Do universals exist?

As a supervenience physicalist, I say Yes, as do concepts and universals. Fundamental particles and the forces between them in spacetime comprise all that exists (this is far more than mere “material” and so the word “materialism” is a little old fashioned). Objects are comprised of interacting particles in spacetime. Concepts and universals are comprised of interacting particles in spacetime.

Hold up your hoops, erl and I will attempt the necessary gymnastics. Note that (no Nadia Comaneci I!) some of my leaps might be very clumsy and unconvincing, such that I might struggle pitifully when challenged to perform a similar but altogether more difficult move. However, I would hope to persuade the judges that it is possible to complete all the hoops: that such a proposition is logically consistent even if I cannot convince them that it is true.
Example: Let us take the concept of “whiteness”. How in the heck might we describe this in terms of interacting particles?? (or, at least, things which are easily understood as being made of them?) Here goes.[ul]
[li]Some time after conception, a group of cells (under the directions of the DNA in the nuclei of those cells) develop very specialised properties: They begin to be able to interconnect based on an incident signal. For example, vibrations propagating from outside the womb cause these cells to form long chains. Now, the thing about these long chains is that signals can run along them in two directions - they can be sparked off “backwards”.[/li][li]The effect of this dual highway building is that the original signal is encoded by the chain, and any subsequent “sparking” of the chain essentially comprises retrieving the original signal from memory. Now, of course, the cells aren’t very good at this to start with: the foetus cannot simply encode an entire concerto at once. But different kinds of sounds cause slightly different highways to be built, either in location, length, durability; any number of characteristics which distinguish one chain from another. As more and more highways are built, more and more distinct vibrations are encoded in memory, for retrieval any time. And, oddly, the more a particular vibration is input, the stronger and more conductive its associated chain becomes. (One particularly loud superposition of vibrations is encoded very strongly because it occurs so often. This is the beginnings of the concept of “mother”.)[/li][li]At some later point, the DNA has engineered the construction of an altogether more complex apparatus, which produces signals from transverse vibrations of very short wavelength. (Unfortunately, it only seems to work between around 400-700 nm, but still, impressive nonetheless). The dual highway construction company stands redundant for a while, because everything is dark. And then…BOOM! Signals of an entirely different type begin to be input to this biological computer. After initial overload wherein the computer struggles to keep up merely with telling light from dark, further chains are formed which are able to distinguish the full spectrum in which the apparatus operates. Again, because it is so prevalent, a very strong chain is built which encodes the Superposition of All Frequencies at Once (hereafter SAFO). [/li][li]Now, from here on, the chains get constructed at truly astonishing rate. Further, they become interlinked, thus adding orders of magnitude to the complexity of the system. The chains from specific sound vibrations become linked with chains from all manner of inputs, one of them the SAFO from that special apparatus. Eventually, whenever that SAFO chain is sparked (ie. retrieved from memory), the accompanying sound chain sparks in harmony. Similarly, retrieving the sound sparks the retrieval of the SAFO. And what is that sound?[/li][li]For some computers, it is “B-lanc”. For others, “V-eiss”. In this particular computer, that sound is “White”.[/li][li]The complexity of the computer has now made this, almost miraculous thing possible: By inputting that sound to a similarly trained computer, the SAFO chain can be sparked in that computer also!!! If we looked into thos computers, we could not hope to identify which chain was “SAFO”. But if we know that the same sound is associated with it, from a very early age, we can spark that chain merely by uttering it! [/ul][/li]Unfortunately, in a delicious irony, the computer does not have a chain which encodes “chain formation from inputs”. It cannot associate, chain-wise, the chain-sparking with the SAFO. Its chain formation remains incomplete.

The only way its chain can be complete is for another computer, which does have such a chain, to try to cause the formation of such a chain in the incomplete computer. The name of that other computer?

SentientMeat. Says it all, no?

I was always under the impression that otherness (to spite the “uni” prefix) was a universal. Also motion… although motion requires otherness, and may itself be otherness. Which when both combined, is interactivity. And the ability for all of this to be true and stable, would be structure. This is my bare bones reduction of existence, to which I cannot fathom how a purpose for doing anything would not be self contradictory unless these are in fact universals.

I suppose at this point the question can always come back to your lap as “So, do you want a purpose for believing anything?”. If you do, I think that’s a descent start.

I’ll also grant transcendental deduction as a universal.

Whatever you suggest or imply in order to formulate something, must exist in some way.

For the first sentence…

I’ll exists
also exists
grant exists
transcendental exists
deduction exists
as exists
a exists
universal exists
. exists
exists
^^ [space]

Then you get into operators…

exists exists
then exists
you exists
get exists

etc… and it goes on.

