Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Philosophical, mathematical and computational logic, linguistics, formal argument, game theory, fallacies, paradoxes, puzzles and other related issues.

Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 1st, 2017, 5:20 am 

Person A views X. X to A is Ax.

Person B views X. X to B is Bx.

If A and B view X and relate the view, then X to AB is AxBx.

X is not anything.

X does not exist as an independent object only as an object of A or B or as a combined view of A in relation to B or B in relation to A.

The object is only Ax, Bx or AxBx. THe propostion of X is null.

For clarities sake let me offer an example:

I look at a book and say it looks think from my angle, and another person looks at the book and says it looks thin from their angle. We both have individual views. Upon understanding our different views we reconcile the differences and combine them to form a proposition. Logically the proposition is a reconciliation of views not an established object. So the proposed object is never viewed by any individual only framed "as if" viewed the same by all.

note: understand this as a logical proposal rather than a physical measurement.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Postby Braininvat on August 1st, 2017, 12:04 pm 

What if we use Kripke's causal theory of reference, in talking about X?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_ ... t_of_names
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5674
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 1st, 2017, 2:49 pm 

I guess my point is we are not talking about X we are talking about AxBx and subjectively being about Ax or Bx depending on being A or B.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Postby Eclogite on August 1st, 2017, 4:18 pm 

I'm hopeless at logic. You state that X is not anything, but in the example you give X is a book. That is something. Regardless of which attributes A, or B perceive it to have it has attributes independent of their perceptions. What am I missing? (Apart from a decent education in Logic.)
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 1st, 2017, 5:01 pm 

Eco -

You and me both I guess?

I am just curious about the paradox involved here. The "X" is never known as such by anyone.

I probably shouldn't have used an example because it really draws away from the problem I find. The problem being that an item is only known as we know it. We can then establish certain communications about said item and then give it a name. The naming of the item in some sense creates the item. Prior to naming the item is not an item at all.

I am not really sure what I am trying to say here. I am investigating this idea. I think, or rather I hope, I am at a certain point in my understanding of philosophy in general. It feels like I may have been missing something and this is the area I should've paid attention to before (logic in general).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Postby Braininvat on August 1st, 2017, 5:42 pm 

The item, in Kripke's view, is a potential cause of an act of naming, even before A or B name it. I thought looking at the causal relationship between X and A (and then B) would be helpful in getting at some essential quality of X. You do give the example of a book which 2 observers see from different angles (and disagree on the dimensions, until they work out the influence of their viewing angles). Is the book not indeed a concrete object that is the cause of the acts of referring that follow? If the item plays a causal role at all, then we must contend with the possibility that it is, indeed, an item. Would it help you develop your question if you imagined rather that only one observer, A, saw a floating unicorn? Then the causal account could be somewhat different, eh?
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5674
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 2nd, 2017, 2:40 am 

I need to look inti this further Biv.

It seems to me the X is not. It is only named so as to assume the positions of A and B. We are in effect C by talking about A and B. So the X is really just Cx talking of A and B in relation to Cx, not X. X is the understanding of similarities framed together.

Also, the example is misleading because there need not be a physical object at all (or we revral the physical as merely conceptual at its heart. If you see what I mean?)

Just been having a little dig around ... pretty sure this is related to "Possible worlds". By this I mean we all have a "Possible world perspective". By this I am saying the culmination of Ax,Bx, ... Zx ... and so on, are classed as if some absolute X. This is necessary in language because there has to be some proposition from which to build a structure. Once a community accepts a general understanding they put it into action. This is most obvious in children learning a language (my favourite example being a small girl pointing at a horse and saying "big dog", because that is what it was to her. The distinction between four-legged long-faced animals was probably all that mattered. The most interesting concept here being the ability to understand "size".)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Postby Sivad on August 2nd, 2017, 10:05 am 

being a table (youtube 6 min)
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Postby Braininvat on August 2nd, 2017, 12:50 pm 

Be his lectures ever so humble, there is no place like Noam. And we probably don't need Essentialism for X. If X is a mountain, then A and B can reach agreement to name it a mountain by virtue of it not being submerged or buried in dirt and rock or whatever. We don't have to pin down an essence to agree on its significant features at that moment in time that we behold it. If we come back in a million years and it is submerged in water except for the tip, then we can say it is not a mountain any more, but rather an island. Things can be things, even if they are in a process of becoming other things. Process is a part of thingness, indeed one "essence" could simply be to view particular things as processes. A mountain is land being pushed up from surrounding land. There is a causal chain leading from plate tectonics to our respective verbal acts of calling a big bump "mountain." If a child sees it and names it "big bump," because she hasn't learned the word "mountain," then we still understand the causal account of her act of naming is the same as ours. She doesn't have to know everything she is referring to, to refer to it. I don't have to read a book to know that it is a book and refer to it as a book.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5674
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Refutation of the proposition of "Object"

Postby BadgerJelly on August 2nd, 2017, 9:51 pm 

So you agree that "X" is not? I guess I am talking here about convention of language a nd essences. The "X" is never an absolute accept in abstraction.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4380
Joined: 14 Mar 2012



Return to Logic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests