On Things and Multiplicity

1.

A thing is a boundary in which everything of itself is contained. Whether the entity is physical, linguistic or logical, it has a beginning and an end, which is verified through sense and/or reason.

2.

To say something doesn't exist is a contradiction in terms, as every "something" is necessarily some thing, and hence must exist in one form or another. If we can speak of it, what it is we are speaking about is the "something" in question.

Therefor, the question of whether something exists or not is a stupid one. Everything – inasmuch as we are speaking about every thing – must exist. Following this, in order to straighten the clumsiness of our language here, it is up to the thinker to determine what thing they are speaking about, and what this thing exists as.

3.

If we speak of a word, idea or notion that cannot be placed upon an object, as we would a label on a product, we are speaking about nothing but the word, idea and notion.

What in reality may we label an idea or notion? That which is pondered, written and spoken about the word we are considering.

4.

To say that something exists, yet it has no discernible boundary nor a beginning and an end, is human folly.

Further, to postulate that which has no discernible boundary above that which does, as for instance the "mind" over a minding body, energy over mass, "movement" over things moving, "consciousness" over that which is conscious, is to give primacy to what a thing does over what a thing is. However, what a thing does is always secondary to what a thing is, being that a prerequisite to any sort of doing is that something does it.

Hence, any action, process, occurrence, happening, or event, are purely logical and linguistic things that exist nowhere outside of human discourse. They have no boundary, nor beginning and end, save for what is said about them. The beginning and the end of said logical entities are formed in the human imagination, after the fact, indicating that between this and that time an object acted such and such a way. When we witness an action, we only ever witness the thing as such, rather than the action as such.

5.

It is common to conceive of and speak about the universe as one thing. However, since a thing requires a boundary in which itself is contained, and no such boundary is discernible nor demonstrable, it is more reasonable and sensible to say that the universe is many things. The "universe" is an imaginary boundary drawn around that which is discernible and sensible. First and foremost it is a word before it is a reality.

The mystic tendency to "oneness" or "union" is folly. That which is whole and one has a boundary and a beginning and an end, yet no such beginning and end has ever been discerned. There is no whole, only multiplicity. Hence, primacy is given to notion, to draw imaginary boundaries, circumscription, rather than that which is circumscribed.

The same is with solipsism, all littered with notions of "perception", "sensation", "awareness" and other such imaginary containers. Not a single boundary or container of this sort can receive such labels, as they are simply words, and only imaginary lines drawn in imaginary sand. Thus they cannot contain a single thing.

6.

There are only things, objects, and that which we give names to. Anything else is lines in the sand.

Heaven is real. . . . .

Sometimes people seem to get too tied up in literal linguistics and word meanings, leading to confusion over physical and metaphysical ideology.

My answer to your question:

Abstract concepts

Your question:

What in reality may we label an idea or notion? That which is pondered, written and spoken about the word we are considering.

Air, photosynthesis for example exist though aren't clearly defined by boundaries, ends or beginnings because they are cyclical processes.

To say that something exists, yet it has no discernible boundary nor a beginning and an end, is human folly.

The ''Universe'' is a word to describe something already there, generally that is the purpose of words, to describe.

The "universe" is an imaginary boundary drawn around that which is discernible and sensible. First and foremost it is a word before it is a reality.

The knowledge accrued on Earth is initiated in the realms of Metaphysics and Philosophy, which explore the basic tenets of comprehension and wisdom that leads to research, analysis and factual data, as well as more abstract truths.

Clearly, as is known from Math and Physics, the Universe is subject to concepts and principles that affect matter but are not matter themselves.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

metaphysics
Also found in: Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.


met·a·phys·ics (mĕt′ə-fĭz′ĭks)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.
[From pl. of Middle English methaphisik, from Medieval Latin metaphysica, from Medieval Greek (ta) metaphusika, from Greek (Ta) meta (ta) phusika, (the works) after the Physics, the title of Aristotle's treatise on first principles (so called because it followed his work on physics) : meta, after; see meta- + phusika, physics; see physics.]
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

metaphysics (ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪks)
n (functioning as singular)
1. (Philosophy) the branch of philosophy that deals with first principles, esp of being and knowing
2. (Philosophy) the philosophical study of the nature of reality, concerned with such questions as the existence of God, the external world, etc
3. (Philosophy) See descriptive metaphysics
4. (popularly) abstract or subtle discussion or reasoning
[C16: from Medieval Latin, from Greek ta meta ta phusika the things after the physics, from the arrangement of the subjects treated in the works of Aristotle

met•a•phys•ics (ˌmɛt əˈfɪz ɪks)

n. (used with a sing. v.)
1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
metaphysics
a branch of philosophy concerned with being, first principles, and often including aspects of cosmology and epistemology. — metaphysician, n. — metaphysical, adj.
See also: Philosophy

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Air, photosynthesis for example exist though aren't clearly defined by boundaries, ends or beginnings because they are cyclical processes.

A process is a series of actions, not things. Actions do not perform themselves.

The ''Universe'' is a word to describe something already there, generally that is the purpose of words, to describe.

A planet is there but a universe isn’t. Unless there is a boundary in which all matter is contained, there is no universe.

The knowledge accrued on Earth is initiated in the realms of Metaphysics and Philosophy, which explore the basic tenets of comprehension and wisdom that leads to research, analysis and factual data, as well as more abstract truths.

Clearly, as is known from Math and Physics, the Universe is subject to concepts and principles that affect matter but are not matter themselves.

How does a principle or concept affect matter? Clearly, math and physics must know this.

I'm not sure why you're defining metaphysics.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Heaven is real. . . . .

And everyone trusts your promise.

a reply to: Aphorism

The questions you are asking are about Metaphysics, hence the definition.

Abstract concepts are ''things'' in that they exist as concepts but not as clearly defined matter, similarly for air, photosynthesis, gravity, Math and Physics theory etc. hence they are initiated by or inclusive of the Metaphysical.

All matter is subject to energies, subtle and otherwise. The very nature of matter in subatomic structure is that of the dynamics of energies.

You think a tennis ball can be a ''thing'' because it is physical matter of clearly defined boundaries but if you looked at it's subatomic structure and realised it's atoms are recycled from space, and that it is held together with resonant energies, you wouldn't think of matter as so clearly defined, instead realising that matter is the result of and influenced by energy, which by definition is a metaphysical concept.

Im sorry but I failed to see the point of your thread.
Is there a context?

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

''Context'' is something it appears is dismissed in the opening post in this thread as it is not clearly defined physical matter.

a reply to: Aphorism

1.

Is a word a product of a notion/idea or is the notion/idea the product of the word?

I believe a word is a product of a notion/idea and am failing to find the logic in saying a thing must have a discernible beginning and end.

2.

To say something doesn't exist is not a contradiction in terms because it is a means of describing a reality in context. Linguistics are a means to an end.

You're right in that anything we are discussing must exist, but only in that context. When I say something doesn't exist the context in which you say something doesn't exist is important.

You have to ask yourself whats more important, the notion or the words used to describe it?

3.

Why wouldn't we label an idea or notion an idea or notion?

4.

Okay, but how do you label something as not having a discernible beginning and end? Just because we cant measure it yet, does not mean we wont be able to eventually. The idea of the universe expanding specifically defines an as of yet undefined end. The key here being EVERYTHING has a beginning and an end. It's also the difficult issue that leads us to say "infinitely."

5.

You're confusing the idea of there being a way for us to measure an object and the hypothesis that there is an end or suspected size. You wouldn't say your car is just an idea.. No, my car exists as a sum of it's parts and makes it's own "thing".

6.

You see, with your final conclusion we come back to point 1. A thing actually includes objects AND things which we give names to. Therefore everything is a thing. Kinda funny how everything is self defining, isn't it?

a reply to: Aphorism

1. and 2. I can agree with but when you got to 3. you made a mistake.

The best way to conceive a thing is by its root or seed: An awareness, or sensation, is the physical appearance of its spirit or desire, and this speaks for both the truth and a lie...

Take one of your non-object notions, for example. You believe it is not a thing because it can not be physically held, yet within the mind of the one who sees it, it is truly there. Further, what the thing is (that they're seeing) is a glimpse of a spirit or desire as they desire to see it be translated [into the light/body].

And it is the spirit of a thing which is there before its seen or translated or sensed - the sensation comes before the image of the thing sensed.

Now from that, you should see that a pre-existent thing exists, in form, and with boundaries, just as you were saying in 1. and 2., yet its true form, is within its spirit, not its image.

Think of what a grasshopper is. If I remove one of its legs, is it still a grasshopper? Obviously, yes, and it is because what makes a grasshopper is not the physical image, label, or body that is seen, but instead, it is his spirit, purpose, will, desire, or "what he does" as it is seen... it is the conceptualization of a spirit.

The forms are spiritual, they are within the spirit, and they are being translated into the light / physicality.

Ask yourself, who came up with a trapdoor -- where did it exist before it was physical? Was it man who made one up out of "nothing", or was it the trapdoor spider? Or what about wings? Or legs? Or eyes? Where did those things truly come from?

Or maybe ask yourself where the words of your post came from? The words are obviously the image of your awareness, the image of what you see in your spirit or desire, as you desire to see / translate them into the body...

