Philosophy Forum

 		Log In New Topics New Posts

natural properties, unnatural properties, and high order properties

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » natural properties, unnatural properties, and high order properties

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

vectorcube
 
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 12:48 pm
What is an unnatural property? Take the example of grue. The object is grue before time t, but not so after time t. Why is this unnatural?

What is a natural property? Take the example of what scientist say. Scientist say " We want to find the properties of particle x". What does he mean? I think what he means is that he wants to find the dispositional property of x that is not unnatural.


some people say what is natural is what can survive after duplication of a thing. Interesting?


higher order properties.

Take the universal U with property P, and universal K, with property Q

Definition: A higher order universal N is a relation between U, and K. Denote this by N( U, K).

Question:

Is N a natural property, or unnatural property? Is N contingent, or is it necessary?
 
ACB
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 04:56 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;76120 wrote:
What is an unnatural property? Take the example of grue. The object is grue before time t, but not so after time t. Why is this unnatural?


Because the colour of the object has not really changed. Therefore the so-called colour property (grue) that has changed must be unreal or 'contrived' (i.e. unnatural). Also, to learn the meaning of 'grue' one must first learn the meaning of 'green' and 'blue'; but the converse is not true.

Quote:
Take the universal U with property P, and universal K, with property Q

Definition: A higher order universal N is a relation between U, and K. Denote this by N( U, K).


Can you give an example, please?
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 08:18 am
@ACB,
Quote:
Because the colour of the object has not really changed. Therefore the so-called colour property (grue) that has changed must be unreal or 'contrived' (i.e. unnatural). Also, to learn the meaning of 'grue' one must first learn the meaning of 'green' and 'blue'; but the converse is not true.


How is change of property makes grue unnatural?

Conversely, it is also possible to learn blue and green using grue. Ie, what is green is for t< T, and what is blue is for t>T.

Quote:
Can you give an example, please?


nomic necessity is an example.
 
ACB
 
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 01:08 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;77402 wrote:
How is change of property makes grue unnatural?

Conversely, it is also possible to learn blue and green using grue. Ie, what is green is for t< T, and what is blue is for t>T.


1. To know whether an object is green or blue, I only need to know one thing, i.e. what the object looks like. To know whether it is grue, however, I need to know two things: (a) what the object looks like, and (b) what the time is. Therefore 'green' and 'blue' are more basic (natural) concepts than 'grue'.

2. 'Green' and 'blue' can be defined without referring to grue. But 'grue' cannot be defined without referring to green and blue (either by using the words 'green' and 'blue' or by pointing at a green and a blue object). Again, that demonstrates that green and blue are more basic.
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 12:56 am
@ACB,
Quote:

1. To know whether an object is green or blue, I only need to know one thing, i.e. what the object looks like. To know whether it is grue, however, I need to know two things: (a) what the object looks like, and (b) what the time is. Therefore 'green' and 'blue' are more basic (natural) concepts than 'grue'.



I am not sure what "natural", or "basic" mean. Is logically possible that grue is basic, and natural. It might just be your bias to think of green and blue as basic.


Quote:
2. 'Green' and 'blue' can be defined without referring to grue. But 'grue' cannot be defined without referring to green and blue (either by using the words 'green' and 'blue' or by pointing at a green and a blue object). Again, that demonstrates that green and blue are more basic


But i don` t need to define grue using blue or green. For a possible world W in which grue is natural. The people of W would find no need to know blue or green. It is when people of W transport to actual world that they mistake green & blue as grue.
 
ACB
 
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 05:09 pm
@vectorcube,
vectorcube;77586 wrote:
I am not sure what "natural", or "basic" mean. Is logically possible that grue is basic, and natural. It might just be your bias to think of green and blue as basic.


If grue is basic and natural, there must be something wrong with my argument in paragraph 1 of my post #4. Can you please specify what the error is?

Quote:
But i don't need to define grue using blue or green. For a possible world W in which grue is natural. The people of W would find no need to know blue or green. It is when people of W transport to actual world that they mistake green & blue as grue.


Can you please elaborate on how this would work. In world W, does grue correspond to the same wavelength(s) of light after time t as it does before it? Do the colour receptors in its inhabitants' eyes change at time t? And if you can define grue without using blue or green, how would you do so?

Consider the following argument:

(a) By definition, if an object is green before time t, and does not change its appearance, then it is green after time t. Similarly with blue. Because this is true by definition, it is true in all possible worlds.

(b) By definition, if an object is grue, and green before time t, then it is not green after time t. Similarly with grue & blue. This is also true in all possible worlds.

(c) Therefore (combining (a) and (b)): if an object is grue, it must change its appearance at time t. So, unlike green and blue, it cannot be a basic/natural property in any possible world.

By the way, if you are not sure what "basic" or "natural" mean, how can you imagine a possible world in which grue is natural?
 
vectorcube
 
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 01:21 am
@ACB,
Quote:

If grue is basic and natural, there must be something wrong with my argument in paragraph 1 of my post #4. Can you please specify what the error is?



you said this:

. To know whether an object is green or blue, I only need to know one thing, i.e. what the object looks like. To know whether it is grue, however, I need to know two things: (a) what the object looks like, and (b) what the time is. Therefore 'green' and 'blue' are more basic (natural) concepts than 'grue'.


To make sense of grue being un-natural, i need to agree make sense of a. Namely, What something "are like" to an agent. What does it matter what something looks like? Similarly, how is time factored into our accessment in part b?


Quote:
Can you please elaborate on how this would work. In world W, does grue correspond to the same wavelength(s) of light after time t as it does before it? Do the colour receptors in its inhabitants' eyes change at time t? And if you can define grue without using blue or green, how would you do so?


Ok, there is a distinction you need to know. That is:
1. things-in-itself.
and
2 what it appears to us.

If grue is "fundamental", then it is in the sense of 1. How we "describe" grue would be 2. If our describe of grue is best expressed in temrs of {blue, green}, then it is due to the limitation of our language.

Quote:
a) By definition, if an object is green before time t, and does not change its appearance, then it is green after time t. Similarly with blue. Because this is true by definition, it is true in all possible worlds.



Say what? Say object X is green at time t<T. How do you know X stays green at t>T? What is logically necessary about it?


Quote:
(b) By definition, if an object is grue, and green before time t, then it is not green after time t. Similarly with grue & blue. This is also true in all possible worlds.



This is not clear to me.

Quote:

(c) Therefore (combining (a) and (b)): if an object is grue, it must change its appearance at time t. So, unlike green and blue, it cannot be a basic/natural property in any possible world.


I don` t see why natural properties cannot change. It seems like a personal bias. Look at water. It changes it property according to temperture. For low temperture, water is a solid. For high temperture, water is a gas. Looks to me that the property of water do change, but not according to time.


Quote:
By the way, if you are not sure what "basic" or "natural" mean, how can you imagine a possible world in which grue is natural?


Knowing what is "natural" is a non-trival philosophical problem in itself. I know one solution of how contemporary philosophers define natural. I know want to write about it until you tell me you want the answer. I have to think about it. Just tell me in your next post.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » natural properties, unnatural properties, and high order properties
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 05:55:01
▲ ▼