Transcendental deduction, that what you use to make a statement exists in some way. Now, if you’re going to test for truth or falsity, I think the only tool we have for that is to find a method of testing for self refutation. If it refutes the basic principles of what is required to redeem the action we just committed by suggesting that it doesn’t exist, then for the sake of sanity, it seems unthinkable to discard such a principle. If it refutes our ability to redeem our action, or even our purpose for believing that action exists, then this would be the method of verifying self refutation. To say that something is self refuting is not the same as saying it’s false, or does not exist – both of which I find absurd. Everything exists in some way – and self refutation strikes me as one of those ways. The part that we don’t quite have a grasp on, is the sheer cleverness required to test for self refutation in the many instances where we have adapted to using the values “true” and “false” – or “exists”, “doesn’t exist”.

These are just the principles I apply at a most basic level with regards to objectivity. I believe that there are combinations of concepts that are objectively self refuting to the obseserver, if they believe that such concepts exist as “other than self refuting” – and that at this point, the issue no longer becomes one of concept, but of manipulation of symbols in patterns of linguistic token to which the entity has become adapted towards exploiting.

I suppose one more comment on the nebulous operator… “exists”

I do believe that everything exists in some way.
There is a problem with defining the singularities and the continuums currently.
Best I can figure, we won’t be able to prove that we exist until we can prove that we survive – I think they are the same problem, and I think they can only be and will be solved together, at the same time. I’m tempted to say that we only now, tenatively exist, as we do not control our survival objectively – we don’t exist enough to exist as a person, as an “I”. I’m certain that we can though. I see that we are just barely approaching what it means to exist as a self – and to that degree, I don’t think we’re yet capable of declaring existence with certitude, even though we can claim it – we can also still deny it; and this would still be in the realm of subjective. I don’t see that there is a true subject until the object from which it springs is affirmed… currently there is so much denial present, that I don’t see how an individual is capable of the mental ability to actually be a self – as I see the agreement of everyone as a bare minimum towards even approaching the acceptance of objectivity. To get people to begin agreeing, we need to uncover a lot more options then we currently have uncovered.

eris,

Having been part of that ancient thread (and having enjoyed it!) I’ll chime in briefly.

Universals are a human conceit. What hubris! We percieve it so must be so.

Because we both agree the paper is white. I didn’t mean “seperate from any observation” but “seperate from any particular observer”. Sorry for the confusion.

SentientMeat, I’m just not sure where you’re trying to come down. Do any universals exist? It seems you keep saying yes. So am I. What’s to argue?

DSeid, so does human conceit exist? Can multiple humans exist and still all be “human”? If not, how am I to make sense of your sentence. Maybe it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

I’m just pointing out that from a physicalist perspective, one could also argue “Not really, only interacting particles”. If one accepts that only physical things exist, then the choice of either somehow making a previously metaphysical entity physical or denying its existence altogether is not really that important.

I certainly don’t mean to pick a fight nobody wants - I’m just trying to jump through some of the tricky physicalist hoops you’ve mentioned in a couple of related threads.

Well, SentientMeat, we can resolve the matter fairly quickly. I presume “particles” exist, little to argue there, and furthermore that everything that is, is a particle, so it isn’t really a universal in the sense that multiple things can have it (everything must have this property if it is to exist at all). But, take modern science, for example. Do bosons exist? Do fermions exist? So they’re all particles… great. But is there some real way in which some particles are different from others? Do electrons exist? Is everything an electron? If there are electrons but not everything is an electron, then we’ve certainly accepted universals. That being the case, there are none of my hoops to jump through. :slight_smile:

Of course, erl, we could appeal to quarks and then wonder about photons, with everything going all Quantum on us.

I deliberately tried to keep the options open in the first place, by appealing to fundamental particles and the fundamental forces between them in spacetime, which could be shortened to mass/energy in spacetime, which may be shortened to simply “spacetime” if mass and energy are somehow characteristics of a generalised spacetime, which might futher reduce to space since time may have space-like properties.

And so we get everything is space: There is nothing which is not space. Space itself has alternative configurations, such as “time”, “quark”, “gravity wave”, “concept” and so on.

However, those steps are rather more of a quantum cosmological nature. I suggest that “particles and forces in spacetime” is an adequate enough “everything” to be going on with in order to deny existence of the metaphysical.

Then I think you don’t give enough credit to “metaphysical” things. But in any case, I don’t see you giving an alternative to immanent realism, which indicates that yes, there are universals, but their existence strictly depends on the existence of particulars (in which they are manifested). However you construct matter (a metaphysical question), there is bosonic matter that is different from other kinds of matter. Whether they are all matter or not is a problem for monism/dualism, not really a problem of universals. Even relying only on E=mc[sup]2[/sup] indicates there are two different kinds of the same thing. Universals don’t disappear in monism, so far as I can see.

