Everything in the universe is composed of elements, which are in turn different combinations of atomic particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons. The different elements are different ratios and combinations of the three atomic particles. For simplicity sake we will ignore the further reduction of the atomic particles into objects such as quarks.
If it is understood that all objects are made of elements, and all elements made of these atomic particles, then we can accept that the only difference in objects is in their arrangement of these particles. Arrangement, however, is rather arbitrary.
H2O is a perfect example of something that exists in multiple forms (objects in the world) but whose different forms are all identically composed. The three forms of H2O are water, ice, and vapor. One could say that he or she has a preference for ice to water, but that preference is arbitrary.
If water, ice, and vapor are all H2O we can call H2O “a”.
So:
Water=H2O=a
Ice=H2O=a
Vapor=H2O=a
Water=a
Ice=a
Vapor=a
a=a=a
They are all the same. By having a preference you are juxtaposing greatness onto something. If one has a preference for ice(a) they are saying it is better (>) than water or vapor. They are saying that a>a or a>a. That is illogical. It makes no sense for something to be greater than itself. It’s placement or position or arrangement is purely arbitrary. It’s the same logic as saying a pencil on top of paper is better than a pencil in a cupboard. The placement of the pencil does not change what it is. The distance in molecules of H2O doesn’t change its composition, it is still H2O, a.
If we understand this important analogy, we can understand that everything around us is very similar to water. Everything has the same composition, instead of H2O it’s the three atomic particles. The arrangement and number is meaningless. A substance like gold having more neutrons than a substance like dirt is meaningless when you think of the idea that having 10 pounds of ice is better than having 6 pounds of water, 1 pound of vapor, and 3 pounds of ice. A brick of gold has the same protons, neutrons, and electrons that can be found in your socks and shoes. Arranging your socks and shoes’ protons, neutrons, and electrons would easily yield a brick of gold. Their arrangement currently does not matter, as shown earlier. Favoring an object is illogical.
With this idea in mind, I cannot help but apply it to other forms of thought. Is beauty, then mercurial? Beauty is the favoritism of the placement of objects. The difference between a Picasso and a four year old’s drawings is placement of color, objects, etc. It is all paint, however. If beauty concerning art is capricious, would not beauty concerning any facet be capricious too? My favoring a woman with large breasts over a woman with small breasts, or a woman with wide hips compared to a woman with narrow hips is as arbitrary and ridiculous as favoring ice over water.
If so many people’s life goals and lives are built around the accumulation of wealth to achieve luxury items like cars, books, gold, etc. then wouldn’t their lives be based around the accumulation of the meaningless differences? Their lives would be illogical and irrationally based.
I believe the idea of beauty to be irrational, and I fear this would crush the very outlook of my world. From my ideas of women to my desire for success: they are all a foolish pursuit of the irrational.
10 comments:
Do we not value things for the peculiarities of their particular arrangement of particles though? My valuing an object might be based upon its utility to me, in which case my favoritism is no longer arbitrary.
Since my shoes hold more utility for me than a glass of water, can I not place more value on them without fear of the arbitrary?
.Evan
But your shoes are a glass of water, just in a different position. It's the equivalent of valuing an object that is on the floor more than one on a bed- it doesn't make sense. Position doesn't matter. If position doesn't matter, and that's the only difference between objects, then their differences don't matter, and then the value of one over another because of whatever differences doesn't make sense.
Ryan, I think you are overlooking some important variables to this equation. Evan used the word "peculiarities"; I understood that to mean not only position or arrangement, but also quantity in reference to subatomic particles. When this variable is added along with position value comes into play. You compared dirt to gold; dirt is essentially carbon and therefore has the same set of particles as gold but, in a different arrangement and a different quantity. Thus, when you take a look at it in a bigger sense at the atomic level they are indeed different. Not only this, but I'm pretty sure that if you incorporated the previously mentioned quarks you would find that subatomic particles can be different unto themselves. I'm not sure of that. I'm not a physicist. However, it is still a likely conjecture. Something to look into maybe...
