Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Physical object

A physical object is an entity that occupies a spatial location, possesses mass or energy, and persists through time, serving as the paradigmatic subject matter of physical theories and distinguishing it from abstract, mental, or non-spatial entities.^[1] In philosophical metaphysics, such objects are often exemplified by everyday items like tables, rocks, and trees, which exist independently of perception and are composed of fundamental constituents such as particles or fields.^[2] Philosophers have proposed various accounts to define physical objects more precisely, addressing challenges like vagueness in boundaries (e.g., when does a cloud cease to be an object?) and compatibility with scientific discoveries. One influential view, the Spatial Location Account, holds that "a physical object is an object with a spatial location," emphasizing location in three-dimensional space as the core criterion, which includes subatomic particles like quarks while excluding non-spatial items such as numbers or thoughts.^[1] Alternative approaches, such as the Physical Theory Account, tie physical objects to those described by complete physical theories, though this risks circularity by presupposing what counts as physical.^[3] The concept plays a central role in debates over physicalism, the thesis that everything is physical, where physical objects form the basis for explaining all phenomena, including mental states, through their intrinsic properties like shape, size, and causal powers.^[2] In contemporary philosophy of physics, discussions extend to quantum entities, where wave functions or multi-fields may qualify as physical objects if they represent mind-independent structures in configuration space.^[4] These inquiries highlight ongoing tensions between commonsense intuitions and rigorous metaphysical analysis, influencing fields from ontology to epistemology.

Common Usage

Everyday Definition

A physical object is a material entity that occupies space, possesses mass, and can be directly perceived through the human senses, such as sight, touch, hearing, or smell.^[5] In everyday language, this encompasses tangible items like a wooden chair, a stone, or a metal key, which have a fixed form and can interact with their surroundings in perceptible ways. Unlike abstract concepts, physical objects are identifiable because they exist independently of the mind and can be manipulated or observed repeatedly.^[6] The term "object" traces its etymological roots to the late 14th century, derived from Medieval Latin obiectum, meaning "something thrown before" or presented to the senses, reflecting its early connotation as a thing placed in view or opposition.^[7] In pre-scientific contexts, people referred to physical objects in practical terms during daily activities, such as rocks used for building shelters, stone tools for hunting and food preparation, or simple wooden furniture like benches for communal seating in ancient households. These examples illustrate how physical objects were integral to survival and social life long before formal scientific classification, serving as extensions of human capability in agrarian or hunter-gatherer societies. In common parlance, physical objects are distinguished by sensory properties that allow immediate recognition and interaction, including visible attributes like shape, size, and color, as well as tactile qualities such as texture and weight.^[8] For instance, one might identify a book by its rectangular shape and paper texture through touch, or assess a fruit's ripeness by its vibrant color and firm weight via sight and handling.^[9] These sensory cues enable people to navigate their environment intuitively, from selecting clothing based on fabric feel to avoiding obstacles by their audible impact or visual outline. This everyday sensory framework provides a foundation for more precise definitions in fields like physics.

Distinctions from Non-Physical Entities

Physical objects are distinguished from non-physical entities primarily by their independent, mind-independent existence in the material world, in contrast to abstract concepts like numbers or emotions, which lack such autonomy and exist only as mental or linguistic constructs. For instance, the number two or the emotion of joy does not occupy space or persist without human cognition, whereas a rock or a tree maintains its form regardless of observation. Similarly, virtual entities such as digital images on a screen represent data patterns rather than tangible matter, deriving their apparent presence from electronic processes without inherent physical substance.^[10]^[11]^[12] Key criteria for identifying physical objects include their spatial location, capacity for causal interactions, and empirical verifiability. Physical objects possess definite positions in space and time, allowing them to be located and tracked, unlike abstract entities that transcend such coordinates. They engage in causal interactions, such as being displaced, deformed, or destroyed through physical forces—for example, a glass can be moved by hand or shattered by impact—demonstrating their material nature. Moreover, physical objects are empirically verifiable via measurement and sensory observation, enabling quantification of properties like mass or volume, which abstract or virtual entities evade.^[3]^[11] Common misconceptions arise when perceptual phenomena are mistaken for physical objects, such as shadows or reflections, which lack independent substance. A shadow, for example, is not a physical entity but a visual absence of light caused by an obstructing object, possessing no mass, location of its own, or ability to interact causally beyond the light it modulates. Reflections in a mirror similarly depend entirely on the reflecting surface and incident light, vanishing without them and thus failing criteria of independent existence. Holograms illustrate this further: while appearing three-dimensional, they are optical illusions formed by light interference, without solidity or the capacity to be touched or measured as matter. These errors often stem from how the mind integrates sensory input, occasionally blurring intuitive boundaries between material and immaterial.^[13]^[12]

