Hume's Bundle Theory

**stormcrow** · 04-01-2011 11:05 PM

So the bundle theory is Hume’s idea that an object is only a collection of properties and relations and that’s it. So there cannot be an object without properties, these properties are not the object itself but just features of the object.

Example: An apple, it has color, shape, taste, etc (all properties) Hume says that only the properties of an apple exist, there is no apple without its properties. He challenges us to try to imagine an apple without properties.

Anyway I know Hume is ancient history but I’ve been reading him lately and wanted to know what you guys think.

**Xei** · 04-01-2011 11:38 PM

Don't agree, at least how it was stated there. What is the ontological status of an apple before anybody sees it? In other words, 'where does stuff come from'?

**Maria92** · 04-02-2011 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

Don't agree, at least how it was stated there. What is the ontological status of an apple before anybody sees it? In other words, 'where does stuff come from'?

Its property of being composed of matter? Dunno if that counts. -.-

**Xei** · 04-02-2011 12:33 AM

It seems to me that all of these 'properties' require a conscious observer to exist, which is interesting.

**no-Name** · 04-02-2011 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

It seems to me that all of these 'properties' require a conscious observer to exist, which is interesting.

are there any properties that don't require a conscious observer to exist?

**stormcrow** · 04-02-2011 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by Xei

It seems to me that all of these 'properties' require a conscious observer to exist, which is interesting.

Originally Posted by no-Name

are there any properties that don't require a conscious observer to exist?

Well that's kinda what the bundle theory(at least my understanding of it) is getting at, that only the observable properties actually exist. Hume was an empiricist after all.
In a way it is challenge to the platonic idea that objects have a "eternal essence" he is saying that the properties that we can observe empirically is what makes up the apple, there is no "pure" form of an apple once you strip away the properties.

It is almost similar to the Copenhagen interpretation and kind of the opposite of Plato's ontology.

**Arra** · 04-02-2011 03:05 AM

Objects are made up of physical stuff, and that physical stuff sometimes indirectly interacts with our senses to create impressions on our minds. That's all that needs to be said. Whatever question is asked needs to be rephrased with this view in mind, and when it is, the answer becomes obvious.

**DuB** · 04-02-2011 03:32 AM

I think this is a misinterpretation of Hume's theory. The argument is not that objects are comprised of observer-dependent properties, just that they are comprised of properties. The examples from the OP happen to all be observer-dependent, but this is not required by the theory.

I don't see any obvious problems with the theory. If anything, it is trivially true. Even if you think that you could conceive of an object without any properties, that imagined object would consequently have the property "can be conceived of."

**stormcrow** · 04-02-2011 03:45 AM

But don't properties have to be observable to be properties?

**DuB** · 04-02-2011 03:53 AM

We're talking about whether properties are "observer-dependent," not whether they are "observable." Taste is observer-dependent. Color is observer-dependent (assuming we're defining color as a psychological experience). Shape is not observer-dependent: a circle is round even when you're not looking at it. So what I just said earlier about all of the examples you gave being examples of observer-dependence actually isn't true.