Anyway, I stray from the point...
It is simply unfair not to say there is no difference between anything and everything simply based on the fact that we all share the same sub atomic particles. I can observe these differences everywhere I look and I can assign value according to my observed world. Therefore, it must be logical because reality is based in logic.
Your kings beat my queens but they are all just cards in the end...
Jacob
I thought of a better analogy...
You compared water to ice. It would be far better to put water on a lawn in order to maintain your grass than to throw the same amount of water in the form of a big block of ice. The cold temperature of the ice would kill the grass before it had a chance to give the grass the H2O needed.
Therefore it has implications within its overall differences, and it would be irrational to overlook these differences.
Jacob
Evan's point about the different utilities of particular arrangements makes a lot of sense, and ties in with jake's water and ice analogy. I do agree that the concept of value or worth is purely illusion. However to simply say that everything is the same because it's made of the same basic components seems like it's fatally reductionist. You can reduce things to the same protons, neutrons, and electrons, but once they become complex constructions things start to become a bit more unique. What is it that forms a sense of self in human beings? Idk, i tend to think that maybe there's a bit more going on than the way you explain it. Poorly wriiten response from brandon.
"Therefore, it must be logical because reality is based in logic."
I really don't even know how to respond to that.
I'm looking for a cohesive counterargument. Show me where my logical deduction has strayed or shown a fallacy. I don't see one.
I'll break it down nice and easy for you kids- I guess the h2o analogy wasn't enough.
I compare all objects to h20, because like h20- objects in life have different forms, but have the same compositions in different numbers/placements.
If one accepts that, then we continue further. Now, I reduced the items into a mathematical equation. If water, ice, and vapor are all h2o, and we call h20 "a", then water, ice, and vapor are "a". If all the items are "a" then they must be equal. It's reflexivity. A MUST equal a, it cannot be greater or less than it. By saying ice is better than water, you are saying that one of the "a"s is better than the other "a" which is illogical.
I am not comparing items in terms of utility. In a given situation a block of ice will yield less utility than water, but it isn't BETTER than water. You make the mistake of thinking when I said water isn't better than ice that I meant water isn't better than ice in XXX scenario. You carry that mistaken conception of my argument to conclude my argument is incorrect. That's a strawman argument. You present an improper or wrong form of someone's argument, counter this wrong form, and then expect to have won the argument. I was pretty clearly making an objective comparison on the value of objects and questioning the assignment of value based purely on arbitrary placement or number of molecules.
A block of gold isn't any more worthy than a shoe or pencil. I showed that placement is not a factor for value. A pencil in a cupboard is no more valuable than one in a coffee mug. If placement is not a factor for value, why is it a factor on the atomic scale? The placement of carbon molecules makes the difference between diamonds and graphite. For some reason people think that diamonds are BETTER than graphite, when they are the SAME THING. The same carbon molecules, but just with gaps in between them. Do gaps give something value? Why would space give something more value? It seems ridiculous to value something more based purely on the fact that it has more space between its atomic particles. Why not then value something with less space? Valuing more space than less is arbitrary and therefore illogical when assigning value.
I didn't quite understand your critique of the dirt/gold analogy, Jake. "You compared dirt to gold; dirt is essentially carbon and therefore has the same set of particles as gold but, in a different arrangement and a different quantity." Gold is Au on the atomic chart, an element all on its own. I don't see the point in that entire quote- all you did was reiterate what I said. They are different elements, but elements are only different arrangements of the protons/neutrons/electrons, which is arbitrary. It is arbitrary because placement is NOT a factor for value. If it's not a factor for value, then you can't say gold is better than dirt.
"Thus, when you take a look at it in a bigger sense at the atomic level they are indeed different."
That entire statement just makes no sense. If you look at it in a bigger sense? The previous sense was the atomic scale, then you say a bigger sense, to which you say the bigger sense is the atomic level. Oops.