In fact, anyone who accepts that science is a valid epistemology must accept universals as logically prior. Science depends on both quantification and qualification, and both quantification and qualification are dependent on universals. I don’t really see a way around that one, other than to suggest that these qualifications aren’t real.

I suppose not. Perhaps yes, I am barking up the wrong tree: Physicalism could certainly be said to overlap a great deal with immanent realism.

Trying to reduce truth, mathematics or indeed epistemology to physical entities as readily as “whiteness” are very difficult hoops. However, I maintian that once the reduction is acheived, whether previously metaphysical entities such as universals really exist might yet be considered moot.

Are there “universals”? Yes (that’s the short answer)

However, what exactly that universal is depends on how you look at things. For example, in the religious sphere, mysticism is a universal aspect of religion (You have the Kabbalists, Sufists, Shamans, Christian mysticism, Buddhism, etc.), but specific practices within each mystical arena is different.

Is there such a thing as Truth (the capital is not a type-o)? Yes. But what is it? To me, that is something that strikes at the very heart of mysticism (I’m taking a course on Jewish mysticism, so I’m a little lopsided right now).

Now, why go into this aside about mysticism? I would argue that there are “general” Truths, but when you want to get into specifics (like the works of Aristotle, Plato, et al.), Truth goes out the window.

Eris,

Does “meaning” exist?

Universals exist in that sense and that sense only. The matter that is “us” attempts to impose meaning on the world that we experience/perceive. When we experience/perceive patterns that predict and that have salience we give them “meaning” … this meaning exists because we perceive it so. Meaning is within “us”. Universals are thus an emergent property.

Is there a reality that exists outside of our perception? I presume so but of course could not prove that; I accept it axiomatically. And really I am uninterested in the question (but I don’t knock mental masturbation; it’s debate with someone I love and makes less of a mess).

How we adaptively and flexibly determine meaning out of our perceptions (and how our inferred meaning then influences our ongoing perceptions) is much more interesting to me. Our conceptual world is not just composed of particulars and universals (or from another perspective: exemplars and prototypes); it consists of concepts of various shapes oriented along various dimensions in various domains to varying degrees. We (most of us anyway, autistic individuals, for example, generally do not) flexibly and seamlessly move along those dimensions, broadening or narrowing, rotating and translating, according to situational need and salience. How we do that?

Think about it like this: do buildings not “really” exist because they are made out of bricks? To me, that’s answering the wrong question. The question wasn’t whether buildings are atomic entities or whether they are constituted of something else. The question is whether we may group buildings, that “being a building” is something that only certain things can do.

I guess it depends on where you want to set your sights. I don’t see why electrons should have priority of existence of hydrogen. What reason do I have to suggest hydrogen doesn’t exist? That it can be broken down into smaller parts?

Do the patterns exist? Why would you grant existence to matter, but not to different organizations of it?

Rather, I don’t see why they should have priority over hydrogen.

Do we? What if my “sense of vision” is not interpreted the same way as yours?

dalovindj:

The hollographic Universe theory appeals to me, but in relation to this thread the only really relevant point is: “Its all one, so perceptions are not separate from the perceived.” (my own words). Now I have no problem with that, but non-separateness is not the same as dependance. Take a lump of red plasticine and another of yellow - you can squidge them together so they are one mass, but the red doesn’t depend on the yellow for anything and vice-versa.

So I think its an entirely reasonable to say that the Universe is independant of our perceptions. Granted they are not separate, but the only dependance is of our perceptions on the Universe.

erislover:

I’ve bitten off more than I can chew.

I’m going to lie down now. :slight_smile:

Your example still leaves space. Is that space nothingness? Is nothingness absolutely non-existent? (I hope the paradox is self evident)

This returns to my point about self refutation being the only designator for determining which concepts to discard and which to keep.

It’s a considerable statement to state that nothing exists and is absolute, or that something doesn’t exist and this is absolute —

The idea of objective reference is that everything exists in some way —
We seem to have symbols that we attach concepts to
We seem to be able to mix those symbols around so that the concepts refute us or themselves…

“Nothing” is absolute and does not exist.

^^^^^ What the hell is THAT then!! Self refuting.

Nothing exists as a self refuting concept… it exists as something, not nothing.
When nothing exists as nothing, when it is it’s own absolute what doesn’t self refute – this saran wrap argument doesn’t account for correlation! – you can’t have something pass through the barrier of nothing at all.

This is assuming that the labelling is the “universal”. If you are referring to perception of color itself, qualia inversion …etc invalidates that.

I’m not sure what you mean. How white appears to you isn’t in question. Whether something appears to you that, as an English speaker, you’ve learned to call “white” is what is important.