13
   

Is 'Everything' One Thing?

 
 
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 07:35 am
Hi!

Is 'Everything' One thing?

If so 'one thing' must be everything.

Thank you!
Mark...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 13 • Views: 7,354 • Replies: 105
No top replies

 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 08:03 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi!

Is 'Everything' One thing?

If so 'one thing' must be everything.

Thank you!
Mark...


First question: No. Trees and horses are not the same thing.
Second: It does not follow that if, for instance, every apple is a fruit, then every fruit is an apple. So, ever if one thing is every thing, it does not follow that everything is one thing.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 08:09 am
My dog Rover, the prose style of James Thurber, and the price of candles are not the same thing either.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 08:36 am
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

My dog Rover, the prose style of James Thurber, and the price of candles are not the same thing either.

Cool
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 01:57 pm
@mark noble,
The word "thing" implies a "thinger" (observer). It immediately implies division. Expressions for a concept of "holistic unity", in which observers and observed are co-extensive and co-existent, are no doubt found in Buddhist writings. Such an expression would certainly not be equivalent to "thing", or a word like "everything" which has the same semantic root.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 02:59 pm
@kennethamy,
Hi Ken!

I think you may be looking at this just a tad materialistically.

Every apple is a fruit = a fruit is every apple, not, 'every fruit is an apple'.
Your reversal implies thus: Not Every fruit is an apple = an apple is Not every fruit.

You are skilled in language Ken, enough to understand that what you wrote here does not constitute the reversal of the OP statement.

Kind regards! Mark...
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 03:06 pm
Seeing as there is a lack of depth in the house, allow me to break down what I thought to be a simple question.

1) Can 'everything' be more or less than the sum of itself?
Is 'EVERYTHING' ONE THING (IN ITSELF)?

How hard can it be to answer this?

Thank you!
Mark...
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 03:07 pm
@fresco,
Hi fresco!

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Kind regards!
Mark...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 03:49 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

The word "thing" implies a "thinger" (observer).


Now what would make you thing (sorry, I mean "think") that? There are lots of things that no one observes, and even that cannot be observed. The Moon one billion years ago was not observed, since there were no observers to observe the Moon then. The Moon is 4.5 billion years old. People are less than .5 billion years old. Do the math. (I mean arithmetic).
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2010 03:55 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

I think you may be looking at this just a tad materialistically.

Every apple is a fruit = a fruit is every apple, not, 'every fruit is an apple'.
Your reversal implies thus: Not Every fruit is an apple = an apple is Not every fruit.

You are skilled in language Ken, enough to understand that what you wrote here does not constitute the reversal of the OP statement.

Kind regards! Mark...


Every apple is not a fruit is equivalent to not all apple are fruit, and that is equivalent to, some apples are not fruit. So, although every apple is a fruit, it is not true that every fruit is an apple, since fruit are not apples. For example: pears are not apples, but they are fruit; peaches are not apples, but peaches are fruit; bananas are not apples, but guess what, bananas are fruit. Shall I go on? Therefore, materialistic or not (what can I tell you?) not every fruit is an apple. Although every apple is a fruit. (Do you see a variety of fruit in Wales, or just apples? Maybe that is the problem).

By the way: All Xs are Ys is the converse of all Ys are Xs. And, as we have seen, it is not necessarily true that if all Zs are Ys, that all Ys are Xs (and, of course, conversely).

"Logic is logic, that's all I can say". Oliver Wendall Holmes. "The Wonderful One-Horse Shay".
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 12:31 am
@mark noble,
Berkeley's Master Argument
Quote:
… I am content to put the whole upon this issue; if you can but conceive it possible for one extended moveable substance, or in general, for any one idea or any thing like an idea, to exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving it, I shall readily give up the cause…. But say you, surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and no body by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it: but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees, and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of any one that may perceive them? But do not you your self perceive or think of them all the while? This therefore is nothing to the purpose: it only shows you have the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind; but it doth not shew that you can conceive it possible, the objects of your thought may exist without the mind: to make out this, it is necessary that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy. When we do our utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the while only contemplating our own ideas. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and doth conceive bodies existing unthought of or without the mind; though at the same time they are apprehended by or exist in it self. (PHK 22-23)


...which gives a context for Piaget's Epistemology
Quote:
Knowledge has a biological function, and arises out of action
Knowledge is basically "operative"--it is about change and transformation
Knowledge consists of cognitive structures
Development proceeds by the assimilation of the environment to these structures, and the accommodation of these structures to the environment
Movement to higher levels of development depends on "reflecting abstraction," which means coming to know properties of one's own actions, or coming to know the ways in which they are coordinated.


