entity? Could it be that physicists can't predict the outcome of horse races for essentially the same reason why they can't predict the outcome of a coin toss? Not because coins and horses are not made of physical matter but because the arrangement an inter-relationships of matter in complex systems is just extremely difficult to predict unless we know the position and velocity of every particle in the system?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
- Chasw
- Posts: 153
- Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
- Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
- Location: Seattle, USA
- Contact:
Re: Ontology of Being
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
Yes, I suppose so. If we're using the word to refer to an exercise, I'd say an ontology is an exercise in deciding what classes of entities we consider to be real existents, since the branch of metaphysics called ontology is all about things that exist (as distinct from epistemology which is about what we can know [about the things that exist among other things]).Chasw wrote:An ontology is merely an mental exercise to divide up a blob of ideas into sensible categories, ones that help us see logically significant differences between the several categories.
OK. Well, for the reasons I started exploring in my previous post I don't see there as being fundamental differences between them. Although that word "fundamental" tends to be open to interpretation.As you would expect, from my POV these four categories seem to fulfill that objective. I can't find a way to condense this model into fewer categories, without ignoring the fundamental differences between them.
I've never quite understand this thing that people do of putting -ness on the end of nothing to make it, kind of, more nothingy. But my view is that it would be a contradiction in terms to propose that nothing or nothingness (or nothingnessness ) exists. To my mind it's a word that, by definition, refers to absence. I think we often get confused about that simply because of the structure of language. Because "nothing[ness]" is a pronoun and can therefore be used in sentences in a similar way to other pronouns and nouns, and because lots of other pronouns and nouns refer to existents, I think there's the odd feeling that it somehow makes sense to use "nothing[ness]" to refer to some kind of existent too. But I don't think it makes sense to let that feature of language dictate what we believe to be the case about the world.An interesting offshoot, in my mind is the question of Nothingness, what is it? Does it exists? Did it ever exist? I don't believe it exists, but it might have once upon a time.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Ontology of Being
It's a lack of 'thingness', and/or a lack of 'things'.
Interestingly, in electronics we refer to 'holes' that are just places where an electron could be, but isn't. So, although 'hole' refers to nothing, it is nevertheless a useful concept (to electronics engineers, at least).
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
I agree! Which makes it strange, to me at least, when people ponder questions that amount to "What kind of thing is nothing?". As I said above, I reckon it's a feature of the way our language allows itself to be misused. Specifically the way that a word like "nothing" (with any number of -ness suffixes) looks grammatically like it's referring to a thing, because it's a pronoun.Pattern-chaser wrote:It's a lack of 'thingness', and/or a lack of 'things'.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
We reify (thingify)words as if they mean something that exists like Steve explains, above.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
- Chasw
- Posts: 153
- Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
- Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
- Location: Seattle, USA
- Contact:
Re: Ontology of Being
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Ontology of Being
A, B and C seem to stack to me. It's like having a boat and adding a mast and a sail to make a sailboat. D is...well, who knows, but you could reasonably just drop D if you want to narrow the choices.Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 9:56 amHi Chasw. If we were to adopt a principle of parsimony (not multiplying the number of classes of entities beyond what is necessary to describe and predict what we observe to be the case about the world) do you think it would be possible to reduce your four classes at all?Chasw wrote:Abstract: Everything that exists in the universe at this instant, all matter, energy, fields, life forms, everything we perceive, imagine or do, can be rationally assigned to one of four mutually exclusive, metaphysical classes of extant entities: These four classes are: a) the physical universe, b) life forms, c) mental activity in the minds of higher order animals and d) beings and actions in an unseen spirit realm. Each has its own characteristics and each can only be described and explained with its own particular form of analysis and language framework, viz. physics, biology, psychology and metaphysics or religion, respectively. - CW
For example, (a) and (b). Would you say that anything about life forms (b) is physical (a)?
It's true that there are distinct disciplines describing and predicting the behaviour of distinct classes of things. So, for example, you can't use the laws of physics to do sociology or to predict the outcome of a horse race. (I know a joke about that one. If you want to hear it I'll tell it to you). But do we have to conclude from this that each discipline is dealing with an entirely different class of entity? Could it be that physicists can't predict the outcome of horse races for essentially the same reason why they can't predict the outcome of a coin toss? Not because coins and horses are not made of physical matter but because the arrangement an inter-relationships of matter in complex systems is just extremely difficult to predict unless we know the position and velocity of every particle in the system?