"Not only this, but I'm pretty sure that if you incorporated the previously mentioned quarks you would find that subatomic particles can be different unto themselves. I'm not sure of that. I'm not a physicist. However, it is still a likely conjecture. Something to look into maybe..."
All that would introduce is a slippery slope. If we took it to the quantum level, then the same reasoning applies. You can substitute proton/neutron/electron for whatever the names are for the various quantum particles. The same reasoning applies. By suggesting that by declining or inclining on the slope of size, you're trying to create a slipper slope. Bad!
"It is simply unfair not to say there is no difference between anything and everything simply based on the fact that we all share the same sub atomic particles."
Since you used a double negative, I'll translate:
"It is simply unfair to say there is difference between anything and everything simply based on the fact that we all share the same sub atomic particles."
You then say:
"I can observe these differences everywhere I look and I can assign value according to my observed world. Therefore, it must be logical because reality is based in logic."
It seems like you're saying that it is unfair to say there is difference, and then you say that you observe these same unfair differences in reality and that because of that the differences are logical. Why would you call the differences unfair and them use the differences to conclude something logical? Makes very little sense.
"Your kings beat my queens but they are all just cards in the end..."
That statement seems like it supports my argument. In a poor context, such as a card game, kings beat queens. This would be like saying water beats ice when it comes to watering lawns. Then you say they are all just cards in the end... which would correspond to it all being h2o in the end. That's exactly what I was saying. In a given context something might be seen as better, but on a smaller scale or a fixed comparison we can see that valuing objects over another based on their looks/position is weird because in the end they are the SAME THING. A king and queen are still cards. In a different game (lo card games) a queen is BETTER than a king- which just goes to show you the utility of an object is contextual, but when the value of an object is based mostly on molecule arrangement, such as diamonds over graphite (even though graphite has MUCH more utility) it makes no sense.
You guys are straying from the point of my argument. The point is to show that value seems to be given based on arbitrary factors such as placement or arrangement. Why is a Picasso more valued than a child's drawing? Both individuals put in the same amount of emotion and time to draw simple drawings. It's based purely on placement of paints- which seems arbitrary. Neither have any utility, and if you guys are saying utility is a factor in value, then that is a short-lived counterargument that only applies to certain things, and certainly not to anything luxurious.
This is a completely abstract argument. I'm not talking about monetary worth or value. I'm talking about psychological evaluation of objects and believing things are better or worse than other things based on factors that turn out to be meaningless.
Well, Ryan I should have known better than to simply disagree with you...
Your opinions about this topic are detatched and as Brandon mentioned, fatally reductionist. To ignore the utility and application of an object or substance is foolish. And, to say that barring all application and utility that everything is the same and holds no value over anything else is completely obvious. Good job spending all your time saying nothing. How stupid of me to commit the stawman fallacy, I had no idea you had so much spare time as to pontificate about the obvious. How silly of me to try and bring some flair into this boring and time waist of a blog by making a comparison to the card game that we often play. And, of couse, your reasoning states that not only are they all just cards buy they are all just the same subatomic particles in meaningless arangement. If they were all just cards and held no value then why even play the game?
Oh, and I'm sorry if you didn't understand my points in my post. Next time I'll be sure to get you to clarify exactly what you are saying. So, I know that you are just typing out some simplistic drool.
I was wrong you and were right Ryan. When you take away all reasoning, everything means nothing and it's all just the same. But...
I'll take the gold you take the pencil.
Jacob
Glad we're on the same page.
"How stupid of me to commit the stawman fallacy, I had no idea you had so much spare time as to pontificate about the obvious. How silly of me to try and bring some flair into this boring and time waist of a blog by making a comparison to the card game that we often play. And, of couse, your reasoning states that not only are they all just cards buy they are all just the same subatomic particles in meaningless arangement. If they were all just cards and held no value then why even play the game?
"Oh, and I'm sorry if you didn't understand my points in my post. Next time I'll be sure to get you to clarify exactly what you are saying. So, I know that you are just typing out some simplistic drool."
(huh?)
LOL
-Ethan
Post a Comment