Wood and Chair question

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Arising_uk »

cladking wrote:No two chairs can be identical and no two pieces of wood are identical. ...
If I took two plastic formed factory chairs and showed them to you together, one on the left and one on the right and then showed you just one of them coud you tell me if it was the left or the right one?
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Arising_uk wrote:
cladking wrote:No two chairs can be identical and no two pieces of wood are identical. ...
If I took two plastic formed factory chairs and showed them to you together, one on the left and one on the right and then showed you just one of them coud you tell me if it was the left or the right one?

If I knew it were a test I could. Otherwise I wouldn't have a chance.

Differences can be extremely subtle. Imagine how minor the differences between two hydrogen atoms might be! But there are no two giraffes that are the same so why would there be two of anything at all that are the same? Even the two plastic chairs were made at different times or on different machines and they used different plastic and cooled in different places. There are actually gross differences between the chairs but they aren't readily apparent in most cases.

Not only are no two things identical but things change and evolve over time. One chair might better withstand weathering than the other but it might be the other exposed to the elements, damage, and wear.

The world is impossibly complex and we try to simplify it in our minds by discovering the rules that govern it. We see what we know and we can't see that the chairs are different without cutting them in two and performing tests on them. We understand some of the rules and can't even see we don't understand all of them. We don't even know why the chair falls and merely say that it responds to gravity when unsupported or if no normal force is applied. This is an appeal to magic rather than an explanation. We build models of our understanding and see the world in terms of these models. We see what we expect and are blind to the unknown.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:

I am not suggesting that I can prove no two things are identical. Rather I am suggesting that no two real things can be identical is axiomatic. One electron is different than the next. It not only has a different history and a different position but it has different characteristics. Waves, numbers, forces, ideas, etc are not things but are events or processes that can affect things. Wood can not be a chair and a chair can not be wood but wood can be made into a chair and a chair can be made of wood. No two chairs can be identical and no two pieces of wood are identical. One chair might break if you sit down on it too hard and another made in the same factory using the same process and wood from the same tree might not break. One side of the tree grew in the sun and the other side in the shade. This is the nature of reality which is also axiomatic.
What you have here (more or less) is the sameness of indiscernibles. One of Leibniz's laws states that either all things are equal or all things are different. Yes you are correct it is an axiomatic principle and it is metaphysics. It is derived from his Principle of Sufficient Reason. It is definitely not science.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote: It is definitely not science.

Herein lies what I consider to be the problem. Science can recover from its current difficulties probably or the human race will be extinct in a couple more centuries. Modern science isn't the problem but its divorce from its metaphysics is.

Ancient science took "reality" and all its facets as axiomatic so it was always tied to its metaphysics and reality. It progressed slowly because it's a weaker tool than modern science and experiment. Perhaps modern science can get it over its own hump of becoming too complicated for human thought.

I'm merely suggesting we reinvent ancient science using modern knowledge and using it as a check on modern philosophy and science. At the very least it would get us back in touch with human realities. It is even possible that we can get over the hump we've been stuck on for the last century; a unified field theory using an updated version of ancient science. The most likely practical benefit scientifically is the possibility it will give rise to a computer language more appropriate to the ability of computers to merely crunch numbers.

One benefit is certain. We can develop changes to scientific or even everyday language that will make communication clearer. We should also come to better understand our history and nature.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Petals wrote:Hi all,

This is my first post :)

I have been wondering this for some time. My question may be badly formuated, so apologies! Is there a word to differenciate two objects, one which is 'natural' and the other which has been constructed. i.e wood and chair?
Although wood has intrinsic existence, a chair does not (chairs are constructs). I am looking for a word or theory that converys this.

Any ideas??

Many thanks!

Petals
The very premise of this misses an important truth. Since man is too a product of nature, the forces which create the chair are the same forces of nature which caused the tree to come into being, therefore both are natural, products of nature. I think the confusion arises from modern day slang, where natural tends to mean the opposite of man-made, although man-made things are quite natural (but usually toxic.)
Systematic
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Systematic »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Petals wrote:Hi all,

This is my first post :)

I have been wondering this for some time. My question may be badly formuated, so apologies! Is there a word to differenciate two objects, one which is 'natural' and the other which has been constructed. i.e wood and chair?
Although wood has intrinsic existence, a chair does not (chairs are constructs). I am looking for a word or theory that converys this.

Any ideas??

Many thanks!

Petals
The very premise of this misses an important truth. Since man is too a product of nature, the forces which create the chair are the same forces of nature which caused the tree to come into being, therefore both are natural, products of nature. I think the confusion arises from modern day slang, where natural tends to mean the opposite of man-made, although man-made things are quite natural (but usually toxic.)

So maybe the words for the two categories would be organic/inorganic.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Systematic wrote:
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Petals wrote:Hi all,

This is my first post :)

I have been wondering this for some time. My question may be badly formuated, so apologies! Is there a word to differenciate two objects, one which is 'natural' and the other which has been constructed. i.e wood and chair?
Although wood has intrinsic existence, a chair does not (chairs are constructs). I am looking for a word or theory that converys this.

Any ideas??

Many thanks!

Petals
The very premise of this misses an important truth. Since man is too a product of nature, the forces which create the chair are the same forces of nature which caused the tree to come into being, therefore both are natural, products of nature. I think the confusion arises from modern day slang, where natural tends to mean the opposite of man-made, although man-made things are quite natural (but usually toxic.)