They exist within the spirit as spiritual forms - forms of purpose and desire - they are forms of what you love, and they have merely been translated into the physical, into the light...

and whether you desire to see / translate the truth, or a lie, it is the same function or spirit or "what it does" that all life has, as it is the breath of life.

That's the truth. Check the Bible.





Also, infinity, am I right? The Spirit is infinite and its real - it is not just "potential" forms, the forms truly exist.

Try to wrap your head around this: True lies.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The questions you are asking are about Metaphysics, hence the definition.

And hence the choice of forum.

Abstract concepts are ''things'' in that they exist as concepts but not as clearly defined matter, similarly for air, photosynthesis, gravity, Math and Physics theory etc. hence they are initiated by or inclusive of the Metaphysical.

I mentioned that everything exists as one of my arguments. So the question is no longer what does and doesn’t exist, but what do things exist as? In the terms of abstract concepts, they are formed of words, which exist as scratches on paper, guttural sounds, type, etc. and exist in various physical forms through various physical media. Yes, abstract concepts are things insofar as they are proposition made by human beings. If you can find me one abstract concept that is composed of anything besides human language and art, I think my reasoning stands. This is what abstract concepts exist as.

All matter is subject to energies, subtle and otherwise. The very nature of matter in subatomic structure is that of the dynamics of energies.

This can be easily inverted and be just as true. The various nature of the dynamics of energies is matter and subatomic structure. Energy is a property of objects, not the other way around. Mechanics describes moving bodies, not an abstract concept called “movement” as such. So it is in my opinion that most, if not everybody, is describing things backwards in the same manner.

You think a tennis ball can be a ''thing'' because it is physical matter of clearly defined boundaries but if you looked at it's subatomic structure and realised it's atoms are recycled from space, and that it is held together with resonant energies, you wouldn't think of matter as so clearly defined, instead realising that matter is the result of and influenced by energy, which by definition is a metaphysical concept.

I think the inverse once again. Bodies behave a certain way and interact with bodies, which is what concepts such as force, energy, and motion describe in mechanics.

I beg you to do just a little bit more reading on metaphysics. Here's a good online introduction:
plato.stanford.edu...

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Take one of your non-object notions, for example. You believe it is not a thing because it can not be physically held, yet within the mind of the one who sees it, it is truly there. Further, what the thing is (that they're seeing) is a glimpse of a spirit or desire as they desire to see it be translated [into the light/body].

I believe notions are things, which I explicitly stated in aphorism #3. For instance, if I could gather everything written and said about your conception of “spirit” in a book, I’d be holding your idea of spirit in my hands. “Check the bible”, you said, which is direct evidence that this is the case.

The forms are spiritual, they are within the spirit, and they are being translated into the light / physicality.

The forms are physical. I can point them out if you wish.

Ask yourself, who came up with a trapdoor -- where did it exist before it was physical? Was it man who made one up out of "nothing", or was it the trapdoor spider? Or what about wings? Or legs? Or eyes? Where did those things truly come from?

Rather, the question is where did your ideas of these objects come from? From the objects themselves, which precedes your “spirit” in every single instance.

Or maybe ask yourself where the words of your post came from? The words are obviously the image of your awareness, the image of what you see in your spirit or desire, as you desire to see / translate them into the body...

The words were there long before I learned them. Like I said, backwards.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

There are only things, objects, and that which we give names to. Anything else is lines in the sand.

a reply to: Aphorism

Are you familiar with the chair at the end of the universe? Basically it asks if a concept's existence insists upon sentience. (Can there be meaning without life? Does meaning depend upon life? Do concepts, notion, feelings, understandings, truly exist as things? If I make a vase, and no one alive knows what it is, is it still a vase?)

So let me ask you the same:

If every human died, would notions still be things? Would they still exist without their understanding? Can a word lose its meaning, thereby ceasing to exist, in truth, or as they were willed? If not, where do they exist?

And that is the difference in what I am saying to you and what you are saying to me.

I am saying they exist where they have always existed. That chair at the end of the universe is there, in the spirit, and it has, pretty much, always been there - it was, however, not always in the light / in label / in image - it has not always been translated into the light.

The forms are physical. I can point them out if you wish.

You just did, right? By saying it, you have imaged them.

But before you said that, where did it exist?

Can you show me the invisible God? Wouldn't I just be looking at Jesus, if you tried?

Colossians 1:15



The form before is spiritual form. That's my stance.



This?:

You see: take in physical form > feel spiritual form > translate physical form as desired (give it a name or mold the pot into clay, for example).

