Idealism and Identity

[c4ts]

Re: Re: Re: Idealism and Identity

I believe this is what he is asking. (or at the very least, I would like to know) Could you summerize the current thinking behind it and/or why immaterialism would be preferable or more probable to materialism?

Immaterialism supports a theistic God-mind easily, giving any kind of belief in a certain monotheistic religion a philosophical starting point.

 

[davidsmith73]

davidsmith73,


Hmmm... I suppose it depends upon why you mean by "separate". Two physical "things" are separate in terms of their properties and attributes even if they "share" interactions. Are you using "separate" to mean "never, under any conditions, interacts with anything else"?

A "things" properties and attributes depends upon what you demarkate as the "thing" in the first place. For example one could consider the properties and attributes of a single atom. From your reasoning you could then conclude that an atom is a separate thing. However, we know that atoms consist of interacting parts, namely protons, neutrons etc, so what you initially conclude to be a separate thing turns out not to be. In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc).

So by separate, I suppose I don't really mean anything in an objective sense! Such a concept cannot truly exist according to materialism. If we were to conceive of an entity that never under any conditions interacted with anything else, we would never be able to know about its existence. In effect this entity would be a separate universe. Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning.

 

[Dancing David]

A "things" properties and attributes depends upon what you demarkate as the "thing" in the first place. For example one could consider the properties and attributes of a single atom. From your reasoning you could then conclude that an atom is a separate thing. However, we know that atoms consist of interacting parts, namely protons, neutrons etc, so what you initially conclude to be a separate thing turns out not to be. In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc).

So by separate, I suppose I don't really mean anything in an objective sense! Such a concept cannot truly exist according to materialism. If we were to conceive of an entity that never under any conditions interacted with anything else, we would never be able to know about its existence. In effect this entity would be a separate universe. Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning.

Sorry. maybe I rode the short bus to work today, but aren't Jupiter and saturn different things? They seemed to have clearly marked boundaries. You can also set up an atom trap to have just one atom in it.

You can have seperation and still interact, saturn and Jupiter are not the same as the sun, while they do all sit in the galaxies gravity well.

By your theory, particle accelerators should not work, because the magnets could not acclerate a proton with out accelerating the coils.

Could you rediagram this, please?

 

[Loki]

davidsmith73,

DancingDavid has pretty much given my reply!

In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc).

Yes.

Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning.

Perhaps I agree, perhaps I don't! If by "objective meaning of the term 'separate'" you are going for "a definiton that applies at all times to all physical things" then I think I agree. Although, as you say, this simply means that "separate" has no meaning at all in the physical realm. Again, I'd say that "separate" is a contextual term that must be used in relation to a physical object. Once you determine the object you are referring to (atoms, planets) then you *can* define an objective meaning for "separate".

On other words, "planets" are separate/separated from each other by a different boundary to the one which separates "atoms". The "planet boundary" is objectively measurable, as is the "atom boundary" - the boundaries are different because they are expressed in terms of the attributes and properties of the things being "separated".

It seems like you want to push the conversation down to the ontological level of "what separates one element of the 'substance of matter' from any other"? I'm not sure that question has meaning, or is answerable (ontology does seem rather pointless).