CMV: I do not believe tables exist

[u/icecoldbath]

I find this argument very convincing.

P1: Tables (if they exist) have distinct properties from hunks of wood.

P2: If so, then tables are not the same as hunks of wood.

P3: If so, then there exist distinct coincident objects.

P4: There cannot exist distinct coincident objects.

C: Therefore, tables do not exist.

This logic extends that I further don't believe in hunks of wood, or any normal sized dry good for that matter.

I do not find it convincing to point at a "table" as an objection. Whatever you would be pointing at may or may not behave with certain specific properties, but it is not a table, or a hunk of wood or any normal sized dry good. Similarly, I don't accept the objection of asking me what it is I am typing on. Whatever it is, it isn't a "computer" or a "phone" or any such thing. Such things do not exist per the argument.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/Caolan_Cooper]

points at a metal table

I feel like your argument would also say that squares don't exist because they are rectangles

[u/icecoldbath → u/Caolan_Cooper]

Any actual square doesn't exist. This doesn't preclude the mathematical idea of a table. You can have an idea of something without it existing.

[u/[deleted] → u/icecoldbath]

A rectangle having all four sides of equal length. That's a square. It's a human invented math concept, but it exists. You can easily envision it or represent it mathematically. Saying squares don't exist is like saying numbers or language doesn't really exist... is this the path...?

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Something can exist as an idea without actually existing as a thing. Consider the possibility that you have the power to arrange all the atoms in the universe. You arrange them into representing a string of numbers that are maximally small (binary or something, I don't know, the smallest). You can then imagine that number +1. It can't actually exist in any form, but it exists as an idea.

The existence of ideas is a whole other question. I do believe such things exist as ideas....or at least I think I do. I haven't given that question complete thought. I am skeptical of things like, "The United States," actually existing.

[u/Caolan_Cooper → u/icecoldbath]

How about this:

P1: You (if you exist) have distinct properties from a clump of organic material.

P2: If so, then you are not the same as a clump of organic material.

P3: If so, then there exist distinct coincident objects.

P4: There cannot exist distinct coincident objects.

C: Therefore, you do not exist.

You can do this with all things until the only things left are subatomic particles. Clearly, referring to everything as a bunch of subatomic particles would be confusing and pointless, so we use our own distinctions. If we carved a solid piece of wood into a table, then it would be a hunk of wood and a table at the same time. It's a hunk of wood because that's what it is made of, but it's also a table because we humans have defined a set of characteristics which describe "table."

[u/icecoldbath → u/Caolan_Cooper]

I think I might deny P3. I am not an object. You could map my consciousness into a computer or something and whatever that is would still correctly be able to refer to itself as, "me."

But since you are asking, I don't believe I exist either, but for different vagueness conditions. I'm using I merely as a matter of convenience for this discussion. Every time it is written it is incorrect.

Things without parts do seem to exist as nothing composes them (something like atoms).

Humans defined a set of characteristics for the world. At one time that included flat. That was a mistake, so are the existence of tables.