13
   

Is 'Everything' One Thing?

 
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 08:50 am
@fresco,
Hi Fresco!

Yes or no, Is 'everything' (the sum total of all things) one thing?

Thank you.
Mark...
RealEyes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 08:57 am
@mark noble,
You can refer to a set of things as one set (a single linguistic object).
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 09:02 am
@RealEyes,
You must refer to a (one) set of things as 'a (one) set of things... There is no other way to express it.

A star-system is made up of many things, but it is still 'A (one) star-system'.

Have a great day RE!
Mark...
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 09:17 am
@mark noble,
Quote:
The converse of something is made up of the words of the same sentence.


Not in logic as it is typically practiced. The subject and predicate are interchanged but the modifier stays where it is. Thus the converse of "All X are Y" is rendered "All Y are X."
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Sep, 2010 10:12 am
@mark noble,
Quote:
Yes or no, Is 'everything' (the sum total of all things) one thing?

Meaningless..."one thing" for what purpose ? All "things" are defined with respect to fluctuating functionality.
No0ne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 02:07 pm
@mark noble,
I’m thinking of a thing, which is it first, a thing, or a thought?

I thought I seen something.
I thought I heard something.
I thought I felt something.
I thought I tasted something.
I thought I smelt something.
I thought I thought something.

I thought that looked like a bird, then it must be a bird.
I thought that sounded like a bird, then it must be a bird.
I thought that felt like a bird, then it must be a bird.
I thought that tasted like a bird, then it must be a bird.
I thought that smelt like a bird, then it must be a bird.
I thought that I thought it’s a bird, then it must be a bird.

(So what is it first, a bird, or a thought?)

For is not the thought of "everything" just thought? Well thought is a thought, is it not? Therefore how could it be anything but one thought? For what makes a thought a thought is the fact that one has thought the thought. Hence no thing cannot be thought, and no thought cannot be a thought, therefore all is one, and one is all.
GoshisDead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 02:22 pm
Refer to everything I've posted in the same confused threads that involve in their titles the words. something, nothing, nobody, somebody, nowhere, and somewhere. The OP isn't asking what it thinks it is asking because it doesn't understand the function of the words its asking about.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 03:24 pm
@GoshisDead,
I honestly don´t get how a reasonable intelligent guy like you indulges in this fantasy dichotomy between objects symbols and representations when none of it is clear...

To say something, or to say a car, or simply grass is exactly the same thing, being the difference the wider or less wider scope that one concept encompasses in relation to the other when referring to anything, and being this anything itself a place holder of orderly information, or combined property´s that can refer further in the chain even as objects and not as concepts, its a matter of "gravitational pull" and functions...so both, symbols and things, material and immaterial (where is the difference ?) refer to a set of property´s, both are place Holders as both are things...as for abstract and concrete we have exactly the same nonsense going on...
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 04:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Maybe a little cross linguistic example will help you get where I'm coming from. Many less isolating languages than English use grammatical affixes to encompass these concepts and perform these functions. In fact English does the same thing to an extent.

any/every/some - in many language all three are expressed by one affix. They are not words or even bearing morphemes. They are iflectional morpheme performing a gammatical function. They all perform the function of (unspecified - X) There is no difference to native speakers who grew up bilingually knowing English between the three. It is the same in English Any/every/some when compounded serve the same function. Any-thing, every-thing, some-thing (out of all the things it could be it is unspecified) same with any-car, some-car, every-car. In English there are meaning differences to the three words, but not functional differences.

To say something and to say a car is not saying close to the same thing. It has nothing to do with the categorical scope of carness. Something referrs to something unspecified. It cannot represent a car. Even if it is a car it cannot represent it.

Someone has a toy car behind their back.
A) "What's that you're hiding?"
B) "Something"

Even if the both people know it is a car, something refers to unspecified. the same goes for nothing, nobody, nowhere. Which just become the negativized unspecified.

Someone has a toy car behind their back.
A) "What's that you're hiding?"
B) "nothing"

Being unspecified it cannot represent a particular thing, idea, concept other than unspecified (X) or the non-specified in the case of things fixed with -no-.
So to ask questions like is everything one thing, or does nowhere exist etc... is a functional misunderstanding of the usage of the terms. It takes the word out of any real context and misdefines their usage by isolating them, thereby misdefining the isolated term as well.

Words cannot be categorized outside the context and function of their usage and remain relevent.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 04:46 pm
@GoshisDead,
I get what you said alright, I just don´t happen to agree !

