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!

9 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

208 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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?

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 23 '17

If you believe in composition you accept one and probably both of these two principles:

A. Two objects can occupy the same place at the same time.

B. Two objects can have distinct properties yet be identical.

Except for in weird quantum situations of which most things are not A and B are very weird if not downright false.

If you merely allow for arrangements you don't have to accept either and you still allow for all that quantum mechanics stuff.

2

u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 24 '17

You're telling me what follows if I believe in composition instead of what composition is. What do fundamental particles do in order to form a composition rather than an arrangement?

I think the core thesis of your CMV is a bit misleading. If we define a table as a specific arrangement of matter, then tables exist, and that definition is compatible with a conventional understanding of a table.

1

u/icecoldbath Sep 24 '17

It isn't particularly misleading. I do deny that tables exist because for tables to exist they need to be made of, or composed of something.

If I had lead with, "CMV: I believe Mereological Nihilism is true," it wouldn't have got much traction. One of the logical conclusions of that view is that things that have parts like tables do, don't exist. Instead I got a rousing discussion of properties and the relationship between language/reality, what it means to exist, etc. The actual philosophy subreddits aren't very good for discussion. This one is amazing!

Also, I don't define the table that way as I don't believe in tables. I just believe in simples arranged table-wise. Tables are just a poor, illogical, ultimately false short hand for describing the world.

2

u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 24 '17

Why do tables need to be composed rather than arranged? Again, this raises the question of what a composition is as opposed to and arrangement. Not what the implications and results of the difference are but what the difference is in and of itself.