What's your ontology?

[zxcvbnm]

Nobody can be sure that even their own minds exist. After all, the only thing to exist could be just the thought

 

[sourboy]

atoms exist, so that forces a tally on half the poll. I chose against God, Void, and Gunk -- since the last two are basically obscure terms to describe the unknown.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Nobody can be sure that even their own minds exist. After all, the only thing to exist could be just the thought

Can't "just the thought" be defined as the mind, though?

 

[Fifty]

Can't "just the thought" be defined as the mind, though?

I'd say the thought would be defined as a "percept" or an "idea", and that the existence of mind can be inferred from that as mental properties, by definition, require a mind in which they are exemplified.

 

[Rambuchan]

I see the phrase "x's ontology" used to describe "those classes of things which x believes exist" all the time in philosophy!

And I suppose this makes it correct? What you are referring to is shorthand. But, strictly speaking, it's not accurate, linguistically or in other ways. For example, "X's ontology" may refer to say atoms. But "Y's ontology" might do too. X and Y may have completely different methods and completely different results. How, using your poll options, are we to differentiate between these?

This is why I qualified my answer by referring to The Floating Man thought experiment.

What term do you think would be more appropriate???

I would have just asked: "What exists"?

 

[Fifty]

And I suppose this makes it correct? What you are referring to is shorthand. But, strictly speaking, it's not accurate, linguistically or in other ways. For example, "X's ontology" may refer to say atoms. But "Y's ontology" might do too. X and Y may have completely different methods and completely different results. How, using your poll options, are we to differentiate between these?

This is why I qualified my answer by referring to The Floating Man thought experiment.
I would have just asked: "What exists"?

But "what is your ontology?" is the same thing as saying "what exists?" or "what is there?" Are you thinking that because it ends in -ology that makes it a science and thus "methods and results" somehow matter??? How is it not accurate "linguistically and other ways"? There are multiple meanings of the term "ontology" (i.e. as the study of what exists, or just what exists). Your criticism doesn't make much sense.

ALSO: why are you even going off on this tangent? Is this like one of those "I don't know anything about philosophy but I want to participate in this thread" things, or is it one of those "I think that by doing this I am somehow doing to fifty what he does to others and thus trying to show him the error of his ways" things, or what!?

 

[warpus]

Well, I want to leave the whole thing open across time, so you can include stuff that will exist or has existed or whatever. Think of the universe as like "all of spacetime" or something like that.

Well.. I'll have to stick to my answer then! As for the probability waves that make up unobserved reality, I am really not sure what the status of their existence or non-existence would be. That is the real mystery, IMO.

 

[Fifty]

Well.. I'll have to stick to my answer then! As for the probability waves that make up unobserved reality, I am really not sure what the status of their existence or non-existence would be. That is the real mystery, IMO.

But even if QM implies that unobserved objects doesn't exist, don't you think that lots of stuff is or has been observed???

 

[Mise]

But "what is your ontology?" is the same thing as saying "what exists?" or "what is there?" Are you thinking that because it ends in -ology that makes it a science and thus "methods and results" somehow matter??? How is it not accurate "linguistically and other ways"? There are multiple meanings of the term "ontology" (i.e. as the study of what exists, or just what exists). Your criticism doesn't make much sense.

Not knowing what "ontology" meant before reading this thread, I looked it up. I couldn't find it to mean the second thing.

http://www.tfd.com/ontology
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ontology

But even if it did, the question, "What's your what exists?" makes no more sense than, "What's your the study of what exists?"

ALSO: why are you even going off on this tangent? Is this like one of those "I don't know anything about philosophy but I want to participate in this thread" things, or is it one of those "I think that by doing this I am somehow doing to fifty what he does to others and thus trying to show him the error of his ways" things, or what!?

Personally, I didn't realise that "ontology" could be used in the way you used it. I find that interesting. But why I do things is my own business, and wouldn't make a difference either way...


Anyway... I don't really know how to answer the poll. I think some of them are more interesting than others, too, so I think I'll answer later, after having a think about which ones I'm truly willing to think about properly...

 

[bhsup]

I wanted to vote for atoms, but since in the poll it was described as indivisible, I couldn't. The big booma bombs kinda proved they are divisible.

And void... While there may be voids somewhere, wouldn't a void by definition, be where nothing exists? Kind of a weird one to try to answer and I hurt my brain too much thinking about it.

