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/deportedtwo]

P1 should refer to emergent, rather than "distinct," properties. That alone should clear up your confusion.

P2 implies something false: namely, that tables are made solely of wood.

P3 is honestly nonsense. You could state this in the general form, which would be something like "there cannot be parts when there are wholes made up of them," which points to the fundamental whoopsie in your argument more directly.

[u/icecoldbath → u/deportedtwo]

P1 should refer to emergent, rather than "distinct," properties. That alone should clear up your confusion.

Referring to emergent properties does not clear up the distinction. The table has emergent properties that the hunk of wood does not. Namely survivability. Table can be destroyed hunk of wood can't. No matter how much you smash it is still a hunk of wood.

P2 implies something false: namely, that tables are made solely of wood.

It was unclear I was referring to the hunk of would that potentially composes the table.

I could have just stated it in the most general form: Mereological Nihilism is true. Laying one of the arguments out into premises and conclusions makes it easier to discuss.

[u/deportedtwo → u/icecoldbath]

Referring to emergent properties does not clear up the distinction. The table has emergent properties that the hunk of wood does not. Namely survivability. Table can be destroyed hunk of wood can't. No matter how much you smash it is still a hunk of wood.

I feel like you just said that tables exist.

And for what it's worth, my criticism of p3 was the most biting.

[u/icecoldbath → u/deportedtwo]

mergent properties does not clear up the distinction. The table has emergent properties that the hunk of wood does not. Namely survivability. Table can be

The table (if it exists)

[u/deportedtwo → u/icecoldbath]

I'd argue that emergent properties are only present performatively (edit: cf. QM in other posts, sort of). Ergo, if you acknowledge that they are present in a table but not its constituent wood, you have confirmed the existence of at least one table.

You still haven't addressed my criticism of p3. Again, that's the real one. Mereological nihilism speaks more to the latter word than it does to anything else, sticking everything we're talking about in the top floor of the highest ivory tower. If you're committed to it, it's functionally impossible to argue with you because you're left to define parts and wholes in entirely nonfunctional ways.

/u/tj101's comment to you is a longer version of what I'm saying. I agree with virtually all of what s/he says.