Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
You can't just ignore the universe when referencing humans, as there would be no humans without the universe. And you can't ignore humans when referencing the universe as a) You wouldn't be referencing anything if you actually did that b) It wouldn't be the same universe. It's useful to look at humans as a closed container, and it is useful to look at the universe as an external world. But neither view seem to be correct in any way, shape or form. We seem to be looking at a big lump of fundamental interactions. And in that regard I really struggle to see how it is correct to deny that the properties of humans are also properties of the universe.
If I pick up a rock, then the universe is picking up that rock. Sure, it's an akward way to say it that doesn't fit how we intuitively view the world, but it is actually what is happening. If the universe isn't picking up that rock, then nothing is.
And sure, you can claim that the universe isn't as a whole aware of picking up that rock in all its constituent parts. But my hand isn't aware of picking up that rock either. In fact, very little of my body is. I still need those parts of my body to pick up that rock, just like I need the rest of the universe to pick up that rock.... because if anything about the universe was different, then the rock would be different and I would be different.
You are arguing a metaphysical point where the problem here is a logical one. If you can distinguish one part from another part, then at the level of the whole you can always generate a contradiction if you all properties of parts are properties of the whole. If a is distinguished from b because a has property q and b doesn't, and a and b are both parts of c, then c would both have property q and not have property q according to this principle.
This is not to claim that things are not interrelated, or to assume an object-based ontology, etc, just that the language being used ITT to express this idea fails to do so as it isn't compatible with basic logic. You can try to get around this fault by redefining all the key terms as D0DN is, but that is more likely to just confuse the issue than shed light and isn't worth the hassle. If you want to express a theory of mereology, you'll have to convert it into logic at some point anyway, and so arguing about how to formulate that theory in natural language when you don't even have a logic yet is pointless.