Subjective Definition of things in objective reality

[Harris12]

Hello,

in my opinion objective reality exists and is the result of all science.

I wanted to know or have opinions on the question whether it is valid to define
material things in a way that is unusual but does not interfere with scientific
facts i.e. contradict them and thus become invalid in objective reality.

For example a defitiniton such as : "an atom is a molecule" would be invalid because it 
contradicts science.

Now let's say I see an apple on a table. Would it be valid to say the following?

"The apple I see also consists of the upper most atoms of the table".

I think it is valid as a subjective opinion because it does not contradict science,
i.e. this definition does not try to alter objective reality.

I would be happy to have opinions on this.

Thanks,

Harris

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, Harris12 said:

"The apple I see also consists of the upper most atoms of the table".

The word “apple” is just an arbitrary label in a particular language (English) - just precisely what such labels refer to is usually given by common consensus of the speakers of said language, and that consensus is usually rooted in ordinary everyday experience, and organically emerges from there over time. In English, when people speak of an “apple”, they refer to a piece of fruit that is sharply delineated from its environment - an apple can be on a table, on a plate, hanging from a tree branch, be located in my backpack, can be held in my hand etc etc. It is a label that is to some degree independent from its external context, so all these differing instances of the same fruit can be called “apple”.

Of course you can decide that “apple” should refer to the fruit itself plus the “topmost layer” of atoms on a table. The problem here is of course that you then need different labels to refer to this situation in different contexts that don’t involve table tops - for example, if the fruit hangs on a tree, you can no longer call it “apple”, because there’s no “top-most layer of atoms on a table” (what does this even mean?) present there. So it wouldn’t be an “apple”, but must carry a different label instead. Also, the aforementioned layer of atoms wouldn’t be a “layer of atoms” anymore, but “part of an apple”, whereas the layer immediately underneath (let’s assume they can be neatly separated), would still be “atoms”. If you don’t delineate labels carefully, things become messy quite quickly.

But to make a long story short - labels carry no physical significance, so their choice is entirely arbitrary, so long as the labelling scheme is internally self-consistent. This is why you can use a completely different language to talk about the same physical situation.

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Harris12 said:

this definition does not try to alter objective reality

However, it tries to alter an existing definition. It does not define a new term, but rather redefines an existing one. Without a reason, such redefinition is not valid.

[Harris12]

On 2/26/2023 at 10:26 AM, Markus Hanke said:

The word “apple” is just an arbitrary label in a particular language (English) - just precisely what such labels refer to is usually given by common consensus of the speakers of said language, and that consensus is usually rooted in ordinary everyday experience, and organically emerges from there over time. In English, when people speak of an “apple”, they refer to a piece of fruit that is sharply delineated from its environment - an apple can be on a table, on a plate, hanging from a tree branch, be located in my backpack, can be held in my hand etc etc. It is a label that is to some degree independent from its external context, so all these differing instances of the same fruit can be called “apple”.

Of course you can decide that “apple” should refer to the fruit itself plus the “topmost layer” of atoms on a table. The problem here is of course that you then need different labels to refer to this situation in different contexts that don’t involve table tops - for example, if the fruit hangs on a tree, you can no longer call it “apple”, because there’s no “top-most layer of atoms on a table” (what does this even mean?) present there. So it wouldn’t be an “apple”, but must carry a different label instead. Also, the aforementioned layer of atoms wouldn’t be a “layer of atoms” anymore, but “part of an apple”, whereas the layer immediately underneath (let’s assume they can be neatly separated), would still be “atoms”. If you don’t delineate labels carefully, things become messy quite quickly.

But to make a long story short - labels carry no physical significance, so their choice is entirely arbitrary, so long as the labelling scheme is internally self-consistent. This is why you can use a completely different language to talk about the same physical situation.

Thank you for your detailed answer. I forgot to mention that I referred to a specific apple on a specific table and not to the term "apple" in general. But I assume the same principles you mentioned apply to that. Is there some kind of "proof" that I can decide on my own which atoms belong to an object? Your answer sounds very logical to me and I agree with you, but despite that I am looking for some kind of "proof". I am worrying that there might be an undiscovered scientific law or fact that says that this is not possible.

 

 

 

On 2/26/2023 at 11:25 AM, Genady said:

However, it tries to alter an existing definition. It does not define a new term, but rather redefines an existing one. Without a reason, such redefinition is not valid.

 I forgot to mention that I referred to a specific apple on a specific table and not to the term "apple" in general. 

[joigus]

On 2/26/2023 at 8:51 AM, Harris12 said:

"The apple I see also consists of the upper most atoms of the table".

 

What makes you think that's the relevant question, and not: "The table consists of the lower atoms of the apple?

Distinctions are in our mind. Our most sophisticated distinctions are in our theories. Nature doesn't know about them. A hydrogen atom in the apple's molecular structure certainly doesn't "know" whether it's apple or table. Ultimately, there is no meaningful way to say "this hydrogen atom is an apple atom."

Distinctions are in our mind, Nature doesn't know about them.

Isn't this philosophy?  

Edited March 4, 2023 by joigus
minor correction

[studiot]

On 2/26/2023 at 7:51 AM, Harris12 said:

For example

1) a defitiniton such as : "an atom is a molecule" would be invalid because it 
contradicts science.

Now let's say I see an apple on a table. Would it be valid to say the following?

"The apple I see also consists of the upper most atoms of the table".

2) I think it is valid as a subjective opinion because it does not contradict science,
i.e. this definition does not try to alter objective reality.

Sounds like someone is trying to pull the metaphorical atoms of my metaphorical leg to me.

Both your statements 1 and 2 are false so I suggest you start again with a proper explanation of what you are trying to say.

[swansont]

On 2/26/2023 at 2:51 AM, Harris12 said:

in my opinion objective reality exists and is the result of all science.

Science does not tell us what reality is, and reality predates science.

[Bufofrog]

On 2/26/2023 at 2:51 AM, Harris12 said:

For example a defitiniton such as : "an atom is a molecule" would be invalid because it 
contradicts science.

 

On 2/26/2023 at 2:51 AM, Harris12 said:

"The apple I see also consists of the upper most atoms of the table".

Doesn't the second statement contradict the first statement since the apple consists of molecules?