Is the cup more real than its contents?

[Amorphos]

Is the cup more real than its contents?

An animal possibly thinks of a cup of e.g. water as much like a small water pool in nature, and if it has nothing to drink in it, then it is not a drinking vessel et al. So we could say that, a cup is just an idea in our minds, and yet it exists as an object.

We would say that what the cup is made of is more real than the ‘cup’ itself.

With the consciousness, we would consider our conscious experience to be more real [to us] than its content.

Equally with the universe/multiverse, we would say that the entire reality of that is greater than any of its parts. Perhaps we would even say that the universe is something else greater than even the sum of its parts ~ because its description always moves it outside of any group of things it is described as being, and that it has ‘cups’ and not just particles and waves [not to mention concepts and behaviours too].

So what is more real; the cup or its contents?

Do we work from the top down [people, cups, concepts, qualities, behaviours, experiences etc] or bottom up [particles/waves]. if the latter, how can we build into a whole?

does both building-up and building-down even cover everything? …and doesn’t the world have to do both?
_

[MagsJ (Surya Loka)]

Your closing sentences =D>

My first thoughts… do not all have importance if they are utilised as a means to an end, for without one the other would be impossible. Both are real because they exist.

[Amorphos]

MagsJ

Your closing sentences

‘You’re’ closing sentences lol [sry], well i like to be poetic with words and grammar ~ which change over time and between cultures after all [not to mention that I am dyspraxic].

My first thoughts… do not all have importance if they are utilised as a means to an end, for without one the other would be impossible. Both are real because they exist.

Good point. Yes the world must be ‘drawn’ with both the cup as a cup [the human concept] and not a cup [the dogs concept], and contents as contents or not contents [in a vessel or there is no vessel].

So reality is built in its entirety and from all perspectives? It is not built from the quantum level upwards, or the infinite [or godly] downwards, but is instead drawn everything at once. …and the same with time? So you don’t get a beginning middle and end, you get all-time.

[MagsJ (Surya Loka)]

@Amorphos

MagsJ

Your closing sentences

‘You’re’ closing sentences lol [sry], well i like to be poetic with words and grammar ~ which change over time and between cultures after all [not to mention that I am dyspraxic].

…it’s definitely your as its yours not mine, so you’re wrong… yes you are, aren’t you.

@Amorphos

My first thoughts… do not all have importance if they are utilised as a means to an end, for without one the other would be impossible. Both are real because they exist.

Good point. Yes the world must be ‘drawn’ with both the cup as a cup [the human concept] and not a cup [the dogs concept], and contents as contents or not contents [in a vessel or there is no vessel].

So reality is built in its entirety and from all perspectives? It is not built from the quantum level upwards, or the infinite [or godly] downwards, but is instead drawn everything at once. …and the same with time? So you don’t get a beginning middle and end, you get all-time.

In the beginning reality probably existed on a quantum level, and reality then ‘moves on/flows’ as things come into existence. Science dissects reality into levels, but I see it as one big dose being taken in all at once… of all the levels - the separation is how things work independently, but they subsequently make up the whole.

With regard to time… again, good question. Your posit might explain things.

[Amorphos]

In the beginning reality probably existed on a quantum level, and reality then ‘moves on/flows’ as things come into existence.

Maybe, yet there is still an upper level or the entirety to which it belongs. When this universe was in its infancy it doesn’t mean the whole of reality is ~ especially if there is a multi-verse. To that end don’t we have to ask; ‘what is it building towards, if it doesn’t already know’? To arrive at ‘cup’ [any given object] it must have what that is conceptually in its information base. To become any particle it has to have the geometry and all other meanings and implications [potential] of that, in its minds eye - so to say.

Ergo all-time has all that held within it.

In the end aren’t we saying that the cup is as real as its contents? In personal terms that the personhood is as real as its informations or even its very cells? …which means we are real.

