Can there be an object with a relationship?

[Alex K]

Sure, the object can be linked to itself...

But - unless you specify more concretely what a link is, I'm not sure it can really be a thing. It's so abstract the way you say it, that it seems to require some additional statements what linking objectsxwould mean in the physical universe.

[bennyboy]

Sure, the object can be linked to itself...

But - unless you specify more concretely what a link is, I'm not sure it can really be a thing. It's so abstract the way you say it, that it seems to require some additional statements what linking objectsxwould mean in the physical universe.

But he's not talking about an object linking to itself.  He's talking about the relationship also being one of the objects of the relationship.

In other words: "Paradox. . . so Allah."

[chimp3]

So none of you are able to demonstrate that my philosophical scenario is impossible?

I don't know the answer, and that's why I'm asking.

First explain a universe with just one thing. The relationship might be obvious with enough data.

Addendum : Is this a universe that contains just one thing? That would be two things. The thing and the universe.

[Nanny]

I had a relationship with a 2011 Subaru WRX. Began modding it the day I drove it off the dealer's lot. ECU, suspension, clutch, brakes, intake, exhaust, headers, turbo, cooling, real fanboi stuff. Took it to autocross, some track days, ran it as a hill climber on a breakout time (no cage). Had fun, met nice people. Spent piles of money that I shouldn't have.

Had to get rid of that car. It had a 70 pound clutch and I have to go to Danbury, CT frequently for work. Traffic on Interstate 84 is bad, by Northeast standards, mainly due to construction and the two-lane stretch at Waterbury. Got tendinitis in my left ankle from that car. Self-inflicted.

Now I drive an old man automatic. Greatly enhances the cigar smoking on the way to Danbury.

That's my relationship with an object. Damn, I should have written about cigars instead.

[WinterHold]

Usually when we talk about relations and links, it involves three things: two objects that are linked, and the link between them. However, is there anything inherently implausible or contradictory about there being nothing in a universe except for an object and a link to it? In other words, can there be just a link and an object to which the link is attached?

Links and relations are, by definition, connections between two things. But why can't one of those two things be the link or relation itself?

There was once a Shiite Muslim who tried to be deep. The product was a blender of nonsense connected to a bridge.
A link connected to an object, and just that, is called "Unfinished business". Like Ali's campaign against Muaweya.

An object can exist without "links". Ever heard about the singularity that gave birth to the big bang?
The second link is the future. I don't think you know what the future would be.

Are you Mystic Knight? or a friend of his?

 I remember your old topics; they're a single entity attached to a single bridge:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-42051.html

---

WTF man? Heroine; right?

Oh I forgot. The Shiite Missionary bombardment

[Jarrey]