Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

what is a world?

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» what is a world?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

1.This is not a joke! What is a "world"? A world is not a count noun, or a concrete particular, since the predication that applies to regular concrete objects don` t apply to it.

2. Similarly, the word "world" is over used, but means quite different things in quite different context. In more speculative cosmology, a world includes many different disjointed space-time. In some context, it means some specified domain of a given set. A world could be the set of all writers than ever life, or the number of people that ever cry.

3. If 2 is true, then the word "world" is surely context dependent on the specified domain that makes the statement that employ it true. So it seems we can always always make substitutions for the world "world" with something that is delimited.

For other objections, and help see: http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/turingequivalent/900-notes-meaning-world.html

http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/turingequivalent/901-notes-universe-plurality.html

I want to understand any argument for there being a non-restricted, un-delimited use of "world".

@TuringEquivalent,

Are worlds mutually exclusive?

@Deckard,

Deckard;152197 wrote:

Are worlds mutually exclusive?

I think it depends on what you mean by a world. If we define the world as "everything", then there is obviously only one world. If we define "the world"
as some limited systems( unified by say some physical laws), then there might be many many systems. If so, then there might not even be a world at all.

@TuringEquivalent,

A world has more to do with a central focus on which the interconnected associates share a commonality.

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;152217 wrote:

I think it depends on what you mean by a world. If we define the world as "everything", then there is obviously only one world. If we define "the world"
as some limited systems( unified by say some physical laws), then there might be many many systems. If so, then there might not even be a world at all.

I realize you are probably trying to get at a bigger idea here but I'm taking baby steps if you don't mind.
The status of "world" not being a count noun renders the phrase "all possible worlds" meaningless. Aside from Leibnitz and Pangloss that phrase has an important meaning in logic. Are you excluding this use of the word "world" from the discussion?

@Deckard,

Let me outline briefly the thought of Jose Ortega y Gasset on the concept of "world."

1. My life is the radical reality, in the sense that all other realities appear or are "rooted" in it.

2. My life consists of I and my circumstance.

3. In order to lead my life I have to be continually making decisions about what I am going to do in my life.

4. My circumstance presents me with facilities and difficulties with regard to what I want to do in my life.

5. In order to be able to make successful decisions about what I am going to do in my life, I have to be able to take advantage of the facilities and reduce the difficulties that my circumstance presents to me.

6. To this end I search for an understanding of my circumstance and its relation to the decisions that I make about what I am going to do in my life.

7. As I begin to understand more and more about my circumstance I use my imagination to construct a total picture or "world" that represents my understanding not only of the relationship of my circumstance to what I am going to do, but also the relationships that exist among the various parts of my circumstance itself that enable me to maximize the facilities and minimize the difficulties that my circumstance presents to me with regard to what I decide to do in my life.

8. Since this picture or "world" is constructed by each person with regard to the circumstance that is a part of their life, there are a plurality of such "worlds".

9. Just as the life of each person is unique and different from that of every other person, so is their circumstance and their corresponding "world" unique and different.

10. To the extent that persons share similar circumstances and can agree on the features of the "worlds" they have constructed, they can be said to share the same "world".

Welcome to Ortega's and my "world".

Viva Ortega!

:flowers:

@Deckard,

Deckard;152585 wrote:

I realize you are probably trying to get at a bigger idea here but I'm taking baby steps if you don't mind.
The status of "world" not being a count noun renders the phrase "all possible worlds" meaningless. Aside from Leibnitz and Pangloss that phrase has an important meaning in logic. Are you excluding this use of the word "world" from the discussion?

But, isn't "world" a count noun, and not a mass noun? I can say that there are several worlds, but not, several flours. I can say that there are a number of worlds, but not, there are a number of flours. So what is the evidence that "world" in not a count noun. It is certainly not a mass noun.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153092 wrote:

But, isn't "world" a count noun, and not a mass noun? I can say that there are several worlds, but not, several flours. I can say that there are a number of worlds, but not, there are a number of flours. So what is the evidence that "world" in not a count noun. It is certainly not a mass noun.

This doesn't sound absolute, I can say that this is my flour and that is your flour can't I ? I can live in my world and you live in yours.

@longknowledge,

Ortega apparently takes "world" to be a count noun?

It seems there should be two different words here. One for the [world of worlds and other things] and one for the many [individual subjective worlds] that exist within it and as parts of it. This Overworld (if you like) is the case regardless of whether the individual subjective worlds agree with each other. The Overworld would not be a count noun. Can we assume the existence of such and Overworld without knowing its boundaries? Maybe existentialists call the Overworld Being?

---------- Post added 04-17-2010 at 12:27 AM ----------

kennethamy;153092 wrote:

But, isn't "world" a count noun, and not a mass noun? I can say that there are several worlds, but not, several flours. I can say that there are a number of worlds, but not, there are a number of flours. So what is the evidence that "world" in not a count noun. It is certainly not a mass noun.

There are different kinds of flour i.e. different flours?

Is "Everything" a count noun or a mass noun or some other kind of noun?

@wayne,

wayne;153095 wrote:

This doesn't sound absolute, I can say that this is my flour and that is your flour can't I ? I can live in my world and you live in yours.