_

[Prismatic567]

Both the material and the cup are conventionally real, i.e. can be experienced and formulated into knowledge. I don’t see one being more ‘real’ than the other in this perspective.
In another perspective both are illusions [maya].

However, there is a difference in form, i.e. the cup is a form of its material, its material is a form of molecules, molecules the form of atom, etc.

In another perspective, the creation and form of the cup is based on intelligence and creativeness that transform the materials [clay] that are given in nature.

IMO, the criticalness to humanity between the cup and its materials is the creative intelligence and continuous improvement implied in the process of transformation from materials [contents] to the form of a cup.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Hi Amorphos

Is the cup more real than its contents?

Even if a cup is empty it holds space, right? Is space real?
Wouldn’t that be a value judgment? If I buy a cup at the dollor store and put my coffee in it, that coffee is more real to me than the cup is. lol If my daughter gives me a special cup for Valentine’s Day (which she did ) that cup is more real. What is [more] real to us is usually what is more meaningful to us.
In actuality though, insofar as I am concerned, physically speaking, they are both equally as real.

An animal possibly thinks of a cup of e.g. water as much like a small water pool in nature, and if it has nothing to drink in it, then it is not a drinking vessel et al.

Does an animal really think in those terms? It might observe though that it has no water in its bowl. My cat comes up to me and meows when there is no food in his bowl.

and if it has nothing to drink in it, then it is not a drinking vessel et al

If a hammer is not hammering a nail in the wall at the present moment, is it less of a tool or a hammer or no tool at all?
Your statement doesn’t hold water - at least for me.
You are a really kind man, Amorphos. If you are in resting mode and not being “kind” at the moment, does that make you any less of a kind man?

So we could say that, a cup is just an idea in our minds, and yet it exists as an object.

Not the cup perhaps but the word defining the object.
All things become objects after they were first just ideas - well, perhaps not all.
Look at the god thingy - what an object we’ve made of that!

We would say that what the cup is made of is more real than the ‘cup’ itself.

But what the cup is made of is what makes the cup. I don’t see one as being more real than the other but then I’m not really a philosopher.
But I guess i get what you mean. Without the material substances making up the cup, it couldn’t exist, at least not in the way that it does.

With the consciousness, we would consider our conscious experience to be more real [to us] than its content.

When you say experience, are you speaking of sensations of qualia? Then wouldn’t that be the same as its content?
Or are you using the term in another way - simply mean the fact of “consciousness”?

Equally with the universe/multiverse, we would say that the entire reality of that is greater than any of its parts. Perhaps we would even say that the universe is something else greater than even the sum of its parts ~ because its description always moves it outside of any group of things it is described as being, and that it has ‘cups’ and not just particles and waves [not to mention concepts and behaviours too].

There is so much that is encompassed in the entire reality of the universe but yes of course I can see where it is (its whole or entirety) would be considered to be much greater than its parts - not the sum of its parts. Wouldn’t that be the whole of reality - the sum of its parts?

Define “cups” here as the universe having cups.

So what is more real; the cup or its contents?

With the universe, you were speaking of what was greater - here you’re speaking of what is more real.
There is a distinction. I think.

Do we work from the top down [people, cups, concepts, qualities, behaviours, experiences etc] or bottom up [particles/waves]. if the latter, how can we build into a whole?

Wouldn’t where we begin depend on our area of expertise? A psychologist, behavioral scientist, potter , poet/artist, et cetera would begin from top to bottom and the physicist would begin from the bottom and work itself up …or bottom up depending on your point of view as to top or bottom being the most important or “real”.

[Amorphos]

^^ answer you arc in a bit…

Prismatic567

In another perspective both are illusions [maya].

Not if ‘maya’ derives from the [divine ~] infinite? Then all things are equally real. Just because some things in appearance are temporary, it doesn’t mean they aren’t as real e.g. You wouldn’t say a whirlpool in a river is less real than the river just because it is temporary. We could say that there will always be whirlpools where there are rivers, so in that sense too, it is metaphysically real.

