A Philosophical Puzzle Over Ontology

A Puzzle Over Ontology (copyright © 2009 Jesse Butler)

Just as with the Liar Paradox, there are two seemingly innocent assumptions about the features of physical objects and what physical objects there are that, when combined with other of our background assumptions, lead to an inconsistency in our beliefs. Ontology is the topic of philosophy that is concerned with determining what objects there really are. This is a puzzle to do with ontology because it is a puzzle over what there is, really. Two Basic Assumptions about physical objects (1) No two physical objects can be in exactly the same place at exactly the same time. This isn't to say that no two physical objects can be at locations that are exactly next to each other at the same time, but rather, that no two physical objects can occupy exactly the same space at exactly the same time. (2) Physical objects of "medium" size, relative to the size of people, such as tables and chairs are made up of the smaller, more basic particles of a commonly accepted scientific theory. For example, the small table in the front of our classroom is made up of atoms of the kinds of the various materials that the table is constructed from. The Puzzle Given that we accept (1) and (2), let's consider this object in our classroom. What is there here? Is there a table or is there merely a collection of basic particles of a current, commonly accepted scientific theory (if not atoms, then subatomic particles such as gluons, muons and quarks). There can't be both a table and a collection of gluons, muons and various sorts of quarks, because by assumption (1) no two things can occupy the same place at the same time. (The table is, by assumption, a physical object and so is the medium sized collection of basic scientific particles that make up this object.) We must say either that there is a table or that there is a collection of most basic particles here, not both, because there cannot be two things in the exact same place at exactly the same time. Suppose we claim that there is not a table here in our classroom, but rather the collection of most basic particles arranged in a particular fashion. From the scientific perspective, we might feel confident about our decision, but how would we assess the truth or falsity of the following claim, C, if we assume that Tom is an innocent bystander. C: Tom knows that there is a table in our classroom at this very moment. If we say that there is no table, but only a collection of basic scientific particles, then claim C is false because Tom can't know something that isn't true.

If, on the other hand, we say that there is only a table and not a collection of most basic particles, then we seem to be denying (2) which seemed to an attractive assumption to begin with. What should we say?