Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Relationships between objects exist?

    Is that not like... saying "tallness" exists?
    Well surely tallness exists as a relation?


    How can we make that "Tom is taller than Harry is true" (T) meaningful?


    1. If it is true that (T), then some relation between Tom and Harry must in fact obtain.

    I think that is trivial.

    2. If this relation does not exist, then it is not true that the relation in fact obtains.

    Again, trivial. It can't be true that p is q unless p.

    3. 1. and 2. are inconsistent.

    Now, clearly it is true there is a meaningful state of affairs communicated by the sentence (T). It is relational. It could not be true that (T) is meaningful unless 1., so to avoid contradiction we must accept 1. and reject 2.

    4. So, relation (T) exists.


    Also, a second (even more informal) argument: I'm convinced by Plantinga's defence of modality de re and cannot grasp it without the notion of objects having properties expressed and not expressed in different possible worlds unless those properties, in this case X is such that is taller than Y, must exist on those possible worlds. Otherwise there would be no property to exist!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrSocSciences)
    I think that's too limited a description, as objects have temporal chronology without speed.
    What do you mean?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Relationships between objects exist?

    Is that not like... saying "tallness" exists?
    i was expecting a counter argument from the great tsr philosopher
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    i was expecting a counter argument from the great tsr philosopher
    Eventually one falls too deep lol. That's all I can say.

    I... Apologise for not entertaining you.

    These days I am so bored of academia and the like that entertaining it is painful

    I'd rather play video games and workout and... Work.

    It's terrible.

    P.S this debate in particular is too semantical. The notion of existence is bother itself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Eventually one falls too deep lol. That's all I can say.

    I... Apologise for not entertaining you.

    These days I am so bored of academia and the like that entertaining it is painful

    I'd rather play video games and workout and... Work.

    It's terrible.

    P.S this debate in particular is too semantical. The notion of existence is bother itself.
    this kind of **** excites me lol
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    this kind of **** excites me lol
    It used to do the same for me man

    And I want it to be like that too so I wasn't doing so bad at my degree but... Not happening...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    One could argue that it exists just as fundamentally as any other concept in physics. Space, say? It's indispensable if we wish to describe the universe as we typically do.




    It's more conventional to take time and space as the fundamental objects, from which one can construct a quantity we call 'speed'. Instantaneous speed itself is a very counter-intuitive concept if you think about it a little.
    Speed itself always exists. So time always exists. Everything is moving.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    Speed itself always exists. So time always exists. Everything is moving.
    How do you define speed though? I just meant to say that in physics/mathematics, we take the existence of space and time and through them construct speed.

    Whether something is 'moving' is frame dependent. In my reference frame, for example, I'm not moving!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Time you got a watch.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    How do you define speed though? I just meant to say that in physics/mathematics, we take the existence of space and time and through them construct speed.

    Whether something is 'moving' is frame dependent. In my reference frame, for example, I'm not moving!
    The universe is not expanding? The earth is not moving? And electrons in your body not moving?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    The universe is not expanding?
    I'm not sure that's really considered motion, as it is the space components of spacetime itself that seem to stretch. Objects aren't moving apart; the space between them is growing larger.


    The earth is not moving?
    Not in its own reference frame, no.


    And electrons in your body not moving?
    Not in their own reference frame. Since there is no universally preferred frame of reference, it doesn't make sense to say that everything is moving. Besides, my point is that time works better than speed as a way to describe motion.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.