Physics

Classical Mechanics

In classical mechanics, physical objects are modeled as entities that occupy space and possess well-defined properties such as position, velocity, acceleration, mass, and linear momentum, enabling the prediction of their motion under the influence of forces.^[14] These objects are typically treated as either point masses, which are idealized particles with negligible size but finite mass concentrated at a single location, or rigid bodies, which maintain fixed distances between their constituent parts during motion.^[15] This framework assumes absolute space and time, where motion is deterministic and governed by universal laws applicable to everyday scales and speeds.^[16] The foundational text for classical mechanics is Isaac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, which established the mathematical principles for describing the motion of physical objects like planets, pendulums, and billiard balls.^[17] In this work, Newton synthesized earlier ideas from Galileo and Kepler into a cohesive system, using geometry and calculus to derive laws that revolutionized the understanding of physical objects as dynamically interacting bodies.^[17] For instance, billiard balls on a table exemplify classical objects, where collisions reveal principles of momentum transfer without deformation.^[18] Newton's three laws of motion form the core of this framework. The first law, or law of inertia, states that a physical object remains at rest or in uniform straight-line motion unless acted upon by an external force; this defines inertia as the inherent resistance of an object to changes in its state of motion, proportional to its mass.^[17] Mathematically, if the net force \vec{F} = 0, then the acceleration \vec{a} = 0, so velocity \vec{v} is constant: \vec{v} = \frac{d\vec{r}}{dt} = \text{constant}, where \vec{r} is the position vector.^[19] The second law quantifies the relationship between force and motion: the net force on an object equals the rate of change of its linear momentum, \vec{F} = \frac{d\vec{p}}{dt}, where \vec{p} = m\vec{v} is momentum and m is mass.^[17] For constant mass, this simplifies to \vec{F} = m\vec{a}, or in component form, F_x = m a_x, where acceleration \vec{a} = \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt} = \frac{d^2\vec{r}}{dt^2}.^[20] This law derives the concept of force as a vector causing acceleration, with inertia arising from mass's opposition to that change.^[21] The third law asserts that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction: if object A exerts a force \vec{F}_{A \on B} on object B, then B exerts -\vec{F}_{A \on B} on A simultaneously.^[17] This pairwise interaction underpins mutual influences, such as in collisions or gravitational pulls between bodies.^[22] Kinematics describes the motion of physical objects without considering causes, focusing on quantities like displacement \Delta \vec{r} = \vec{r}_f - \vec{r}_i, average speed v_{\text{avg}} = \frac{\Delta r}{\Delta t}, and instantaneous velocity \vec{v} = \lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{\Delta \vec{r}}{\Delta t}.^[23] For uniform acceleration, displacement follows \Delta x = v_0 t + \frac{1}{2} a t^2, as seen in a falling object under constant gravity.^[24] Dynamics extends this by incorporating forces, such as gravity, modeled as \vec{F}_g = -mg \hat{j} near Earth's surface (where g \approx 9.8 \, \text{m/s}^2), or friction, which opposes motion with kinetic friction f_k = \mu_k N ( \mu_k coefficient, N normal force) and static friction up to \mu_s N.^[14] In projectile motion, horizontal velocity remains constant due to zero net horizontal force (ignoring air resistance), while vertical motion accelerates under gravity, tracing a parabolic path. Conservation laws emerge as consequences of Newton's principles for isolated systems. Linear momentum \vec{p}_{\text{total}} = \sum m_i \vec{v}_i is conserved if no external forces act, as the third law ensures internal forces cancel: \frac{d\vec{p}_{\text{total}}}{dt} = 0.^[21] For energy, mechanical energy E = K + U (kinetic K = \frac{1}{2} m v^2, potential U for conservative forces) is conserved in the absence of non-conservative work, like friction.^[25] A pendulum demonstrates this: at the bottom, energy is purely kinetic; at the peak, purely gravitational potential, oscillating without loss in ideal conditions.^[26] This Newtonian approach holds for most macroscopic phenomena but requires modification at relativistic speeds or quantum scales.^[16]

