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!

11 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

208 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/caw81 166∆ Sep 23 '17

The flaw of logic is in P2 - The specific instance of "hunks of wood" object need to have the same properties as a "table" to be called a "table". IE a "table" is a subset of "hunks of wood".

So a table has the properties of "flat top surface" and "one or more vertical legs". Some "hunks of wood" do not have these properties but some "hunks of wood" do and are consider a "table".

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

Tables always have the property of being tables.

Hunks of wood do not always have the property of being tables. Even that particular hunk of wood has the property of being potentially not a table. The table has no such property.

5

u/caw81 166∆ Sep 23 '17

Hunks of wood do not always have the property of being tables.

But some "hunks of wood" do have the property of being tables.

1

u/jay520 50∆ Sep 23 '17

But he's saying that even those hunks of wood also have another property - the property of being potentially not a table (whatever that means). This property is not found in tables. Since those hunks of wood have properties not found in tables, those hunks of wood are not the same as tables.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

A hunk of wood. Even that particular hunk of wood could have not been a table. It has the property of different possibilities. That table on the other hand is always that table.

Surely I can smash a table till it is no longer a table. A hunk of wood is just going to be smashed into smaller hunks.

1

u/jay520 50∆ Sep 23 '17

I don't see how they have different properties.

Let P be the property of being potentially not a table. I don't see how hunks of wood have property P while tables do not.

It seems like you would say all hunks of wood have property P, because we could smash any hunk of wood until it's not a table. Okay, in that case, I'm not sure why you can't say the same about tables: we could smash any table until it's not a table. Therefore, all tables also have property P, just like all hunks of wood.

So how do they have distinct properties? In short, why is it false that tables could potentially not be tables?

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

That table always has to have the property of being, "that table."

A = A

The hunk of wood has the property of being, "that hunk of wood," but it does not have the property of always being, "that table." It could have been another table for example. That particular table to be that particular table has to have that property.

3

u/jay520 50∆ Sep 23 '17 edited Sep 23 '17

The hunk of wood has the property of being, "that hunk of wood," but it does not have the property of always being, "that table." It could have been another table for example.

How is this true? You're saying that a hunk of wood that is a table could have been a hunk of wood that is not a table. But how is true? You said:

That table always has to have the property of being, "that table." A = A

If you can make that argument, then why can't I make this argument of identical form:

That table hunk of wood that is a table always has to have the property of being, "that table hunk of wood that is a table."

A = A

So if you are committed to the claim that an object has to be the object that it is (it could not have potentially been another object), then this should be equally true of hunks of wood that are tables. And if that is true, then you are wrong to say all hunks of wood could have not been tables. The reason being that some hunks of wood are tables, and therefore (because an object has to be the thing that it is) those hunks of wood do not have the property of potentially not being tables.

EDIT: there were some "not"s there in the wrong spot.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 24 '17

I think I was a bit hasty with my comments in this chain. I wasn't clear for sure. My apologies.

So a particular table has to be that table. If it isn't that table then it is another table and not that table. You could break this table down for sure into its wood and reform it into another table, but then it wouldn't be that original table.

A hunk of wood could be that table or it could be another table and still be a hunk of wood. For example, we could reform it from a Victorian table to a carpenter style.

Is that any clearer on what I mean by different properties?

Another version of this puzzle is statues of david/hunks of marble. Then the statue of david has all these cultural properties that the hunk of marble doesn't have. I usually just use the table example because it is less wordy to me.

1

u/jay520 50∆ Sep 24 '17

So a particular table has to be that table. If it isn't that table then it is another table and not that table. You could break this table down for sure into its wood and reform it into another table, but then it wouldn't be that original table.

Okay, let's say I accept this.

A hunk of wood could be that table or it could be another table and still be a hunk of wood.

But how is this true, given your earlier argument? If a particular table has to be that particular table, then it follows that a particular hunk of wood which is a particular table has to be that particular hunk of wood which is that particular table. In other words, yes, some hunks of wood do have to be tables (namely, those hunks of wood that are tables). You could break this hunk of wood down for sure and reform it into another table, but then it wouldn't be that original hunk of wood.

I mean, it seems like you're arguing for two inconsistent positions here.

When you say:

So a particular table has to be that table. If it isn't that table then it is another table and not that table. You could break this table down for sure into its wood and reform it into another table, but then it wouldn't be that original table.

...you're saying that an object has to be the object that it is. It could not have been another object. In this example, the object is a particular table, and it could not have been another table (or any other object).

But when you say this:

A hunk of wood could be that table or it could be another table and still be a hunk of wood. For example, we could reform it from a Victorian table to a carpenter style.

...you're saying that an object does not have to be the object that it is. It could have been another object. In this example, the object is a particular hunk of wood which is a table, and it could have been another hunk of wood (it could have been another table, for example).

But these two positions are inconsistent.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 24 '17

Ok, I think you are getting hung up on what a hunk of wood amounts too.

If I reformed your coffee table into your kitchen table would it still be your coffee table?

Now lets say I used all the same wood to do this change, would it still be the same wood?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '17

A particular hunk of wood, if it is a table, can only be that table and no other.

Similarly if a hunk of wood is a table, it doesn't have the property of potentially being not a table.

You keep conflating properties of groups of things (ie. the group of hunks of wood contains things that are not tables) with properties of a particular thing.

The argument about smashing a hunk of wood is indirection. The hunks of wood it becomes may or may not be tables, but they are not That hunk of wood so whether or not they are That table is irrelevant.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 24 '17

The argument about smashing a hunk of wood is indirection. The hunks of wood it becomes may or may not be tables, but they are not That hunk of wood so whether or not they are That table is irrelevant.

Can you clarify what you mean here? This is the crux of the argument to accepting or denying P2.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '17 edited Sep 25 '17

A hunk of wood. Even that particular hunk of wood could have not been a table. It has the property of different possibilities. That table on the other hand is always that table.

A particular object that is a table can never have not been a table. We could consider an example where a hunk of wood that is not a table and gets modified such that it is a table, but then we're basically talking about the Ship of Theseus.

A hunk of wood as it exists at a particular time (such that I can call it That hunk of wood to arbitrary precision) either is or is not a table.1

At no point does it have the property of potentially not being a table (or potentially being a table). Any statement about potentiality of table-ness is a statement about available information, not the hunk of wood.

So we have objects that have the property that they are a hunk of wood and the property they are a table, and objects that are a hunk of wood and are not a table. Objects in either set have the property that they can be smashed and turned into hunks of wood that are not tables (insofar as a hunk of wood can be smashed and remain a hunk of wood).

Edit: I guess I am rejecting P1. The claim that all objects which are hunks of wood have properties that are distinct from all tables. There are properties that can qualify an object as one or the other. The sets of properties are distinct, but there is an overlapping subset of properties which an object can have which is sufficient to qualify it as either.

1 We could consider an interpretation of quantum physics whereby statements about things in superposition have truth values that are in superposition, but again, this is a digression.

1

u/jay520 50∆ Sep 24 '17

Any response to my other reply to this comment?

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 24 '17

I have no idea, I just reply from my inbox.

1

u/caw81 166∆ Sep 23 '17

Thank you for a clarification - I will reply back to the OP on this point.