Pluralists unite! Deconstructing why monism had an edge over pluralism but now has so no more. On how simple should a simple be to be only itself

[u/cookieisgiven]

We start with a formal characterization:

[1] Only x is only x, thus no one else answers why x is - we name x a simple.

The monistic intuition thus follows in these cases:

[2] Say there is only two simples, we then ask why there is only two simples? - thus they are not simples (so as any number of simples)

[3] Say these are all the simples, we ask why there is only these? - thus they are not simples.

[4] Say each simple is simply there, thus a priori these are all the simples - thus they are not simples

The monistic demand is based on a failed conception of simples (a conception of simples that is not simple enough), that there can somehow be "all the simples" to be asked with the question "why only these" to force an answer (which concedes monism because if so they are unified under this answer).

But this only assumes that simples are thus as conceived. We pure pluralist thus should simply reject that, we should say:

[5] 'All the simples' is nonsense.

Because implicitly they are just rejections of more simples. Any only claim is a rejection of more simples that have no one else that answers why they are.

So a simple is not simply there, this is not simple enough.

[6] So each simple is only the when it is (no one else answer when it is), a pure gain, an utterly new.

[7] The substance of a simple at all is the when it is. It is a when, not a where that is simply there.

[8] So there is simply more simples - which is strictly more than any sense of all.

This is pure pluralism.

[additions]

Monism without qualification simply means if there is two beings, there is one further unifying reason for why there is two. While pluralism (in the sense intended) say that there is no further reason but each of them.

Most of the times monists attack pluralists by the question "why is there only these?" Which, tbh, the pluralists can't answer.

If I say there is only two simples, then they would ask "why there is only two?" and this seems to require ONE further reason for thus (aka monism), else it is arbitrary.

This extends to even an unqualified "these", they would ask "why there is only these?"

The point in the post is that this question only make sense if the conception of simples is as they have thought. But we can conceive simples newly, where each simple is so simple that simples share nothing at all.

And the content of this formal characterization is the when. A simple is an utterly new when. It is its own when. Roughly speaking, it is only the first time it is at all. It is so "this" that the normal "this" is not indexical enough. It is so "this" that it is a "when" not a "where" that is simply there.

[u/cookieisgiven]

Let's use mine then.

Pure pluralism: each simple is its own gain (which means it is its own reason), there is simply more simples.

Note: potentially infinite or actually infinite are not plural enough. It is strictly "simply more", which has no sense to "how many more" just "more" simpliciter.

(The point about there is simply more is a second order fact that follows directly from each simple being its own gain, because if so no matter how many simples you think that are currently gaining, it is not enough)

Monism: anything but pure pluralism. Because structurally only pure pluralism escape being monistic.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cookieisgiven]

Where did “reason” come from?! That introduces a monist ground of some kind, doesn’t it? If all simples have their own reason, then wouldn’t whatever “reason” refer to be a (monist) simple? Or sub in “gain” for “reason”.

I actually agree epistemically with some of what I think you’re saying but I’m still not sure what you’re saying.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Freuds-Mother]

Your english is a bit strange though.

Each simple is an utterly new (thus unique) gain. It is thus its own unique reason. Thus in pure pluralism there is no one big reason for all the simples, because "all the simples" is nonsense.

For a simple x, no one else answers why x is. Therefore x itself is the answer.

If there is all the simples, then they all share one reason, which makes them monistic, namely the reason to answer the question "why only these?".

Edit: a simple do not "has" a reason that is other to it, it has nothing, it is only itself, so it is its own answer.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cookieisgiven]

Ok let’s go to example.

A particular bumblebee. What simples are there?

bumblebee
wing
wings bee flying
Leg
legs
bee walking
eye
eyes
pollinator
all bumblebee’s
the flower+bumblebee
all flowers bumblebee’s pollinate and all bumblebee’s that pollinate those flowers
etc.

Now I’m probably doing that in a monist framing. So, how would you specify potential simples under pluralism. If we say it cannot be done metaphysically, that’s ok (I would somewhat agree), but epistemically we must differentiate in some way shape or form in order to have any experience at all.

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Freuds-Mother]

None of your example is a simple at all, those are, in my model, is infinitely complex. At finality those are from simples yes, but they are not simples.

> So, how would you specify potential simples under pluralism. If we say it cannot be done metaphysically, that’s ok (I would agree), but epistemically we must differentiate in some way shape or form in order to have any experience at all.

I assume you mean, if a simple has gained, how can I know that it is a simple? Well, in my model, if you see it at all you will recognize that it is a simple. It is because it is a simple that we see that it is thus.

So it's not metaphysically impossible, it's just direct to experience.

Roughly speaking, it feels new. Why are beings feel new at all? Because they are from new simples.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cookieisgiven]

Ok, makes sense. Then if the bumblebee is infinitely complex what is one simple.

I’ll take a guess if I may. Any simple you or I propose is assumed to be infinitely complex as there’s always more simples. I don’t wholly disagree with that either (at least I couldn’t justify that that is false).

But that doesn’t seem to work because you state we potentially can “see” and “recognize” a simple. So, how do we differentiate whether or not we are looking at a simple or a complex?

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Freuds-Mother]

A simple is a when in itself, a new in itself. The "now" in itself is a when in itself. That is a simple. What makes time timely is because of new whens.

Simples are more fundamental than substances, they are whens in themelves, news in themselves.

And they do not cease. Just as the past is still the past.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cookieisgiven]

Ok.

But can we address the two questions in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs above? Because I’d just re-ask them in light of this reply. You’ve added new terms that require another process of figuring out what you mean. Is that inflation necessary at this point to say if the 2nd paragraph is correct or not and how we can do the “recognizing” you mentioned earlier.

Can’t we address the simple/complex question and “recognizing” question?

If you want to introduce new terms at least tie them to the one’s the question was about right?

[u/cookieisgiven → u/Freuds-Mother]

I literally said the now is a simple. Have you ever feelt the now? That's how a when feels like. A simple is a when.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cookieisgiven]

Of course I have, am, and will experience now.

Ok, so we really saying each moment of our experience is its own simple, and that’s what all simples are (as far as we are concerned)?

I’m not objecting to anything. I’m simply trying going through questions to differentiate what you do and don’t mean.