Why one object can always relate to another by some aspects?

Of course not. The very act of "selection" relates them !

"Objects" have no existence independent of the "objectifier"

While we are dicsussing how objects are related to each other I was hoping if you might be able to tell me if these two objects have any relationship to one another!

Do you remember the kkk? If so does this black suit in this very short 50 second video have any relation to the kkk suits, and if so why? and if not why not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNAC6AzWlO8

because they two are called "suits", this is a relation, is it?

they all 'noun', this is a relation, is it?

To avoid mereological nihilism. That is, by definition, how could the elements of a single cosmological system not be interconnected either literally or via nomological influences? To know or have the capacity to know that space-rock "DB2345T" exists is to have it be a component of this realm, and thus have the potential to be affected by it. "To be" in any way that matters is to be causal or at least have regulated correlations to other beings.

so, you think that objects must relate to some others then we can know it?

Do you think " interconnected either literally " or "regulated correlations to other beings" is a relation?

Yes I do think that you are correct! Are they related in any other way or does that sum it up? Thank you for your reply.

Solipsism excluded, of course.



Relations of material constitution are historically part of mereology, even if there is some contemporary controversy about them.



Purely mentioned as an alternative to accomodate camps that are either skeptical of causation or don't necessarily employ it in their work. Examples: The founder of mathematical statistics -- Karl Pearson -- denied the need for an independent concept of causal relation beyond correlation. Kantians remove causation from the noumenal world (along with the space and time it's grounded in), internalizing it as part of the cognitive apparatus of mind. Some physicists, like Carl Rovelli, describe the dynamics of the universe as a network of correlations between things, rather than as an evolution in time.

Forget about "nouns" ! Note Shakespeare's answer:

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day ......
.....so long as men shall breathe or have eyes to see,
so long lives THIS, (list of relationships)
and this gives life to thee.

I learn a lot from you! Thank you, G H.

About evolution. I think the evolution means a directional change, means an 'upgrade', but many biologists believes that the creature evolution is not directional (see Wikipedia), Do you think the word 'evolution' means 'directional' or 'upgrade'?

I remember that Hegel says the universe (not only creature) is in an evolution (is it?). Do you think so? If the universe is in a evolution how could we know or proof it?

What's the different between the 'a network of correlations between things' with 'an evolution in time'? I think they ain't one against another. which is the popular one in philosophers?

of course , with depth

can a platinum investment account relate to the Universe

There is no goal of progess pre-conditionally embedded in the evolutionary process. Yet growing complexity in biological systems can be a side-effect of a gradual accumulation of adaptations as they are selected (or even discarded) over time. "Directional selection" may be one of the legit sub-terms dealing with the varying of a trait across a range of values within a population, but that's likely not what you were referring to. More on the issue of teleology here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

Evolution does indeed involve "chance" in regard to the mutations that arise in organisms, but there are body/genetic templates already in place and surrounding environments to regulate the fate of those random additions (according to their utility or survival value). As evolution is about how life becomes heterogeneous after it emerges, not about its ultimate origin (abiogenesis deals with that).



Well, Hegel's dialectical idealism might be a form of "evolution" in the broadest sense of the word, but it's a metaphysical doctrine, not a naturalist explanation or like evolution as pertaining to biology. In his time, Hegel only knew of Lamarckian evolution and was opposed to it: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/houlgate1.htm



Cosmology might have a view of the universe "evolving" -- again in the broadest sense of the word. Philosophy-wise, Daniel Dennett has perhaps tried to make the concept an umbrella term for everything transpiring: http://dannyreviews.com/h/Darwins_Dangerous_Idea.html Zurek, a physicist, advocates either a QM interpretation or an approach called "quantum darwinism".



The nature and status of time and causation are unsettled issues still debated. As an opener for the latter, you might read about David Hume's "triggering" contribution to the mess, along with any criticisms of it: http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/ For the former, philosophy of time and its schemes of presentism, eternalism, etc: www.iep.utm.edu/time/

1 - The problem for correlation instead of causation is to explain what emergence of property´s is to mean in logical terms...
2 - ...while the case for Causation only has to imply an hard determined final set or sequence of events to undermine its critics...Rationality and Logic does n´t demand any further then this !
(Causation at this light is just a perfect Necessary correlation by absence of alternatives...)

Your claim that some particular species of logician has exclusive proprietary rights to "correlation" and "causation" in the setting of their boundaries, etc. -- over philosophers, scientists, statisticians, etc., has been recorded. Next in line? I see... you say this popular rapper in his hit-song has twisted the meaning of and infringed on your group's copyright of the word priggism....

1 - I only claim, from where I stand, that there is no real difference between Cause and Correlation, provided Hard Determinism is true and only if Hard determinism is true...same is to say, that that which perfectly correlates in the absence of alternatives may well be indistinguishable of Cause...
Cause points to and refers to a temporal approach for the problem of Being...while it may feel helpful to indulge in such pedagogical perspective, this form of analysis can also be deceptive...

2 - The case against Hard Determinism is far from convincing independently of what Statistical Scientists, Mathematicians, and Theoretical and Quantum Physicists may think or throw at it so far...I see nothing but witticisms and the wind whistling there...

Pearson demoted it to a sub-category of correlation, considering it a speculation unnecessary to even narrow down to in his line of work. All this "much ado about something" reduces to making a case that causality is "practical", which even Hume's skepticism (eventually mitigated) would not quibble with. This pragmatism, however, does little to appease traditional dinosaurs still wrangling over demands for this or that to be certain or literally real outside their heads, not merely useful. In his book "Causality", Judea Pearl has supposedly done a fine job of reviving the concept's utility in the artificial intelligence field, but perhaps via its effectiveness as a technical scheme or description rather than another futile attempt to settle its ontological status as either non-artificial or an invention:

Most of my colleagues even considered causal vocabulary to be dangerous, avoidable, ill-defined, and nonscientific.... [But] ...causality, it turns out, is not nearly as nasty as her reputation suggests.... As the epilogue of my book summarizes: "Causality is not mystical or metaphysical. It can be understood in terms of simple processes, and it can be expressed in a friendly mathematical language, ready for computer analysis."

What is "outside their heads" to mean with certainty ?
...surely you can see that the extension of the "problem" here makes it uncontrollable...

...by the very same standard I don´t see any reason to establish the location or the source, from where information emanates...be it in or out of the mind...
...such that neither "mind" is to be clarified nor "in" or "out" makes much more sense as certain ground...

...as for ontological status...what description is unfit as integrally non-existent ?

Concerning patterns...

..."Patterns" are the best way to stablish ontological status, instead of specific descriptions...
(which amount to unneeded layers of problematization)
...on this regard, on one side if it is true that "forms" indeed do change, on the other it is also true that such change always comes in "familiar" ways...

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE