Can anyone Explain this: Mereological Nihilism

[ManTimeForgot]

Title pretty much explains it all. What does it actually mean? Could someone explain to me what a "simple" is?

A link to wikipedia's mereological nihilism article And this doesn't make it clear to me...

MTF

 

[Onkara]

Hi MTF
Basically the idea is that we although we recognise objects they are not really what we perceive.

For example, I see the flower, however the flower is actually consisting of parts or qualities i.e. leafs, stem, petals, colour red, colour green etc.

When we break the object down into parts it implies that the object is not really what we thought it was. Take that further and we have to except that there is not really any foundation to the objects we accept unquestionably during our day.

A "simple" appears to be their own term to capture the idea of the smaller part e.g. leafs.

Onkarah.

 

[Ozzie]

Title pretty much explains it all. What does it actually mean? Could someone explain to me what a "simple" is?

A link to wikipedia's mereological nihilism article And this doesn't make it clear to me...

MTF

A few thoughts based on the article. Simples are atoms, basic building blocks so to speak. The philosophy is based on a rejection of metaphysical relations proposed by classical mereology that underlie composition of aggregates or objects. I would say this position is flawed because metaphysical relationships are not necessary to explain the formation of aggregates. It is sufficient to rely on the 4 fundamental physical forces of nature to explain that. ie strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetic force. Of these only gravity is not well understood in its relationship to the other forces.

The philosophy is interesting in that it makes the point that we do not experience tables and chairs as whiring aggregate masses of electrons and atoms, but as solids, and posits the perception of solids is a mistake based on a dysfunction of our senses. It also seems to tie in the idea that language is important to our perception of solids rather than aggregates.

The position of mereological nihilism is pretty straighforward in relation to solids. I wonder what it says about the definition of the word solid. For instance, I might bump into a chair, but I can walk through a dust storm. Is a dust storm a solid also for the purposes of mereological nihilism? I would argue that a dust storm is an aggregate just as a chair is.

 

[Onkara]

A few thoughts based on the article..

Hi Ozzie
You add greater definition and interest to the post. It would be interesting to explore the connection with langauge you touch on above, as I feel there is a significance there. Any further thoughts from your good self?

Respectfully, Onkarah.

 

[Ozzie]

Hi Ozzie
You add greater definition and interest to the post. It would be interesting to explore the connection with langauge you touch on above, as I feel there is a significance there. Any further thoughts from your good self?

Respectfully, Onkarah.

You could start with the word "I" or "me" or a name, and their significance in young children for identifying themselves as a solid.

 

[Willamena]

Title pretty much explains it all. What does it actually mean? Could someone explain to me what a "simple" is?

A link to wikipedia's mereological nihilism article And this doesn't make it clear to me...

MTF

I'll give it try, as I understand it.

This philosophical position (as with each of them) presents us with a particular image of reality. Everything that is (objects) is both a part of something greater, and is made of parts that are lesser. Hence everything plays two roles simultaneously, as a whole, constituent of its parts, and as a part, which of itself is whole.

We tend to think of the lesser parts as whole, and hence together they lend wholeness to the greater part. Modern physics tells us that the smallest parts --subatomic --do not have a wholeness unto themselves. They are relatively undefined, a substance that emulates both "wave" and "particle" in nature. They appear differently depending on how they are viewed, so the role of observer cannot be ignored in their definition. And they are mostly "empty space."

Merelogical nihilism builds outward, and upward, ontologically from this image, saying that all the world is this wavy-particley thinginess, and what we perceive as parts/wholes are a result of imperfect perception of the wavy-particley thinginess. (That objects "do not exist" per the article is simply poor wording that means that they do not exist in the form that we think they do --as parts/wholes, "simples".)

 

[DallasApple]

Hi MTF
Basically the idea is that we although we recognise objects they are not really what we perceive.

For example, I see the flower, however the flower is actually consisting of parts or qualities i.e. leafs, stem, petals, colour red, colour green etc.

When we break the object down into parts it implies that the object is not really what we thought it was. Take that further and we have to except that there is not really any foundation to the objects we accept unquestionably during our day.

A "simple" appears to be their own term to capture the idea of the smaller part e.g. leafs.

Onkarah.

No its a "flower"

We actually have to call it a name to simplify things..If we had to run around describing
each part of everything we saw as a "whole" all we would be doing is standing around describing in very much detail what we see and that would take hours that we could use one word for instead and everyone would stand around talking at the same time and nothing else would get done.

RUN ON !!!

Eventually we would have to describe the molecular stucture of every thing we are talking about.I guess we could break out the chalk and draw the symbols and the variations for (not for infitnity but for way too long).

Why not just say "flower" and everyone gets what you mean?

Love

Dallas

 

[Onkara]

No its a "flower"

We actually have to call it a name to simplify things..If we had to run around describing
each part of everything we saw as a "whole" all we would be doing is standing around describing in very much detail what we see and that would take hours that we could use one word for instead and everyone would stand around talking at the same time and nothing else would get done.

RUN ON !!!

Eventually we would have to describe the molecular stucture of every thing we are talking about.I guess we could break out the chalk and draw the symbols and the variations for (not for infitnity but for way too long).

Why not just say "flower" and everyone gets what you mean?

Love

Dallas

haha

But Dallas, my legs ache from all this running, don't you think it is nice to have an intellectual breather now and then and count the petals ? :foryou:

 

[DallasApple]

haha

But Dallas, my legs ache from all this running, don't you think it is nice to have an intellectual breather now and then and count the petals ? :foryou:

I would say so..:yes:


Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

CANT anyone say its "just a bird pecking seeds"

Do we have to measure wing span every time? Or pedict the average life cycle of the bird?

MICRO MANAGING SUCKS!

Love

Dallas

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'd like to respond to this thread, but my keyboard doesn't really exist, so I can't type a response.

 

[Ozzie]

I'd like to respond to this thread, but my keyboard doesn't really exist, so I can't type a response.

Your right, but you do have a group of atoms acting like a keyboard in front of you