 

[Fifty]

Not knowing what "ontology" meant before reading this thread, I looked it up. I couldn't find it to mean the second thing.

http://www.tfd.com/ontology
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ontology

But even if it did, the question, "What's your what exists?" makes no more sense than, "What's your the study of what exists?"

Well, since when are dictionarys any good at technical definitions? Just google (in quotes) "your ontology" or "his ontology" to receive a host of examples. It's really a common usage, probably (though I'm not sure about htis) deriving from the fact that the question of "what exists" is generally referred to as "the ontological question", so asking "what is your ontology" is a shorthand way of "what is your answer to the ontological question?" or whatever. And just asking "what exists?" is not satisfactory, because it doesn't capture the fact that we are asking about thing-types rather than thing-tokens, in a way that "what is your ontology" seems to do.

Anyway, this is, again, really a pointless discussion to get into. I could expect such things from Rambuchan but not someone like you mr. mise!!!

 

[Fifty]

And void... While there may be voids somewhere, wouldn't a void by definition, be where nothing exists?

I agree with you that void can't exist, because I think void is most aptly characterized as "that which doesn't exist" or something. I just added it up there because, classically speaking, there have been some people (most famously Democritus) who have asserted that "void" does in fact exist.

 

[holy king]

i dont get why people do not check "other".... *am somehow hairsplitting*

 

[Mise]

Aren't things like "the void" or "a hole" just as 'abstract' as numbers/concepts/properties?

I mean, I think holes in golf courses or buckets exist, but isn't a void just a hole in what exists?

 

[Fifty]

Aren't things like "the void" or "a hole" just as 'abstract' as numbers/concepts/properties?

I mean, I think holes in golf courses or buckets exist, but isn't a void just a hole in what exists?

I guess that depends... on what your ontology is! I kinda feel like holes are abstract objects, but I don't feel the same way about the void.

I'm undecided on the issue (my inclination is that holes exist, because they seem to be causally efficacious... but thats just intuition talking, not the result of a substantive argument). In case you want some food for thought, here's a dialogue on holes.

Also, a word of warning for the sciency inclined: make sure, when deciding whether ordinary material objects exist, that you consider what that may imply for your vaunted Occam's Razor you like to throw around in religion debates!!! (I'm not saying I'm entirely convinced by the sorts of arguments I'm vaguely alluding to, I just think you ought to consider the issue)

 

[West 36]

Atoms- yes
void- yes
gunk- no
abstract objects- I see these more as human creation, but I'm open to anyone who can tell me different.
god- no... well maybe
my mind- Cogito, ergo sum
other minds- most of the time
ordinary material objects- yep
there might be some others.

I'm fairly materialist, I think there might be more, but I live my day-to-day life in the materialist sense, as I'm sure most people do. It seems, to me anyway, what affects us most. Right?

 

[Fifty]

abstract objects- I see these more as human creation, but I'm open to anyone who can tell me different.

Well, the most basic argument is something like this:

(1) 1+1=2 whether there are any people around or not.
(2) If (1), then numbers (and mathematical truths in general) are not human creations.
(3) So, numbers (and mathematical truths in general) are not human creations.

Now obviously, the words and the symbols "1" and "+" and so on would not exist without humans, but the question is whether the truth denoted by the words/symbols would exist without humans.

 

[West 36]

Well, the most basic argument is something like this:

(1) 1+1=2 whether there are any people around or not.
(2) If (1), then numbers (and mathematical truths in general) are not human creations.
(3) So, numbers (and mathematical truths in general) are not human creations.

Now obviously, the words and the symbols "1" and "+" and so on would not exist without humans, but the question is whether the truth denoted by the words/symbols would exist without humans.

Interesting, and still, I don't know. I've seen something about how numbers seem to appear everywhere, but I can't for the life of me remember what was said. But, yeah, if that argument holds true then I suppose I can believe it. There is a lot I could question about this, but if I learn more hopefully I will be capable of seeing what others are saying.

 

[Fifty]

Interesting, and still, I don't know. I've seen something about how numbers seem to appear everywhere, but I can't for the life of me remember what was said. But, yeah, if that argument holds true then I suppose I can believe it. There is a lot I could question about this, but if I learn more hopefully I will be capable of seeing what others are saying.

If you're bored some time, here is an entire radio episode devoted to a discussion of the ontological status of numbers with a major philosopher of mathematics. You need Real Player or something that can play Real Player files for it to work.

 

[warpus]

But even if QM implies that unobserved objects doesn't exist, don't you think that lots of stuff is or has been observed???

QM seems to imply that these things only exist (as far as your definition of the word goes, I think) as long as they're being observed.