Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q50,41/stuff

Prompt 1

Since around the time of Kant, the noumenon / phenomenon distinction is the distinction between the outer appearances of objects and how they come to be in the world to show that particular appearance. However, "how objects come to be" could be conceptualized as eternal ideas becoming objects as Plato talked about, or as physical processes becoming objects. Is there a term which is like "noumenon" but does not mean an idea and only means a physical object before anything interacts with it to get information about it, as with a distant star that might take years to send an image of itself to earth and at its own location would have continued to change in that time? The phenomenon is the image of the star on earth, the noumenon can conceivably be some perfect ideal representation of a sun-like star (etc.). What is a philosophy term for the object that changed out of sight but has not sent its image to earth yet?

Motifs or claims from response

• thing in itself / Ding an sich (Kant) [1] [2]
• mind-independent object

Subjective themes (no AI)

• An object only consists of perceivable sense impressions (Berkeley) [3] [4] -> thanks Avenarius. gosh, I don't know what other remark to say to that. once quarks have been discovered that kind of definition of objects sounds positively ridiculous.
• hypokeimenon [5] [6] -> this might actually be the word I was looking for, but I only knew it because I'd stumbled onto it years ago.
• quiddity [7] [8] -> that is an amazing word. it's a concept that makes no sense once you get beyond Platonism but the word is great.
• prime matter (Anaximander) / apeiron [9] -> he's just saying that chaos and the prime matter are the same thing and they generate alchemical qualities that make objects. the funny thing is, the first part of that might almost be a little bit correct. quantum fields, quarks, infinitely recycled in interactions. so, I mean, kind of. this is why you have to define different periods of the universe, though, so the period without quarks and the period with quarks are clearly distinguished and it's clear you can only compare this to the latter one we're in.

Prompt 2

What is the hypokeimenon?
I know that before Materialism there was Idealism and there was Platonism. In the time of Plato there was a distinction between Platonic ideals and observable physical things, and people thought Ideals could actually "instantiate" individual objects that would only be distinguished from Ideals, a little like how some people today think physics is actually made of math and physics and math are the same thing. (Sun-like stars imperfectly follow the pattern of an ideal sun-like star which is somehow a property of the universe, etc.) By the time of Kant math and reality were more properly separated, and Kant described a distinction between the noumenon and the phenomenon where the phenomenon is all the sense impressions of the object and the noumenon is the part of the object that can't be directly observed. It seems to me like this does not entirely distinguish between modern physics where objects are physical and limits on obtaining information are simply a limit on how easy it is for objects to interact with other objects, and earlier models which did not actually know what objects were made of at all, like four elements models or Anaximander presenting an alchemical model where objects were made of basic qualities of hot-cold and wet-dry — if Kant says some information about the object is completely inaccessible, the unintentional implication is there could be some kind of weird metaphysical process hiding in there. (It also reminds me of the Copenhagen interpretation where physicists say that what is happening below the scale of quantum physics math doesn't really matter until there is some way to better demonstrate what might be happening and what hidden variables are actually appropriate.)
As far as I can tell, what the two terms would appear to refer to inside the modern understanding of physics is all information an object transmits through physical interactions (the phenomenon) and the physical object as it exists before or independently of observation (the noumenon). But I don't think Kant used the word "noumenon" exactly that way to suggest that kind of model of reality. Is there a philosophy term for an object before anything interacts with it to get information about it, which is existing and changing out of sight, as with a distant star that might take years to send an image of itself to earth and at its own location would have continued to change in that time "before" information about those changes reached earth? Is this object and the material processes inside it what the hypokeimenon was? Is there another better term for separating out the *physical* way that objects come to be in the world and present sense impressions versus Kant's model?

Motifs or claims from response

• hypokeimenon (Aristotle) / substratum (Aristotle) -> object which presents facts about itself. particular individual physical object. still with an implied "as it is observed", due to the limitations of the time.
• Kant's description of the thing-in-itself and thing-for-us is a phenomenological position / Kant's description of the noumenon is similar to Berkeley limiting all qualities of physical objects to sense impressions -> I somehow thought that Kant was better than Avenarius for unclear reasons but in the end? this makes more sense.
• The Copenhagen interpretation is a phenomenological position — it presents the outward impressions of matter as the only thing that can be known, even as it does not fully prohibit someone eventually explaining events beyond what can currently be observed
• matter (Lenin) / physical reality (Lenin) / matter as object independent of particular observations / matter presents sense impressions but is independent of them (motif) -> I can roll with that. it feels like a bold choice to just say, here is matter and here's what it means, but that is one of the things I like about Marxist authors. sometimes you need this kind of boldness to get anyone to pick a hypothesis and keep postmodernism from seeping in.

Subjective themes (no AI)

618. Q618/Q618 Programming classes are Platonic ideals / (9k)
618. Q618/Q618 phenomenology as philosophy which identifies and discards noumenon -> Husserl, Kant, Berkeley, Avenarius. are they all the same?
     ...oh wait I forgot Henri Bergson. why am I so weirdly good at memorizing the name of every single philosopher that reduces the world to sense impressions? oh well, it was useful to me today.

Usage notes

• You are allowed to post LLM prompts as prototype pages (the part you wrote manually), as long as they stay in one of the ... talk: (pronounced Talk) namespaces and there are no direct quotes from generated text. Concisely describing abstract propositions that turn up several times inside response text — or quoting source texts written by humans — is fine.
• It's recommended you include all of the AI's "references", such that each prompt becomes a sort of 'combination nickel' that becomes a convenient place for collecting twenty or so links that answer the question. If any of the pages referenced are already nickel pages, you should link the nickel page.
• None of the commentary on these pages after the motif names / arrows is AI.

Ideologies, fields, topics, or search engines

618. Q618/Q618 HAS (pronounced Hass) / duck.ai
4699. Q4699/Q46,99 IV (pronounced Trotskyism) / Socialism AI