• Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    All the properties of a possible world would have to be non-physical.AJJ

    Sure. So is there a spatial location of your computer in the possible world you mentioned?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    Two different things are noted to be similar in some respect.TheWillowOfDarkness

    Similar in some respect isn't entirely different than it, of course. (Although I did miss his "not.")
  • AJJ
    621


    Ah - I see what you’re saying now. Well that’s fine, I don’t mind being in agreement with anyone on that point. But some nominalists such as Terrapin claim that abstract objects don’t exist in any sense, which I do disagree with.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    1.9k


    Well, that's the trick.

    I mean they are always entirely different, despite any similarities they might have. No matter how similar I am to the penguin, I am in no way the penguin. The idea similarity overcomes or eliminates entire difference is an illusion.
  • AJJ
    621
    So is there a spatial location of your computer in the possible world you mentioned?Terrapin Station

    Yes, but only potentially as opposed to actually. It could have a physical instantiation but it doesn’t.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    Yes, but only potentially as opposed to actually.AJJ

    So you're claiming that potentials exist as something "independent" basically?
  • AJJ
    621
    So you're claiming that potentials exist as something "independent" basically?Terrapin Station

    I think possible worlds exist independently of the actual world, yeah.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    I think possible worlds exist independently of the actual world, yeah.AJJ

    But you'd say they don't actually exist . . . which seems impenetrably incoherent to me.
  • AJJ
    621


    They exist potentially, in the way the brownness of a yellow banana exists potentially. It isn’t actual, because the banana is yellow, but it obviously can be.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    They exist potentially, in the way the brownness of a yellow banana exists potentially. It isn’t actual, because the banana is yellow, but it obviously can be.AJJ

    The problem is that the brownness of a yellow banana doesn't exist in any manner prior to it being actual, and saying that it does is incoherent.
  • AJJ
    621


    I disagree. What makes it incoherent?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    I disagree. What makes it incoherent?AJJ

    The fact that it makes zero sense. You have to posit more incoherent nonsense a la an "immaterial" realm.

    It would be like arguing that it's a fact that brown or yellow bananas are colorless, only not in the actual world, but rather in the "esoteric realm."
  • AJJ
    621
    It would be like arguing that it's a fact that brown or yellow bananas are colorless, only not in the actual world, but rather in the "esoteric realm."Terrapin Station

    I disagree. The positing of potentials is a way of explaining change - a yellow banana can become brown because it has that potential. The potential can’t be actual, because then the banana would be brown, so rather it has to be potential and exist in a different way to what is actual.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k


    "Explaining" something obvious by making up something incoherent seems perverse.
  • AJJ
    621


    That things change is obvious, but what allows them to is less so. Parmenides thought change was an illusion, then Aristotle managed to give that explanation above of why it isn’t. You say it’s incoherent, but since you haven’t explained in what way I have nothing to argue against, so I simply reject your objection.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    That things change is obvious, but what allows them to is less so.AJJ

    Why in the world would you think that "something allows" things to change, as if not changing would be the default that we need permission to depart from?
  • AJJ
    621
    as if not changing would be the default that we need permission to depart from?Terrapin Station

    I don’t know what you mean by this.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k


    Not changing isn't a default. We don't need an explanation for what "allows" change, as if it would need to be allowed.
  • AJJ
    621
    Not changing isn't a default.Terrapin Station

    I agree. Change is the default, so we start by explaining it. You don’t need to explain it if you don’t want to, but it can be and has been explained in at least one way, as described above.
  • Shamshir
    856
    That things change is obvious, but what allows them to is less so.AJJ
    Wouldn't that merely be space?
  • AJJ
    621


    How would space alone enable change?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    it can be and has been explained in at least one way, as described above.AJJ

    But it's not explained by something that's incoherent. An existent non-actual is incoherent.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k


    Why would anything need to allow or "enable" change? That's what you need to explain. Why you'd think that.
  • Shamshir
    856
    Well if there's no space for motion, there's no space for change.

    If there is nowhere to go, but where you're standing - you can't change position.
    Likewise for all things - if they don't have any space but the occupied space, how would they motion?
  • AJJ
    621
    Why would anything need to allow or "enable" change? That's what you need to explain. Why you'd think that.Terrapin Station

    Because on the face of things the brownness of a banana doesn’t exist while the banana is yellow. So the change on first consideration seems a case of something (the brownness) appearing out of nothing, which isn’t logically possible so change must be an illusion (Parmenides). But change isn’t an illusion - it’s obvious. So how does it occur? Aristotle seems to have given a very good answer to that.
  • AJJ
    621
    Well if there's no space for motion, there's no space for change.Shamshir

    Sure, physical change seems always to require spatial movement. But that alone wouldn’t account for change, which seems to require there be potentials becoming actuals.
  • AJJ
    621
    An existent non-actual is incoherent.Terrapin Station

    Only if you assume a univocal use of the word “existent”. Words can be used analogically, so a potential doesn’t need to be said to have being in precisely the same way something actual does.
  • Shamshir
    856
    That 'becoming' still entails space.

    There's the 'actual' frame in play, and then there are the 'potential' frames. Now if all frames were to occupy a single slot, the object would appear static, but if we were to space and layer them - they would motion.
  • AJJ
    621
    That 'becoming' still entails space.Shamshir

    I agree - but your contention was that it is “merely” space that enables physical change, which is what I disagreed with.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    Because on the face of things the brownness of a banana doesn’t exist while the banana is yellow. So the change on first consideration seems a case of something (the brownness) appearing out of nothing, which isn’t logically possible so change must be an illusion (Parmenides). But change isn’t an illusion - it’s obvious. So how does it occur? Aristotle seems to have given a very good answer to that.AJJ

    Aristotle and Parmenides? No wonder you're in such a mess here.

    Properties are characteristics of matter and matter's dynamic relations (always-changing structures) with other matter.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.