We can quickly find trouble if we disregard the abstractions that people use in language. Many times people will refer to things that are not concrete particular objects, nor specific collections of objects. For example, we might say "The people who live on Maple Street are served by bus route 12." In this case bus route 12 means a particular bus route, but "the people who live on Maple Street" does not mean Alice, Bob, Charlie and so on, even if those people happen to live there. The particular people are irrelevant to the claim being made. The people can come and go and so long as the bus route remains the statement will still be true. If we ignore the abstraction and take the statement as actually referring to Alice and Bob, and then Alice moves away so she is no longer served by bus route 12, then we'd conclude that the statement has been made false, but that would be misinterpreting the statement. In the same way, when we speak of a cloud we're not referring to any particular set of particles. Particles are part of the cloud just as people are part of the people who live on Maple Street, but no particular particle or person is part of our meaning. We're not talking about the particles or the people, but we are talking about the abstraction. Particles come and go from the cloud just as people come and go from Maple Street, but the cloud still remains because the cloud is an abstraction.
There's no cloud there's just infinitesimal particles, we just use the word cloud as the abstraction to point out a splotch of color differentiation in the sky. Teaching children collectivistic thinking is always erroneous, it just makes it easier to speak rhetorically.
A “cloud” is an emergent entity made up of “raindrops”. Both are just models. “Raindrops” are just collections of “H20” molecules which are described by other models eg “atoms”. Draw your boundaries wherever you find them most useful. I don’t see this is actually a problem at all.
I’m glad to have found your channel I’ve been watching for a few months now and you never disappoint . You maintain good quality and I plan to began making content on this platform as well I hope one done we can speak as I really enjoy your commentaries.
Can't we make a distinction between the concept of the cloud and the physical phenomena of the cloud? There is only one concept of a particular cloud, but the cloud is itself is simply specific regularities and patterns in our perception. The physical phenomena are not necessarily enumerable its just a dynamical system governed by some physical laws. For example, consider waves. We observe certain regularity in nature and form a concept of it. We can attribute a number to this concept based on how we intend on using this concept. A scientist studying waves, would probably speak of only one wave originating at a source and its motion in a medium is approximately governed by the wave equation, whereas for a surfer who is trying to catch the *waves* it probably makes more sense to regard each crest of the wave as a separate entity.
How would we ever know for sure that we’ve found fundamental particles? How could we know that there aren’t even more fundamentals that compose what we now call fundamental particles?
Truth is: it's possible we know (if it happens to be true) the fundamental particles already, but we can never know that we know it. Locke said that way before analytical phil ever camne into being.
That looks more like problem of determinism. The biggest misunderstanding comes from languages structure itself, because realization of that every single word is just a probability of calling or describing something is not common. On the physical level, there is no any border of when particle count can produce the object. Particles itself is just a probabilistic event rather physical thing, according to the what about quantum theory. So, the ability of identification of the object or concept is a mistake at the first place, but we don’t have any other tool to perceive the reality and transfer knowledge to the others.
While there may be infinite divisions of fundamental particles it seems not to matter. Lets pertend I was a powerful wizard and one of my spells was to change the electrons from you with those of a brick wall. I preformed this spell perfectly, but you would notice no change because any 2 electrons (or protons or electrons) would be interchangable. So it seems like we could say an object is an arrangement of protons, nuetrons and electrons (and what ever they are made up of) arranged cloudwise
Mhh im failing to understand the first bit actually. Lets say we have a cloud made out of 100 droplets right? Why would we say that there are 2 clouds when we count a further droplet? Its more that the size of the same cloud got bigger no? Sure it is a diffrent cloud then before but that does not mean there are 2 clouds simulaniously. Can someone explain?
We have the same problem in anthropology, i.e. what distinguishes one culture from another in the same geographic area? (where does one culture end and another begin?). And what are the intrinsic elements that make something a culture?
"the one and the many" problem doesn't exist, that's just a christian dillema that exists only in their reformed circles. their worldview is already self-refuting because it rests upon a paradox. in philosophy there's only the problem of the many.
@@yournightmare9562 I’m certainly no philosopher so I’m not confident in my knowledge of this topic. I’ve just read that this is a question traced back to a Platonic argument.
We can quickly find trouble if we disregard the abstractions that people use in language. Many times people will refer to things that are not concrete particular objects, nor specific collections of objects. For example, we might say "The people who live on Maple Street are served by bus route 12." In this case bus route 12 means a particular bus route, but "the people who live on Maple Street" does not mean Alice, Bob, Charlie and so on, even if those people happen to live there. The particular people are irrelevant to the claim being made. The people can come and go and so long as the bus route remains the statement will still be true. If we ignore the abstraction and take the statement as actually referring to Alice and Bob, and then Alice moves away so she is no longer served by bus route 12, then we'd conclude that the statement has been made false, but that would be misinterpreting the statement.
In the same way, when we speak of a cloud we're not referring to any particular set of particles. Particles are part of the cloud just as people are part of the people who live on Maple Street, but no particular particle or person is part of our meaning. We're not talking about the particles or the people, but we are talking about the abstraction. Particles come and go from the cloud just as people come and go from Maple Street, but the cloud still remains because the cloud is an abstraction.
This seems like a potential case of context sensitivity.
I’ve tried to understand this for years. Your video finally did it. You’ve earned a sub. Thank you
There's no cloud there's just infinitesimal particles, we just use the word cloud as the abstraction to point out a splotch of color differentiation in the sky. Teaching children collectivistic thinking is always erroneous, it just makes it easier to speak rhetorically.
A “cloud” is an emergent entity made up of “raindrops”. Both are just models. “Raindrops” are just collections of “H20” molecules which are described by other models eg “atoms”. Draw your boundaries wherever you find them most useful. I don’t see this is actually a problem at all.
Kane B addresses this in the section titled mereological nihilism
I’m glad to have found your channel I’ve been watching for a few months now and you never disappoint . You maintain good quality and I plan to began making content on this platform as well I hope one done we can speak as I really enjoy your commentaries.
Can't we make a distinction between the concept of the cloud and the physical phenomena of the cloud? There is only one concept of a particular cloud, but the cloud is itself is simply specific regularities and patterns in our perception. The physical phenomena are not necessarily enumerable its just a dynamical system governed by some physical laws. For example, consider waves. We observe certain regularity in nature and form a concept of it. We can attribute a number to this concept based on how we intend on using this concept. A scientist studying waves, would probably speak of only one wave originating at a source and its motion in a medium is approximately governed by the wave equation, whereas for a surfer who is trying to catch the *waves* it probably makes more sense to regard each crest of the wave as a separate entity.
How would we ever know for sure that we’ve found fundamental particles? How could we know that there aren’t even more fundamentals that compose what we now call fundamental particles?
Truth is: it's possible we know (if it happens to be true) the fundamental particles already, but we can never know that we know it.
Locke said that way before analytical phil ever camne into being.
That looks more like problem of determinism. The biggest misunderstanding comes from languages structure itself, because realization of that every single word is just a probability of calling or describing something is not common. On the physical level, there is no any border of when particle count can produce the object. Particles itself is just a probabilistic event rather physical thing, according to the what about quantum theory. So, the ability of identification of the object or concept is a mistake at the first place, but we don’t have any other tool to perceive the reality and transfer knowledge to the others.
While there may be infinite divisions of fundamental particles it seems not to matter. Lets pertend I was a powerful wizard and one of my spells was to change the electrons from you with those of a brick wall. I preformed this spell perfectly, but you would notice no change because any 2 electrons (or protons or electrons) would be interchangable. So it seems like we could say an object is an arrangement of protons, nuetrons and electrons (and what ever they are made up of) arranged cloudwise
"cloudwise" haha
Mhh im failing to understand the first bit actually.
Lets say we have a cloud made out of 100 droplets right?
Why would we say that there are 2 clouds when we count a further droplet?
Its more that the size of the same cloud got bigger no?
Sure it is a diffrent cloud then before but that does not mean there are 2 clouds simulaniously.
Can someone explain?
We have the same problem in anthropology, i.e. what distinguishes one culture from another in the same geographic area? (where does one culture end and another begin?). And what are the intrinsic elements that make something a culture?
There is no area exempt from this problem.
Hey, this is not a video about System Shock 2
Great Video
Words don't refer to things in the world, only sense experience.
Is this a solution to the Ship of Theseus?
Neither is the Ship of Theseus :0
Are you going to discuss veganism and animal ethics with Perspective philosophy, Kane?
Yes. we're planning to have a chat on Saturday.
@@KaneB Great! Will you upload it on your channel? Thank you so much, Kane!
@@dangreen5267 Yes, probably. If he objects to it being made public then obviously I won't, but I don't expect that will happen.
@@KaneB So, have you talked to him? I think Saturday was yesterday. So, was the discussion fruitful?
Is this synonymous to the one and the many?
"the one and the many" problem doesn't exist, that's just a christian dillema that exists only in their reformed circles. their worldview is already self-refuting because it rests upon a paradox.
in philosophy there's only the problem of the many.
@@yournightmare9562 I’m certainly no philosopher so I’m not confident in my knowledge of this topic. I’ve just read that this is a question traced back to a Platonic argument.
Ah semantic boundaries, the gamma male's adopted artform.