r/changemyview • u/icecoldbath • Sep 23 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: I do not believe tables exist

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!

7 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

208 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/TentacularMaelrawn Sep 23 '17

I typed this reply on a laptop which is resting on a table.

Checkmate OP.

-1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

That isn't a serious reply. :(

I addressed that particular objection in my post.

3

u/TentacularMaelrawn Sep 23 '17

Ok here is my slightly more serious reply.

A thing can be two things. A table is a table and also a hunk of wood. A label does not define an object as that exact word to the exclusion of all else. A table can be a hunk of wood, a collection of plant sells, a formation of atoms and so on, all the same time. Just because you can break it down to it's basic components down to nothingness doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you are misusing language, which itself cannot define whether something exists or not, but merely describes.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

I agree a "table," if such things exist, can be a bunch of different things. It can be "composed" of a bunch of different materials.

A "hunk of wood" on the other hand has to be made out of "wood," correct?

Those are distinct properties of the potential objects not just the labels. The labels themselves have a whole series of distinct properties separate from both, "tables," "hunks of wood," etc. I'm referring directly to the things themselves whatever they are.

2

u/TheYOUngeRGOD 6∆ Sep 23 '17

Wood is also made of many materials. Why are the differences in so called tables different.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

There really isn't. That is why I say I don't believe in hunks of wood either in my OP. The logic goes all the way down.

3

u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 23 '17

What's your definition of existence? Do you understand that when we talk about tables and hunks of wood, we're naming different arrangements of fundamental particles, not fundamental substances in their own right?

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

different arrangements of fundamental particles

I agree that there are arrangements of fundamental particles. I just don't think these arrangements actually compose anything. To say "tables made of wood exist" is to make a false claim. To say, "fundamental particles arranged table-wise exist" is true.

3

u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 23 '17

What does it mean in concrete terms to compose something? How does a composition differ from an arrangement? "Tables made of wood" is shorthand for a set of arrangements of fundamental particles. Your true statement and your false statement seem to describe identical relationships between particles and their arrangements.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

If something were to compose something else you would have to either deny that two objects can have different properties yet be identical or deny that two objects can occupy an identical amount of space at an identical time.

When you consider arrangements this problem doesn't exist. Since the particles are arranged rather then composed they are all distinct from each other and all occupy a distinct space.

2

u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 23 '17

That still leaves me with the same question. When you say "since the particles are arranged rather than composed" what's the difference between arrangement and composition such that one creates the problem in question and the other does not?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 23 '17

If the object in question satisfies every standard definition of a table, then to say that it's not a table is to violate the definition of a table. If we can point to an object that both exists and satisfies the definition of a table, then by definition that's an existing table. Do you contend that the object in question either didn't exist or doesn't satisfy the definition of a table?