Objects
in [Logic]
|
Prev: "CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Next: Bending Time and Space: A Conclusive 1st Simple Counterexample Disproving Alan Turing's Claim The Diagonalization Argument Provides Proof the Halting Problem Cannot Be Solved.
From: John Jones on 15 May 2010 19:46 Monsieur Turtoni wrote: > In my opinion. there are are no "objects" since they're continually > changing A philosopher would criticise that statement, because you are using the term "object" in a familiar way, yet claim a meaning for it that falls or stands on the familiar meaning. > and therefore unable to be objectified as a thing apart for > the employment of subjective rulings in order to carry out the stories > that interact with the state at those points in time after they > happen. The fourth dimnetation of time is interesting facet in the > order of things. There's a lot of unravelling of ideas needed there.
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 16 May 2010 00:36 On May 15, 12:40 am, Monsieur Turtoni <turt...(a)fastmail.net> wrote: > In my opinion. there are are no "objects" since they're continually > changing and therefore unable to be objectified as a thing apart for > the employment of subjective rulings in order to carry out the stories > that interact with the state at those points in time after they > happen. The fourth dimnetation of time is interesting facet in the > order of things. I don't remember writing that. Odd. Was probably half asleep.
From: John Jones on 29 May 2010 21:08 Mark Earnest wrote: > On May 13, 7:47 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do >> not have a body, nor is an object heavy. >> >> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the >> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way >> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. >> >> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the >> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only >> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a >> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of >> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not >> physical. > > Even atoms have properties. Look at oxygen and hydrogen. > The whole entire ocean is their properties. > But these properties are'nt inherent.
From: John Jones on 29 May 2010 21:09
Zerkon wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 01:47:26 +0100, John Jones wrote: > >> There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do >> not have a body, nor is an object heavy. >> >> Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the >> physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way >> that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. >> >> Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the >> mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only >> establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a >> particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of >> (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not >> physical. > > How then can an apple fall from a tree and land on the ground? > The apple, tree and ground are identified through falling. |