Now are you any the wiser, Mark ?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 12:46 am
@kennethamy,
Frogs in a tank will die when surrounded by only by what we call "dead flies" because for frogs "movement" is a property of "food".

Both "prediction" and "retro-diction" are the same. They both ignore the inter-actional role of the observer whose physiology and culture gives rise to hypothetical expectancies of what would be the interaction if he or his delegate were there. Such expectancies are called "properties of things".

0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 02:28 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:



Every apple is not a fruit is equivalent to not all apple are fruit, and that is equivalent to, some apples are not fruit.


Hi Ken!

Please consider this more carefully.

Every apple is not a fruit is conversed by 'Not any apple is a fruit', not 'Some apples are not fruit'. Note the key phrase here 'EVERY' apple is 'NOT', I repeat 'NOT' a fruit.

Do you see where you are mistaken?

Kind regards!
Mark...
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 02:33 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Berkeley's Master Argument
Quote:
… I am content to put the whole upon this issue; if you can but conceive it possible for one extended moveable substance, or in general, for any one idea or any thing like an idea, to exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving it, I shall readily give up the cause…. But say you, surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and no body by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it: but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees, and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of any one that may perceive them? But do not you your self perceive or think of them all the while? This therefore is nothing to the purpose: it only shows you have the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind; but it doth not shew that you can conceive it possible, the objects of your thought may exist without the mind: to make out this, it is necessary that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy. When we do our utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the while only contemplating our own ideas. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and doth conceive bodies existing unthought of or without the mind; though at the same time they are apprehended by or exist in it self. (PHK 22-23)


...which gives a context for Piaget's Epistemology
Quote:
Knowledge has a biological function, and arises out of action
Knowledge is basically "operative"--it is about change and transformation
Knowledge consists of cognitive structures
Development proceeds by the assimilation of the environment to these structures, and the accommodation of these structures to the environment
Movement to higher levels of development depends on "reflecting abstraction," which means coming to know properties of one's own actions, or coming to know the ways in which they are coordinated.


Now are you any the wiser, Mark ?


Hi Fresco!

I am unable to be any wiser than the sum of my wisdom.
I agree that everything is subjective. But I fail to understand what this train of thought has to do with the OP.

Is a planet 'one thing'?
Is a dog 'one thing'?
Is a universe 'one thing'?
Is every thing 'one thing'?

Can any thing be more or less than what it is?

Do you see where I am at with this?

Thank you, I enjoyed the literature you provided.
Mark...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 02:45 am
@mark noble,
What you don't cover is that "to count one" is the first level of measurement - the nominal- and it is a dynamic action on the part of some "namer". My argument involves ontological deconstruction of observer independent properties of "things". Thus "thing" boundaries are negotiable between "namers"/"thingers" according to co-ordinated functionality or otherwise. Therefore your question is meaningless since functionality dynamically shifts.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 03:29 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

kennethamy wrote:



Every apple is not a fruit is equivalent to not all apple are fruit, and that is equivalent to, some apples are not fruit.


Hi Ken!

Please consider this more carefully.

Every apple is not a fruit is conversed by 'Not any apple is a fruit', not 'Some apples are not fruit'. Note the key phrase here 'EVERY' apple is 'NOT', I repeat 'NOT' a fruit.

Do you see where you are mistaken?

Kind regards!
Mark...


"Not any apple is a fruit" just means, "No apples are fruit" But, that, of course, is false. What is true, as we all know, is that all apples are fruit.

Now, all apples are fruit, and no apples are fruit, are not converses of each other. They are contraries of each other. Two propositions are contraries (of each other) if and only if, both propositions cannot be true together so that if one is true then the other is false; but they both can be false. So, by definition, all apples are fruit, and no apples are fruit, are contraries. But two propositions are converses of one another when their subject terms and predicate terms are reversed. Thus, all Xs are Ys, and all Ys are Xs are converses of one another. And so, of course, all apples are fruit and all fruit are apples, are converses of one another.

