What Constitutes Relation?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » What Constitutes Relation? » What Constitutes Relation?

What Constitutes Relation?
The apparent mirage of links and connections

What Constitutes Relation?

scarborough
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2007
Location: Cape Town

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 41

Posted 07/27/09 - 11:27 PM: Subject: What Constitutes Relation?	#1
I am puzzling over what IS a relation. What does it mean that something stands in relation to something else? Supposing that energy is equivalent to mass, one may define energy and one may define mass, but what constitutes the "relation" between the two? One might define things more closely, by resorting to some of the underlying equations -- but then one merely has more definitions of terms in hand, and the question once again as to what constitutes those relations. I have the sense that "relation" might be like the horizon, which continually recedes as one pursues it. A mirage.

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 236

Posted 07/28/09 - 12:36 AM:	#2
Reading F.H. Bradley on relations in Appearance and Reality was really a major event in my philosophical life. He comes to the conclusion that the idea of relations is incoherent, but I thought that there was a way out, and that is that relations are made possible by continuous fields extending between and through the things they relate. In the case of physical objects, space is the continuous field that relates them. In the case of ideas, consciousness relates them. I also think that consciousness is space, to avoid a duality of substances. Bradley argues that there are two possibilities (he does it in very abstract terms): 1. That relations are a third thing separate from the relata. But that leads to an infinite regress of relations, as we need a further relation to relate the relation to each of the relata, and so on. 2. That relations have a 'stake' in each of the relata, or that there is a part of the relata that is the relation. But this destroys the unity of the relata, and we have a split which needs mending with, guess what, a relation. And then we get the same problem. He concludes that because both of these lead to an infinite regress of relations, relations are incoherent. I tried to imagine what it would be like to insert an infinity of relations between two objects, and came to the thought that what is between two objects is not more objects but a continuum. And I thought that space is the perfect physical continuum which can serve the function of a relating medium. And I further thought that consciousness also relates its contents in a very similar way that space relates objects. Any conscious act involves relating many things together at once. When we hold two or three things in our minds (say, the premises and conclusion of a simple argument) we do not hold any further relations in our mind. Our mind is what relates the premises. Our continuous mind constitutes the relation. It stands under the the premises, and understands them. Logic, I think, is less a system of rules, and more a capacity of the mind to understand - and relate - objects within it. Identifying consciousness and space also very neatly solves the binding problem of consciousness (i.e. how all the various processes and so on can ever come together to result in a unified holistic perception, for example). It also solves why subjectivity (qualia) is so hard to pin down and yet so real. Edited by bert1 on 07/28/09 - 02:09 AM
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 07/28/09 - 04:55 AM:	#3
Dictionary.com wrote: re⋅la⋅tion –noun 1. an existing connection; a significant association between or among things: the relation between cause and effect. 2. relations, a. the various connections between peoples, countries, etc.: foreign relations. b. the various connections in which persons are brought together: business and social relations. c. sexual intercourse. 3. the mode or kind of connection between one person and another, between an individual and God, etc. Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. You can call this a relationship, a principle, or merely a statement of fact. Take your pick. Are relations real? I don't know but they are certainly useful concepts. Your example of mass and energy also provides a good example of the relative nature of words and concepts. Each defines the other just as up and down, back and front, and left and right define each other. Together they describe something altogether different, existence. Whether existence is real or not is something I suppose you will have to decide for yourself.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3640

Posted 07/28/09 - 05:13 AM:	#4
A relation is a subset of a cartesian product e.g. the relation = contains (2,2) and (3,3) but not (2,3) because 2=3 is false, but 2=2 and 3=3 are true. The relation < contains on the other hand (2,3) but not (2,2) and (3,3) because 2<3 but 2<2 isn't true nor 3<3. Anything that can be said about two or more things are relations e.g. "posting in" is a relation, which has members like (scarborough, philosophy forums). A ternary relation is a relation that has 3 operands e.g. posting in the thread... at the time has member (wuliheron,07/28/09 - 04:55 AM,"What Constitutes Relation?")
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

scarborough
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2007
Location: Cape Town

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 41

Posted 07/29/09 - 12:27 PM:	#5
In (preliminary) reply to bert1, physics often proceeds by isolating individual mechanisms in the artificial circumstances of a controlled experiment. Might it be this isolation itself which creates ... call them the static entities which, then, we again need to "relate" to one another. Supposing that relations vanish in that moment when we artificially isolate that which is not isolated in reality, but is part of the inseparable net of endless, mutually conditioned relations. Not that physicists would enjoy the thought. Objects or concepts, that is, then need to be "re-related", which is not something that can be done once they have been isolated or separated. Like pulling a gearbox apart and then expecting it still to "relate". In other words, is it possible that there is something fundamentally wrong with our categorising thinking. Just musing ...

Legion
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 07/30/09 - 04:44 AM:	#6
If relations are a mirage then it is meaningless to ask “why?” about anything. For suppose we ask “why A?” If we answer “because B” then we have asserted an entailment relation between B and A. No, I don’t believe relations are a mirage. Increasingly I am beginning to suspect that they are they very substance of reality.
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

scarborough
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2007
Location: Cape Town

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 41

Posted 08/27/09 - 12:31 PM:	#7
I have thought on this topic continually since we started it, and I have for the first time read FH Bradley, as well as the reasons for his current obscurity. I have the sense after this that "relations" represent a kind of shorthand. If one states that there is a relation between this and that, one is inferring intermediate things. Therefore relations may in many cases shift, for the reason that the unspecified intermediate things change.

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 09/16/09 - 02:53 PM:	#8
Didn't someone say that when aRb (a is related to b), there is some reason for coupling the two, whether the reason rests on a phenomenological foundation or it is supported by mental causation.
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 09/17/09 - 02:21 PM:	#9
scarborough wrote: In (preliminary) reply to bert1, physics often proceeds by isolating individual mechanisms in the artificial circumstances of a controlled experiment. Might it be this isolation itself which creates ... call them the static entities which, then, we again need to "relate" to one another. Supposing that relations vanish in that moment when we artificially isolate that which is not isolated in reality, but is part of the inseparable net of endless, mutually conditioned relations. Not that physicists would enjoy the thought. Objects or concepts, that is, then need to be "re-related", which is not something that can be done once they have been isolated or separated. Like pulling a gearbox apart and then expecting it still to "relate". In other words, is it possible that there is something fundamentally wrong with our categorising thinking. Just musing ... You appear to be referring to the principle of syntropy, the idea that the whole is greater than or at least different from the mere sum of its parts. It isn't really a new concept and it is often exactly what experimentalists attempt to prove the existence of by isolating things as much as possible. Another approach is systems analysis, which attempts to study whole systems rather than merely isolating constituent parts. The two are not mutually exclusive, but more often than not support each others' findings. Since the success of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, both holistic theories, just about every branch of the sciences has steadily adopted their own holistic theories. Holistic theories emphasis wholes rather than constituent parts, but physicists still find that when they isolate constituent parts as much as possible they find new ways to confirm their connection to the whole.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.