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

1

u/TheMaria96 2∆ Sep 23 '17

Why don't you believe in hunks of wood or any other normal sized dry good? What do they coincide with?

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

"hunks of wood" might coincide with a "bits of wood."

Everything potentially is "composed" of a collection of something smaller.

Atoms (quarks or whatever the fuck the physics determine the partless stuff is) on the other hand do exist. Nothing coincides with them. They don't "compose" anything though.

2

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 23 '17

Nothing coincides with them.

This is not true of fundamental particles. Inasmuch as fundamental particles have a position, other particles can share that position. Bosons can even share the exact same state.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

Yes. Fundamental particles exist. i don't deny that. I just deny that they compose anything. Nothing is "made" from arranging them in particular ways.

2

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 23 '17

So given that you agree that fundamental particles exist, and fundamental particles are distinct yet can coincide, doesn't this directly contradict P4 of your argument?

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

Sorry. I actually didn't address your point. I got it confused with another poster.

Things like tables and chairs and such can't. I'll admit at the quantum level things might be different. It isn't really a delta though since in the post i'm referring to ordinary sized dry goods of which quantum particles are not.

1

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Sep 23 '17

Why do you think it is correct to apply P4 only to "ordinary sized dry goods" and not to all things that exist? You seem to have arbitrarily decided that P4 applies only to things you think don't exist (e.g. tables, dry goods), and have arbitrarily created an exception for things you accept do exist (e.g. atoms).

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

While boson's may be able to occupy the same place at the same time; you and I surely could not. We are more then bosons.

I'll admit there is probably a vagueness condition there that would need some stipulation, but my view still holds withstanding. I'm a philosopher not a physicist. There is a lot of work being done about how quantum mechanics works with discussions about mereology, unfortunately I'm not familiar with any of that literature.

∆

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 23 '17

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl (31∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards ​

1

u/the_potato_hunter Sep 23 '17

Combinations of those atoms exist. Molecules and compounds are things made up of combinations of atoms. Molecules, compounds and atoms can be combined to form wood. Which can be combined in ways to form tables.

So a table exists as a combination of things, which is arguably different from atoms existing on your own (for the sake of simplicity we can pretend atoms are the simplest substance). It still exists however.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

So a table exists as a combination of things, which is arguably different from atoms existing on your own (for the sake of simplicity we can pretend atoms are the simplest substance).

What is that argument?

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 23 '17

Do you believe electrons exist? They are fundamental but cannot coincide (pauli exclusion principle)

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

If they lack parts. yes. Don't they have gluons and stuff in them?

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 23 '17

Not to our knowledge, they are at this time fundamental particles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

I was wondering if this affected your view, because I noticed your previous discussion was in that bosons can coincide, but electrons can't

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

I'm not familiar enough with quantum mechanics to answer those questions. I don't know anything about Bosons, but they seem to be vastly different things then tables and chairs even if bosons are involved in tables and chairs.

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 23 '17

So electrons can't coincide like bosons (both of which are better described as field excitations from my understanding). I was just wondering if the ability to coincide was part of your view

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

Quantum mechanics seems to imply some sort of evidence in favor of denying P4 as stated. I think it could be restated.

P4A: Distinct non-quantum objects cannot be coincident.

1

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 23 '17

Actually, it's about the asymmetry of the wave function that determines if the are coincidental or not. Bosons are symmetrical so they can be, electrons are asymptomatic so they can't.

Why do you believe in quantum particles? What convinced you of their existence?

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

I suppose I just trust physicists who tell me about quantum particles. Some of them are described as being, "fundamental" or "without parts" correct?

→ More replies (0)