But there aren't "flours" the way they are beans (a count noun) You can count flour carts, but not "flours". "Flour" is a mass noun. So I don't understand why the OP claims that "world" is a count noun. See:

Nouns

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153102 wrote:

But there aren't "flours" the way they are beans (a count noun) You can count flour carts, but not "flours". "Flour" is a mass noun. So I don't understand why the OP claims that "world" is a count noun. See:

Nouns

Yes, it makes sense with respect to the world as a mass, which I think it is.

@wayne,

wayne;153105 wrote:

Yes, it makes sense with respect to the world as a mass, which I think it is.

"World" is a count noun, not a mass noun. Look at the link I provided.

---------- Post added 04-17-2010 at 02:10 AM ----------

Deckard;153096 wrote:

Ortega apparently takes "world" to be a count noun?

It seems there should be two different words here. One for the [world of worlds and other things] and one for the many [individual subjective worlds] that exist within it and as parts of it. This Overworld (if you like) is the case regardless of whether the individual subjective worlds agree with each other. The Overworld would not be a count noun. Can we assume the existence of such and Overworld without knowing its boundaries? Maybe existentialists call the Overworld Being?

---------- Post added 04-17-2010 at 12:27 AM ----------

There are different kinds of flour i.e. different flours?

Is "Everything" a count noun or a mass noun or some other kind of noun?

Different kinds of four, but not one flour, two flour. In the way that we can count, one bean, two beans. Look at the link I provided. That explains it. So does

Mass noun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153106 wrote:

"World" is a count noun, not a mass noun. Look at the link I provided.

---------- Post added 04-17-2010 at 02:10 AM ----------

Different kinds of four, but not one flour, two flour. In the way that we can count, one bean, two beans. Look at the link I provided. That explains it. So does

Mass noun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see your point lingustically, but I think it's a superficial , the op was refering to world in a different sense than word only.

The world ,any world ,is a mass of matter.

@wayne,

wayne;153111 wrote:

The world, any world, is a mass of matter.

My "world" is a mass of matters and a mess of mind!

:flowers:

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;153116 wrote:

My "world" is a mass of matters and a mess of mind!

:flowers:

I'll invite you to Wayne's world sometime. :bigsmile:

@wayne,

Yes I agree world is a count noun...as is universe...which is somewhat ironic if there is only one of them. But then counting to one is still counting.

"Everything" and "all" are mass nouns. There is the somewhat mystical saying "All is one." But that's not counting is it? It denotes internal unity rather than counting. (Hmmm...does counting imply externality? It would be possible to count from inside one of the things anyway, in the case of concentric spheres one could count from inside many things. But I digress.) We can also say "The Universe is one." But that is different from saying "There is one universe." We don't say "There is one All" Do we?

"Being" seems to be able to be either count noun or mass noun. But I'm guessing it's use as a mass noun came first and that it's use as a count noun e.g. "human beings" was a sort of corruption of the mass noun "being" that came later on.

Grammatically, which is the only way we can take the statement, the word "world" is in fact a count noun; however, I think this may be tangential to the OP's main point.

Moving on: is the world a concrete particular?

@TuringEquivalent,

The physical worlds could be a concrete particular, but Wayne's world is a conglomeration of images and ideas, beliefs and fears, friendships and desires.

@wayne,

wayne;153122 wrote:

The physical worlds could be a concrete particular, but Wayne's world is a conglomeration of images and ideas, beliefs and fears, friendships and desires.

Can't a conglomeration of images ideas etc... be a concrete particular, i.e. a particular individual at a particular space and time? Wayne's World is a particular world. Wayne's World is not independent of space and time.

@Deckard,

Deckard;153135 wrote:

Can't a conglomeration of images ideas etc... be a concrete particular, i.e. a particular individual at a particular space and time? Wayne's World is a particular world. Wayne's World is not independent of space and time.

Maybe I misunderstand, I thought a concrete particular needed material substance. Wayne's world is grounded in fantasy.
Of course I'm reducing it to pure concept.

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;152189 wrote:

1.This is not a joke! What is a "world"? A world is not a count noun, or a concrete particular, since the predication that applies to regular concrete objects don` t apply to it.

2. Similarly, the word "world" is over used, but means quite different things in quite different context. In more speculative cosmology, a world includes many different disjointed space-time. In some context, it means some specified domain of a given set. A world could be the set of all writers than ever life, or the number of people that ever cry.

3. If 2 is true, then the word "world" is surely context dependent on the specified domain that makes the statement that employ it true. So it seems we can always always make substitutions for the world "world" with something that is delimited.

For other objections, and help see: http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/turingequivalent/900-notes-meaning-world.html

http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/turingequivalent/901-notes-universe-plurality.html

I want to understand any argument for there being a non-restricted, un-delimited use of "world".

Are you defining the non-restricted, un-delimited sense of "world" in (1)?

It's status as count noun or mass noun seems irrelevant and if we take it to be a mass noun when used in the deliminated sense we cannot take this grammatical status as a justification for its use; that would be circular.

Whether or not it is a concrete particular seems conspicuously specific. If it cannot be a concrete particular then does then "world" in it's non-restricted sense refer to an abstract particular? to a universal? to something else?

Maybe it is something else. If "world" in this sense was something else...something special and unique...it would sort of bring its own context with it...it would defy context dependence.

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» what is a world?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

what is a world?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know