more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 14944

[filed under theme 9. Objects / A. Existence of Objects / 6. Nihilism about Objects ]

Full Idea

There is no single account of what individuals there are because, we argue, the special sciences may disagree about the bounds and status of individuals since they describe the world at different scales.

Clarification

Any science which is not fundamental is known as 'special'

Gist of Idea

There is no single view of individuals, because different sciences operate on different scales

Source

J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.8)

Book Ref

Ladyman,J/Ross,D: 'Every Thing Must Go' [OUP 2007], p.189


A Reaction

This seems to deny that nature has actual joints, and so seems to me to be a form of anti-realism (which they would deny). Why shouldn't there be a single view which unites all of these special sciences?

Related Idea

Idea 14946 There are no cats in quantum theory, and no mountains in astrophysics [Ladyman/Ross]


The 30 ideas with the same theme [denial that there are such things as unified objects]:

Everything gives way, and nothing stands fast [Heraclitus]
There is no coming-to-be of anything, but only mixing and separating [Empedocles, by Aristotle]
If we see everything as separate, we can then give no account of it [Plato]
Why are being terrestrial and a biped combined in the definition of man, but being literate and musical aren't? [Aristotle]
Fluidity is basic, and we divide into bodies according to our needs [Leibniz]
Maybe there are only subjects, and 'objects' result from relations between subjects [Nietzsche]
Counting needs unities, but that doesn't mean they exist; we borrowed it from the concept of 'I' [Nietzsche]
In language we treat 'ego' as a substance, and it is thus that we create the concept 'thing' [Nietzsche]
A 'thing' is simply carved out of reality for human purposes [James]
We only accept 'things' within a language with formation, testing and acceptance rules [Carnap]
We should abandon absolute identity, confining it to within some category [Geach, by Hawthorne]
The good criticism of substance by Humeans also loses them the vital concept of a thing [Harré/Madden]
Nihilism says composition between single things is impossible [Inwagen]
If there are no tables, but tables are things arranged tablewise, the denial of tables is a contradiction [Liggins on Inwagen]
Actions by artefacts and natural bodies are disguised cooperations, so we don't need them [Inwagen]
Objects need conventions for their matter, their temporal possibility, and their spatial possibility [Jubien]
Basically, the world doesn't have ready-made 'objects'; we carve objects any way we like [Jubien]
Conventionalists see the world as an amorphous lump without identities, but are we part of the lump? [Lowe]
Merricks agrees that there are no composite objects, but offers a different semantics [Merricks, by Liggins]
The 'folk' way of carving up the world is not intrinsically better than quite arbitrary ways [Merricks]
If atoms 'arranged baseballwise' break a window, that analytically entails that a baseball did it [Merricks, by Thomasson]
Overdetermination: the atoms do all the causing, so the baseball causes no breakage [Merricks]
Our perceptual beliefs are about ordinary objects, not about simples arranged chair-wise [Hofweber]
Physics seems to imply that we must give up self-subsistent individuals [Ladyman/Ross]
There is no single view of individuals, because different sciences operate on different scales [Ladyman/Ross]
There are no cats in quantum theory, and no mountains in astrophysics [Ladyman/Ross]
It is analytic that if simples are arranged chair-wise, then there is a chair [Thomasson, by Hofweber]
Ordinary objects are rejected, to avoid contradictions, or for greater economy in thought [Thomasson]
To individuate people we need conventions, but conventions are made up by people [Thomasson]
Eliminativists haven't found existence conditions for chairs, beyond those of the word 'chair' [Thomasson]