I do want to hear the horse racing joke. Physicists and statisticians can go a long way toward establishing probabilities in horse races. There are a few real world reasons that it is very hard to predict outcomes, though. The track handicapper has a primary duty to write race conditions such that the fields are as evenly matched as possible. It's complicated, but although they seldom get very evenly matched fields, they do have a lot of races with many possible outcomes as a result of his efforts to be creative in writing the races.
Most importantly, I think, is that neither we railbirds nor the track handicapper can see the intentions of the trainers and jockeys and owners. Sometimes they don't have today's race as the main goal, and surprisingly will not try as hard as the two dollar bettor would want or expect. They sometimes have sinister motives to manufacture a given outcome. But, more often, they simply have a strategy for today's race which may or may not be prudent.
For example, someone may decide to go for the lead with a 50:1 shot because it seems like the only chance to win. As a result, a heavy favorite that *has* to be on the lead will use much too much energy early, and finish off the board along with the 50:1 shot. Sometimes the trainers and jockeys will read the Form and realize that there are all sorts of need the lead frontrunners entered in today's race, and take their horse back early. If too many of them make this wise guy move, that 50:1 shot might win and blow up the tote board.
Anyway, long story short, I was attracted to the races because I love the math. I discovered that the human element is very important and you can make more money playing off that element than the speed ratings and such that are visible to everyone all the time.
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
Ontology of Being
THE BASIS OF BEING
As for forces, which are just a prelude here,
We note that two of them are transitional,
The Electric and the Magnetic,
Each giving rise to the other,
And that two others are oppositional,
The Weak and the Strong,
The Weak promoting changeability,
The Strong promoting stability.
Gravity is then left as the blend of all.
( Strong vs. Weak ) [Gravity] ( Electro <—> Magnetic )
So, would oppositional and transitional pairs
Work for our human being as well?
For us humans, all is of the
Movement of Appearances,
These Movements giving rise
To notions of time…
Past into Future,
Or the Then to When through the Now
Is transitional in only one direction,
While Appearances beget notions of
Matter lumps, in the place of Space…
Matter and Space, or the What and Where
Are a kind of an opposition in that
The knots of matter are separate
From the gaps of space in between;
Or in short, all seems to be the
Movement through time/distance
Of Matter in Space.
( Matter vs. Space ) [Being] ( Past —> Future )
We will see that our being is composed
From these simple notions begun,
For movement grants time—
The Then and the When
Of the Past and the Future,
Via change;
While Matter is the What,
And Space is the Where,
Via ‘clumps’.
The blend of all these would be
The spirit of life, or being.
These fields then further combine:
The What-Matter + When-Future field
Becoming the Progression
Of matter into the future,
And the What-Matter + Then-Past field
Becoming the History
Of the matter past—what has occurred.
The When-Future of Where-Space field
Makes for Wishes, hopes and dreams
In the future place of space;
The Then-Past + Where-Space field—
Begets Remembrance of memories
In the past space.
The emergent fields then further combine:
Learning becomes of Remembrance and History;
A Change of Outlook becomes
Of Remembrance and Wishes;
A Change in Structure is Progress from History;
And Vision is of Wishes and Progress.
At the next higher stage,
Being Creative is brought forth
From Learning combined with a Change in Structure;
Direction results from Learning
And a Change of Outlook;
Growth is the Vision for a Change of Outlook;
Planning is the Vision for a Change in Structure.
Finally, Creating, Direction, Growth, and Planning
Compose one’s being—The Who.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Ontology of Being
Wouldn't that make ontology an analysis of how you think about things--more specifically, how you formulate concepts?Chasw wrote: ↑October 14th, 2021, 10:43 am Thanks, Steve. Sorry bout that, I can't edit the post, but the correct url is shown in its footer. An ontology is merely an mental exercise to divide up a blob of ideas into sensible categories, ones that help us see logically significant differences between the several categories.
If we make ontology that, what would we call philosophy focused on "what there is"?
-
- Posts: 638
- Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
I've told it and referenced it on here loads of times before. I'm like a cracked record.chewybrian wrote:I do want to hear the horse racing joke.
Short version:
A physicist is asked to predict the outcome of a horse race. He thinks deeply for a moment and then mutters to himself: "Ok let's assume a spherical horse in a vacuum...".
It's a kind of a physicists' in-joke, acknowledging that just because the world is made of physical stuff that doesn't mean that physics is the only game in town. As I said in my earlier post, for the purpose of illustrating this, the horse could be replaced with any other complex physical system, such as a system that most people would acknowledge is unambiguously made of physical stuff, like a spinning coin.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 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