As the world must come after infinity ~ because infinity has no beginning nor end, then it must be a product causally of that which came before it.

In another perspective, the creation and form of the cup is based on intelligence and creativeness that transform the materials [clay] that are given in nature.

Can we not add that the conceptual information and visualisation in our minds must also be real? I wont even ask if you can get the concept ‘cup’ from ‘clay’! i.e. the information we know [cup] in our minds, from physical information like the frequencies of electrical signals [clay] in our brains. This because its impossible no matter how one thinks of it, unless there is some manner of translator in the universe or its greater reality.
[which in a multiverse there must be]

I agree with the rest of what you said and generally.

_

[Amorphos]

Arcturus Descending

Even if a cup is empty it holds space, right? Is space real?

Space must be real even if our sense of it is purely perceptual.
…but i also think that space [infinity] ultimately has no x,y,z, coordinates, and that could mean that it exists when we perceive it, but it doesn’t when we don’t. This isn’t personal to us, i think the same rule applies universally to all quantum particles except in them we call it ‘observing’.
I think that reality must be ‘omnidextrous’ ~ has to have the capacity to stretch between all events of all kinds. So i can only conclude that ‘space’ must be function [or effect] based, such that it can shrink and expand to any depth. Otherwise we would be giving infinity limits, and ones which don’t make sense.

I suppose that our value judgements are as real as anything else, we are adding a recognition of emotional relationship etc with the valentines cup, but ‘coffee’ is object based derivative information, which should be in a different classification. At least in that the information takes less deviations or is more direct and doesn’t add extra informations from tertiary sources like emotion or self perspective based.

That’s very sweet of your daughter

Does an animal really think in those terms? It might observe though that it has no water in its bowl. My cat comes up to me and meows when there is no food in his bowl.

In nature it would recognise that a place like a rock pool would be the place of water/drinking, and that may be the same for ‘it’s bowl. However we are thinking of it as personal; the cats bowl, …but cats and dogs have self-recognition so maybe the associations of self to object too. Though nature probably ‘sees’ the cup in the same way as a rock pool ~ which is more what i meant.

The hammer is only a tool when it is hitting something, then it is the same as say a rock falling on a nail in the wood - let us say. In other words to nature there are no hammers.
‘Kindness’ is something we do with the cup, not the cup or its contents but a further category of things. Thanks tho

Your statement doesn’t hold water - at least for me.

The rock pool is not a rock ‘pool’ when it is dry, or when the sea rises well above it flooding the whole area including the ‘pool’. = To nature there is no rock pool.

But what the cup is made of is what makes the cup

Not necessarily, the cup is made of particles which are surrounded by more particles ultimately all of the same kind. So then we are talking about energy behaviours e.g. Like how ‘heat’ is merely the rate of motion of atoms. Yet all of the behaviours don’t and never can [i put here] add up to ‘cup’, they always only add up to a given bunch of particles behaving slightly differently to others around them.

When you say ‘experience’, are you speaking of sensations of qualia? Then wouldn’t that be the same as its content?
Or are you using the term in another way - simply mean the fact of “consciousness”?

Experience as we experience it [consciousness?] is always first hand, contents are always second hand to it [because if they are not experience being experienced, then they are experiences not being experienced].

There is so much that is encompassed in the entire reality of the universe but yes of course I can see where it is (its whole or entirety) would be considered to be much greater than its parts - not the sum of its parts. Wouldn’t that be the whole of reality - the sum of its parts?

All of its parts = all particles, perhaps even the space between them too, but space and particles are in? See we always have another thing in which all others sit. To begin with these words we think and speak are not included in our definition of space + particles so - conceptual information [cups].

Wouldn’t where we begin depend on our area of expertise?

No its always the same. The philosophical problem isn’t reliant upon what or who we are or what we do etc. It’s a problem the universe had to deal with prior to its or in it’s inception. …like 2+2 isn’t reliant upon such things.

_