So maybe the words for the two categories would be organic/inorganic.
No, because wooden chairs are just as organic as the wood they were created from. Many chemicals are toxic, but are organic chemicals. What should be labelled as a hazard to health, should be labelled as toxic, no more no less. The current state of labeling just adds untruth, double-meanings, and confusion. For example, Horizon Organic is labelled Organic, and one would assume the cows are treated well, but they are not.
Systematic
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Systematic »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:No, because wooden chairs are just as organic as the wood they were created from. Many chemicals are toxic, but are organic chemicals. What should be labelled as a hazard to health, should be labelled as toxic, no more no less. The current state of labeling just adds untruth, double-meanings, and confusion. For example, Horizon Organic is labelled Organic, and one would assume the cows are treated well, but they are not.
How about processed/raw?
Systematic
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Systematic »

cladking wrote:
Ginkgo wrote: It is definitely not science.

Herein lies what I consider to be the problem. Science can recover from its current difficulties probably or the human race will be extinct in a couple more centuries. Modern science isn't the problem but its divorce from its metaphysics is.

Ancient science took "reality" and all its facets as axiomatic so it was always tied to its metaphysics and reality. It progressed slowly because it's a weaker tool than modern science and experiment. Perhaps modern science can get it over its own hump of becoming too complicated for human thought.

I'm merely suggesting we reinvent ancient science using modern knowledge and using it as a check on modern philosophy and science. At the very least it would get us back in touch with human realities. It is even possible that we can get over the hump we've been stuck on for the last century; a unified field theory using an updated version of ancient science. The most likely practical benefit scientifically is the possibility it will give rise to a computer language more appropriate to the ability of computers to merely crunch numbers.

One benefit is certain. We can develop changes to scientific or even everyday language that will make communication clearer. We should also come to better understand our history and nature.
This makes sense to me.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

Systematic wrote:
cladking wrote:
Ginkgo wrote: It is definitely not science.

Herein lies what I consider to be the problem. Science can recover from its current difficulties probably or the human race will be extinct in a couple more centuries. Modern science isn't the problem but its divorce from its metaphysics is.

Ancient science took "reality" and all its facets as axiomatic so it was always tied to its metaphysics and reality. It progressed slowly because it's a weaker tool than modern science and experiment. Perhaps modern science can get it over its own hump of becoming too complicated for human thought.

I'm merely suggesting we reinvent ancient science using modern knowledge and using it as a check on modern philosophy and science. At the very least it would get us back in touch with human realities. It is even possible that we can get over the hump we've been stuck on for the last century; a unified field theory using an updated version of ancient science. The most likely practical benefit scientifically is the possibility it will give rise to a computer language more appropriate to the ability of computers to merely crunch numbers.

One benefit is certain. We can develop changes to scientific or even everyday language that will make communication clearer. We should also come to better understand our history and nature.
This makes sense to me.

Sounds good except for the problem of there being no such thing as ancient science.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Systematic wrote:
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:No, because wooden chairs are just as organic as the wood they were created from. Many chemicals are toxic, but are organic chemicals. What should be labelled as a hazard to health, should be labelled as toxic, no more no less. The current state of labeling just adds untruth, double-meanings, and confusion. For example, Horizon Organic is labelled Organic, and one would assume the cows are treated well, but they are not.
How about processed/raw?
It would require a threshold, which is very blurry. Though all foods have some level of toxicity, the threshold is less blurry. Would precooked beans constitute processed, even if beans were cooked homemade? There are too many variables.

The reason the companies do not do so, is because they don't want to clean up their act. They know good and well that if they labelled things with honesty, labeling things which are toxic with a sticker saying "toxic", their profits would steadily decline, for even the ignorant know not to eat things with a sticker saying "toxic".
Ginkgo wrote: Sounds good except for the problem of there being no such thing as ancient science.
I think what he means are the hidden technologies of the pyramids and ancient civilizations, and the meaning of ancient runes, and misunderstood ruins and mysterious alien technologies.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

Alien technologies?
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Ginkgo wrote:Alien technologies?
I'm no archaeologist, but this youtube channel might have more info. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXbnJ03fdak
Systematic
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Systematic »

Ginkgo wrote: Sounds good except for the problem of there being no such thing as ancient science.
Yeah, no one ever studied nature in ancient times.
Systematic
Posts: 345
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Systematic »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Systematic wrote:
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:No, because wooden chairs are just as organic as the wood they were created from. Many chemicals are toxic, but are organic chemicals. What should be labelled as a hazard to health, should be labelled as toxic, no more no less. The current state of labeling just adds untruth, double-meanings, and confusion. For example, Horizon Organic is labelled Organic, and one would assume the cows are treated well, but they are not.
How about processed/raw?
It would require a threshold, which is very blurry. Though all foods have some level of toxicity, the threshold is less blurry. Would precooked beans constitute processed, even if beans were cooked homemade? There are too many variables.

The reason the companies do not do so, is because they don't want to clean up their act. They know good and well that if they labelled things with honesty, labeling things which are toxic with a sticker saying "toxic", their profits would steadily decline, for even the ignorant know not to eat things with a sticker saying "toxic".
If beans were cooked homemade and picked from the wild, then you have processed them.

Not everything processed is bad for you, and not everything raw is good for you. But you're right, we should do our best to label things correctly. Even our ideas.
Post Reply