If you think that every apple is not a fruit, that is, that some apples are not fruit, I suggest that you need to learn some very basic horticulture (and commonsense) for most people over the age of about 4 know that all apples are fruit, so that it is false that not all apples are fruit. Now, the propositions: all apples are fruit, and not all apples are fruit (or some apples are not fruit) are i]contradictories[/i] of one another. Two propositions are contradictories of one another if and only if they cannot both be true together, and cannot both be false together.

And so endeth my logic lesson for today. But I advise you not only to read up on horticulture if you really believe that every apple is not a fruit, that is that some apples are not fruit (do you really? Surely, even in Wales, apples are counted as fruit) and even make the effort to learn some logic.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 03:48 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

fresco wrote:

Berkeley's Master Argument
Quote:
… I am content to put the whole upon this issue; if you can but conceive it possible for one extended moveable substance, or in general, for any one idea or any thing like an idea, to exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving it, I shall readily give up the cause…. But say you, surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and no body by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it: but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees, and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of any one that may perceive them? But do not you your self perceive or think of them all the while? This therefore is nothing to the purpose: it only shows you have the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind; but it doth not shew that you can conceive it possible, the objects of your thought may exist without the mind: to make out this, it is necessary that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy. When we do our utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the while only contemplating our own ideas. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and doth conceive bodies existing unthought of or without the mind; though at the same time they are apprehended by or exist in it self. (PHK 22-23)


...which gives a context for Piaget's Epistemology
Quote:
Knowledge has a biological function, and arises out of action
Knowledge is basically "operative"--it is about change and transformation
Knowledge consists of cognitive structures
Development proceeds by the assimilation of the environment to these structures, and the accommodation of these structures to the environment
Movement to higher levels of development depends on "reflecting abstraction," which means coming to know properties of one's own actions, or coming to know the ways in which they are coordinated.


Now are you any the wiser, Mark ?


Hi Fresco!

I am unable to be any wiser than the sum of my wisdom.
I agree that everything is subjective. But I fail to understand what this train of thought has to do with the OP.

Is a planet 'one thing'?
Is a dog 'one thing'?
Is a universe 'one thing'?
Is every thing 'one thing'?

Can any thing be more or less than what it is?

Do you see where I am at with this?

Thank you, I enjoyed the literature you provided.
Mark...


The term "everything" is ambiguous. The term may be understood as meaning "everything" collectively taken as a whole, or "everything" distributively, taken one by one.

For instance, it might very well be true that everything in the universe (which is to say, every particular thing in the universe) has a cause (so here the word, "everything" is taken distributively); but it might be false that everything (meaning the universe as a whole has a cause), And here, of course, the term, "everything" is understood collectively. Therefore, it would be fallacious to argue that since everything (distributively) has a cause, that everything (collectively) has a cause.

So, we can understand "everything" as just one thing when we think of it in its collective sense. But, of course, we can understand "everything" as just all the particular individual things, and then everything is not just one thing. It is just a matter of two different meanings of the word, "everything".
0 Replies
 
RealEyes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 03:54 am
Yes; the universe is the universe.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 04:14 am
@RealEyes,
RealEyes wrote:

Yes; the universe is the universe.


Well, how enlightening is that?!
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 08:46 am
@kennethamy,
Hi Ken!

I am not proposing that apples aren't fruit - You know this. I am answering your prior statement regarding apples.

The converse of something is made up of the words of the same sentence.

Thus - All apples are fruit = fruit, are all apples. Thus - Everything is one thing = One thing, is everything.

Stop being pedantic just for the sake of it. If you can't comprehend the obvious, try not to comprehend at all.

Now, back to the question, and the question alone. Is everything one thing?

Know this also: Every thing is comprised of a multitude of other things that in turn equal the sum of the said thing.
1) Everything equates to the sum total of all things.
2) Every thing is uniquely itself, as one thing.
3) Every means 'ALL' No matter how you apply it.

Is 'Nature' One thing?
Is 'God' One thing?
Is 'Ken' One thing?
Is 'the sum total of all things (EVERYTHING)' One thing?

Think! And Be.
Mark...

 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is 'Everything' One Thing?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2018 at 08:45:42