I see: take in spiritual form either by spirit (see the desire to make a pot or something as a storage vessel) or by body (see the pot another has made) > feel/see spiritual form (see the purpose as a form) > translate physical form as desired (make the pot into word or clay).

a reply to: Bleeeeep

If every human died, would notions still be things? Would they still exist without their understanding? Can a word lose its meaning, thereby ceasing to exist, in truth, or as they were willed? If not, where do they exist?

Words lose their meanings all the time. There are many, if not countless, dead languages.

I am saying they exist where they have always existed. That chair at the end of the universe is there, in the spirit, and it has, pretty much, always been there - it was, however, not always in the light / in label / in image - it has not always been translated into the light.

What chair? And at what end of the universe?

This chair and this place you speak of are nowhere outside of the words you just spoke, the languages you know, nor outside the link you derived the notion from.

Life is made of experiencing and no one can prove otherwise.

a reply to: Aphorism

A word doesn't lose its meaning, but a culture or people might.

That's what I'm trying to tell you. Either the word is there and its meaning is something, or its image never meant anything.

Further, that word sets the boundary of what they desire or see in their spirit, not the boundary between word and paper - that is not the point (to separate images) - the point is to separate desires/spirits.

thisis no different than this is, if its spirit/purpose is the same.

edit:Had to rephrase the sentence above.


Think about which apple is the one true apple. You know it exists, but where? Where does it exist?

And on a side question... Do I seem like I am talking gibberish to you? You understand everything I'm referencing, right? The chair is just as the word nothing. Nothing exists as a word, and is an image of something, but nothing as a thing does not. Nothing, more or less, just expresses an inability to see, or a lack of desire to express what you see.

e.g. She asked, "Whatcha doing?" and he replied "Nothing." (because he did not want to express himself, not that he was actually doing nothing.)

The chair is just an expression of notions - notions which exist with or without sentience.

a reply to: Aphorism

I know about Metaphysics.

The fact is, the basic ''point'' you are trying to say is that you do not believe that concepts exist due to their non physical nature.

Which means that you do not understand Metaphysics as you are disagreeing the existence of abstract concepts.

Thoughts exist, do you not agree?

Metaphysics is an area of study as Science and Philosophy, the concept of ''existence'' is not something that in Metaphysics is referred to as 'trying to be clever' sound bites. There are theories and theorists that explain these things, it is to this you should refer instead of trying baiting ATS members to answer a ridiculous assumption. You are not being profound.

I suggest you try to read this article about Existence.

plato.stanford.edu...

What does it mean to ask if existence is a property? A full answer to this question requires a general theory of properties, which is well beyond the scope of this article. I briefly sketch the landscape to set up our discussion of existence. (See the entries on properties and substance for deeper discussion.) Properties contrast with individuals. This distinction can be explicated using the instantiation relation.

While properties also instantiate—the property of being red, for example, has the property of being a color—only properties are instantiated; individuals only instantiate. So, our first question is whether existence is instantiated and, if so, whether it is instantiated by individuals like Obama, my chair, and the fig tree in my backyard. Do individuals, in addition to ordinary properties like being human, being comfortable to sit in, and needing more water, instantiate a property expressed by the English verb ‘exists’?

en.wikipedia.org...

Empirical and conceptual objects

Objects and their properties

Further information: Problem of universals
The world seems to contain many individual things, both physical, like apples, and abstract, such as love and the number 3; the former objects are called particulars. Particulars are said to have attributes, e.g., size, shape, color, location, and two particulars may have some such attributes in common. Such attributes are also termed Universals or Properties; the nature of these, and whether they have any real existence and if so of what kind, is a long-standing issue, realism and nominalism representing opposing views.

Metaphysicians concerned with questions about universals or particulars are interested in the nature of objects and their properties, and the relationship between the two. Some, e.g., Plato, argue that properties are abstract objects, existing outside of space and time, to which particular objects bear special relations. David Armstrong holds that universals exist in time and space but only at their instantiation and their discovery is a function of science. Others maintain that particulars are a bundle or collection of properties (specifically, a bundle of properties they have).

a reply to: Aphorism

what prompted this dissertation?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Think about which apple is the one true apple. You know it exists, but where? Where does it exist?

I appreciate you ideas, bleep. But I've heard them many times. These ideas are thousands of years old. Except there is no one true apple. The statement is nonsensical. Show me this one true apple, or be done with it.

And on a side question... Do I seem like I am talking gibberish to you? You understand everything I'm referencing, right? The chair is just as the word nothing. Nothing exists as a word, and is an image of something, but nothing as a thing does not. Nothing, more or less, just expresses an inability to see, or a lack of desire to express what you see.

Yes, you’re trying to sell me platonism. You believe in forms because it allows you to continue believing in God. My thread doesn’t imply any god, therefor you feel it necessary to educate me. Am I close?