Yay! Less stalemate...ness. Section 1

In some kind of attempt to make amends for my tendency towards throwing tantrums that suck the fun out of any potential discussion, I present the first two topics in the pimonthly science/philosophy convention, or Pi-Mon-Sci-Phi-Con!


Our first intriguing query has been donated to us from out the capacious mental storage and philosophical stylings of Mr. Tom Angove, swinging Bachelor of Arts with Honours in ‘This is how we do it.’

To wit, Can something that is defined by the absence of something else exist?

I am so tucking into this at the first oportunity

I should suggest an ammendment to the original question, if it's agreed to be appropriate: Can something that is defined by the absence of something else exist as a 'natural', physical phenomena ?

There may be further clarifications needed, as all these questions should require.

Nice question.

Yes and no. It depends on your viewpoint. Darkness doesn't actually exist, scientifically speaking. It's just the absence of light particles. However, my shadow totally exists. I can see it. I can make it do funny things (the rabbit). Nobody could ever doubt that I have a shadow, but the greatest scientist in the world would never be able to obtain a particle of it.

Am I on the right track here?

I like that simmo. It is also important to note that a shadow is the only extant thing that only has two dimensions.

Too much thinking will make you look like this:

Is that... IT is IT is your mum!

Tom.

*taking a stern, parental tone*

I thought we went through this; you said you were over those things, Tom. You said you were sick of them, remember?

I was, but then i got my second, or possibly even my seventh wind

Woo!
Cherry popping time.
The A-Train has entered the station, all aboard bitches.

I think that this question is a two pronged qestion, or at least the answer can be viewed as two pronged. On the one hand, as trevor is always so eager to point out it is humans that lend definition to, well, everything. If we say it is so, then really, it is so, who's going to argue with us? If we say the darkness is something definitive, then it bloody well is.

On the other hand there is the question of these definitions having an actual existence. A stone, whether or not we call it a stone, exists. But did darkness exist before humans came and gave it a shape. for that matter did darkness exist before fear?

Aristotle put forward an interesting notion which, unlike a lot of the greek philosophy which dealt with the physical world, actually still has some merit. He theorised that an object, any object, is in a way indefinable and yet we can easily identify and categorise that object when we see it. Let me explain.

What is a table? How do you define a table? Is it an object with a flat top and four legs? Well.. no, because there are tables that are bolted and only have one leg. Is it something to eat off? No there are tables that may go through their entire existence without being eaten off. Is it simply a way of elevating the floor (as terry pratchett put it)? We do things on tables that would be impossible on the floor.
Another example. What is a stone? How do you define a stone? Is it definable by size, shape, composition, colour?
When you actually think about it most objects are very hard to definitively define and yet, upon seeing one of these objects we can instantly recognise it for what it is.

Aristotle theorised that every object had a certain 'thingness' (direct quote of my lecturer) that lent that object its category. A table was a table because it was tableesque, it had a lot of 'tableness'. A stone is a stone because it has a lot of 'stoneness'. It doesn't work as well when you look at, say, an epee vs a rapier, but when you think of them both as 'swords' you are on a closer tack.

If an object, or a concept is lent its form, is lent its thingness from humanity then i would say that, to us, that thing exists. Darkness has a very real reality. It plays an enormous role in our psyche, in our culture and in our lives. We fear the darkness, or live in the darkness, or wipe away the darkness, or play in the darkness. For us darkness is definitely something. You could say that darkness has a lot of darknessness. Shadows too have a ineffible quality to them that can only be called shadowness, and again, as humans we use them intensely, in our literature and cultural references.

As human beings we wade daily through a world filled with defined concepts which have an existence only in our heads, but this doesn't mean that they don't have their own reality. The darkness can affect changes in our world that have lasting consequences. Can you truly rob a thing of its reality when you can see the physical changes that has wrought?

If we were birds i would answer that no, a thing cannot be defined by the lack of something else. But if we were birds we wouldn't be having this conversation. I will, therefore, answer that, as humans, we can do as we bloody well please and that yes my shadow is a shadow and not simply the absence of light being blocked by my body.

Hmmm, yes, fascinating exposition there.... but I think a more fascinating question is: Who the shit is the A-Train? I thought I was the A-Train, or, to a lesser extent, Mr.Arex?

Anyways, in response to him/it, "I'll show ye..."

Its alex.. as in my brother alex

Ah, swish! I had an inkling, but then I thought that he's dramatic entrance and immediate pronouncement of "cherry popping time" was even too crude for him.

Oh how wrong I was.

Welcome, Angove No.2, or Angove B? Hmm... how about: Angove, The Fighting Mongoose?

I like the fighting mongoose!

Yes, my initial response was to be against the idea of a shadow existing, basically because I was thinking it didn’t have a physical existence, and I still kind of feel this way, but then I think philosophers have tried to define some things as “abstract” objects, such as numbers and so forth. So, while I may not think that a shadow is a physical object (whatever that means) it still may have some existence as an abstract (whatever that means)?

And that Aristotle thing is kinda interesting, it reminded me of (possibly because he used it as his basis) Plato’s forms, or whatever, about how, for example, there ‘exists’ a perfect ‘horse form’ of which no actual horse attains but all come close despite them all being different and so forth. And I think this led on to the idea of ‘natural kinds’ (which I haven’t really looked into too much) but about there being separate classes that all things can be categorised into, such as horses and tables and so forth. I always felt there was kinda a problem with that, but then again I haven’t really examined it too closely like I said.

so basically that was Andy listing a whole heap of stuff He hadn't looked into too deeply?

Hey, at least I've read a little into them.

So on a scale of 1 to half-arsed where would you put yourself... right now?

Well, whatever it is it's 1 more than you, geezer.

You're a 1 more than... damn.