Can you give me an example of a specified referring word ? Specified up until where ? Where does it ends ? when you say "such car" you mean to represent some car a specific one, of course, but did you describe it with a word ? hell no ! That´s precisely why it is a symbol, a shortcut to something else and not a information clone...something, anything, everything, are no different...more or less specific does not mean really specific, but relatively specific...that is relatively to the questioners intent and cosmogony, or to the cultural common ground of a group of people.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 04:48 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Of course something anything and everything or nothing can relatively refer !
Is just up to a degree. In the case a very small one.
There are words that refer in a more clear (familiar) way. But even those only go so far...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 04:56 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
1 - Anything, refers to one of the things there is. One with the property of being.
2 - Everything to them all as a group, a set. A set as One, a Unified result of what is.
3 - Nothing to the opposite of being, through the being...that which has to not be. ( a symbolic mind experience )

Now of course the common use of this words in context is about not being specific in relation to something. Something that we think to be clearly specified already and that we may not want to share or even to be able to describe...but is it so ?
That´s what is up for debate.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 05:03 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Now of course the common use of this words is about not being specific in relation to something that we think to be clearly specified already...but is it ?
That´s what is up for debate.

It is. Can you give me an example of common usage where it is not? As for the uncommon that is another story and one which really cannot be discussed without clarifying the parameters that make it uncommon.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 05:13 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I get what you said alright, I just don´t happen to agree !

Can you give me an example of a specified referring word ? Specified up until where ? Where does it ends ? when you say "such car" you mean to represent some car a specific one, of course, but did you describe it with a word ? hell no ! That´s precisely why it is a symbol, a shortcut to something else and not a information clone...something, anything, everything, are no different...more or less specific does not mean really specific, but relatively specific...that is relatively to the questioners intent and cosmogony, or to the cultural common ground of a group of people.


That/this/those/these/here/there any demonstrative, personal, or proximal deictic these specified proforms.
This time
That thing
the thing
now
then

I'm sorry that you don't agree with how language works, but there must be categorical differences for it to work. The structure of language requires that some things not be on a continuum in order to differentiate between them. Granted many things have considerable overlap especially semantic domain categorization, which is what you are lumping these into. However the words discussed in these threads also serve and primarily serve a grammitcal function which if overlapped in a continuum like the oversimplified charicature of semantics you are painting would render language unintelligible.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 06:03 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi!

Is 'Everything' One thing?

If so 'one thing' must be everything.

Thank you!
Mark...
Yeah
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2010 06:45 pm
@GoshisDead,
I see your point...but I think relativeness on concepts axis is precisely what renders them functional and operative...you are the one attributing them absolute different natures instead of a natural common ground.You bring up transcendences where there is none. A dangerous business !

All language, all words are representative of something up to a degree, that´s why they represent instead of being what they describe. Up to a degree !

Even Objects themselves which have "real" property´s, and have specific size and are able of relation with other objects cannot escape this condition of being relative when it comes to law´s of nature working their way in the World...and that´s the thing, they relate to be, they depend on the partner to whatever they are. You change the partner you change them...their weight, their orbit, even their inner characteristics and behaviour...and all that regarding the interferences that go on in the vicinity...just imagine Io the moon without Jupiter´s gravitational pull, how different would it be...

A moon can be big but it goes around a planet does n´it ? it goes around many other things in the galaxy, as many things go around it... A planet is a World but it revolves around the Sun...the Sun itself is a satellite in the Galaxy...An Atom can be in many respects considered a mini solar System...The Sun, the World, and the Moon, above all are concept and Idea as what distinguishes them can be defied to an extent...what they are is not for them alone "to say"but for what is around which makes them be what they are at T1 T2 or T3...
Now, Time is the means of relation but not its cause...and if things relate in the first place such is because they have the ability, an ability of precisely through the "other" to become something else themselves...

This is not about concepts and things, but about the things which are in the concepts, and the concepts of what things are...
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 07:05 am
@Shapeless,
Hi!

Or 'Y are all X'. Do you think. Same wordage in the sentence, only rearranged.

Mark...
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 07:06 am
@fresco,
Hi!

'Nature' For instance... Is it or is it not 'one thing'?

Mark...
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 07:07 am
@No0ne,
I like you!!!
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2010 07:13 am
@GoshisDead,
Hi Russ!

This is not relative to language, the use of or correctness.
It is about substance.

mark...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
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
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/18/2021 at 12:31:59