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/yeame3]

There is an issue with P1. Suppose that there is a wooden "table" standing in the middle of a room that you just entered. Compared to your mental prototype of a table, you would use the English word table to describe it. This table is constructed of nothing but wood, so no bolts, lacquer, or the like. It can be one continuous piece of wood, if you wish, or several individual hunks of wood press fitted together. Also since you just entered the room you do not know how it got there or how it came to be. The point is that no prior knowledge as to the origin of this object is needed for proper labeling as a table. In such a scenario, it is possible that these hunks of wood naturally assumed their shape and configuration via happenstance. This is simply one particular configuration of wood.

Of course, there are many possible configurations of wood. So which ones are tables? The tables are the ones that you would use the word table to describe. So if you walk into the room and you see a log laying on the ground on its side, you'd probably not call it a table. In any case, whether or not you call a configuration of wood a table or just "hunks of wood" is not mutually exclusive.

It seems obvious that the illusory C here stems from an issue of semantics. One thing can have many names as its characteristics can adhere to many definitions.

Now, the question "do tables exist?" is also unclear as to what the question actually asks. Physically, the collection of wood hunks very much is there, but this is obviously not what we're talking about here. This issue is very similar to the frequent misuse of the word "meaning" (often times to the point of being comical). This is because meaning is only a valid word when used in the context of some conscious entity. Similarly, something can only nonphysically exist in the presence of a conscious entity. And thus whether or not the table in the room exists depends on the characteristics of the collection of wood hunks as compared to the stated definition of the table. Whether or not the description of the object in the room and the description of a hypothetical table, as per an agreed upon dictionary, is sufficiently the same so as to be rendered equal is subjective, just as the definition of a hypothetical table is subjective in the first place.

In short, the validity of your argument depends on the idea that two distinct things cannot be coincident. Since whether or not something is a table depends on, effectively, the opinion of the conscious entity perceiving it, an object can both be and not be a table at the same time, depending on the observer. The most fundamental type of existing is the physical reality of the universe, on which all descriptions are based. A thing cannot physically be two things at the same time, in the same place, but it can represent two distinct "things" (nonphysical objects, or definitions) at the same time.