[nowt]

Where a thing is, or how it came to be, is what the thing is not--

Of course, it came to be, by not being anywhere else--

And it's where it is, because it came to be there.

Great--

Tho I must say, I like when my 'where an object is not' acts as an object for filling the space of 'where another object is not'-- And I like when my 'how an object came to be' acts as an object for filling in the time of 'how another object came to be'.

[cannotseethe]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It isn't really accurate that an object is what it is independently of where it is. And it is arguable that an object need even be an object as such, let alone be qualifiable in that way.

I think so too.

This may not be what stasis is intending, but I think there can be no object without location. The fact that an object can move is not evidence against this statement. The notion of objectness requires position. There can be no objects outside the universe, by definition.

I also believe that there can be no object without observer (or more precisely, frame of observation). What looks like a solid chair to me is essentially a vapor to a neutrino. This is related to the previous: besides needing to exist in some spatial and temporal scale, an object also needs to be observed from some spatiotemporal scale in order to appear as an object. It seems impossible, to me, to disentangle these notions.

[gwilendiel]

Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think so too. This may not be what stasis is intending, but I think there can be no object without location. The fact that an object can move is not evidence against this statement. The notion of objectness requires position. There can be no objects outside the universe, by definition. I also believe that there can be no object without observer (or more precisely, frame of observation). What looks like a solid chair to me is essentially a vapor to a neutrino. This is related to the previous: besides needing to exist in some spatial and temporal scale, an object also needs to be observed from some spatiotemporal scale in order to appear as an object. It seems impossible, to me, to disentangle these notions.

I'd say so as well (and basically did say it in other words haha). And I think NoOne is presenting an axiom for how we in fact figure this out.
Like the 'do thoughts exist' thread (or to paraphrase whatever the title for that thread is)

He used this axiom (the one we are trying to understand here) to posit that thoughts do exist.