Relativity

In special relativity, formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, physical objects are no longer characterized by absolute properties of length, time, and mass independent of the observer's frame of reference; instead, these attributes depend on relative motion between objects and observers moving at constant velocities.^[27] For an object moving at velocity v relative to an observer, lengths parallel to the direction of motion undergo contraction by the factor \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}, where c is the speed of light, while perpendicular lengths remain unchanged; this length contraction arises from the synchronization of clocks in different frames.^[27] Similarly, time intervals measured by clocks at rest in the moving frame appear dilated to the observer by the same factor, illustrating the relativity of simultaneity.^[27] These effects stem from the Lorentz transformations, which relate coordinates (t, x, y, z) in one inertial frame to (t', x', y', z') in another frame moving at velocity v along the x-axis:

\begin{align*} x' &= \gamma (x - vt), \\ y' &= y, \\ z' &= z, \\ t' &= \gamma \left(t - \frac{vx}{c^2}\right), \end{align*}

where \gamma = 1 / \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}.^[27] Einstein also established the mass-energy equivalence principle, stating that the energy E of an object at rest equals its rest mass m times c^2, or E = mc^2, implying that physical objects can convert mass into energy and vice versa under certain conditions. The implications for physical objects extend to the breakdown of classical rigidity, where no extended object can maintain a fixed shape under acceleration without stresses, as defined by Born rigidity in 1909; a Born-rigid body preserves the proper distance between neighboring worldlines in its instantaneous rest frame.^[28] In Minkowski space, introduced by Hermann Minkowski in 1908, the trajectory of a physical object is represented as a worldline—a curve in four-dimensional spacetime whose tangent is always timelike, ensuring causality and preventing superluminal motion.^[29] General relativity, developed by Einstein in 1915, further redefines physical objects by embedding them in curved spacetime, where gravity arises from the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy; objects behave as test masses following geodesics, the shortest paths in this geometry. The equivalence principle, articulated by Einstein in 1911, posits that the effects of gravity are locally indistinguishable from acceleration, meaning a physical object in free fall follows a geodesic as if in flat spacetime locally. Examples include planets orbiting the Sun along geodesics curved by solar mass, or black holes as regions where spacetime curvature becomes extreme, trapping objects beyond the event horizon. Experimental validations include the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, which failed to detect Earth's motion through a hypothesized luminiferous ether, supporting the constancy of light speed and motivating special relativity.^[30] Modern applications, such as GPS systems, require corrections for both special relativistic time dilation due to satellite velocities (about 7 μs/day slowing) and general relativistic gravitational redshift (about 45 μs/day speeding), ensuring positional accuracy within meters.^[31]

Quantum Mechanics

In quantum mechanics, physical objects at atomic and subatomic scales cease to behave as classical entities with definite trajectories and properties, instead exhibiting probabilistic wave-like characteristics that challenge intuitive notions of locality and determinism. This paradigm shift arises from foundational experiments and principles that reveal the inherent limitations of classical descriptions for objects smaller than approximately 10^{-9} meters. Wave-particle duality is a cornerstone of this framework, positing that entities such as electrons and photons manifest both particle-like and wave-like behaviors depending on the experimental context. The double-slit experiment exemplifies this duality: when electrons are fired individually through two slits onto a detection screen, they produce an interference pattern characteristic of waves, even though each electron arrives as a discrete "hit," suggesting self-interference as if passing through both slits simultaneously. This phenomenon was first demonstrated for electrons in 1927 by Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer, who observed diffraction patterns from electron beams scattered off a nickel crystal, confirming wave properties for matter. Similarly, single-photon experiments replicate the pattern for light, underscoring that the duality applies to both matter and radiation without contradiction in quantum theory. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle further delineates the boundaries of knowledge about physical objects, stating that the product of uncertainties in position (\Delta x) and momentum (\Delta p) satisfies \Delta x \Delta p \geq [\hbar](/page/H-bar) / 2, where \hbar = h / 2\pi and h is Planck's constant. This relation, derived in 1927, implies that precise simultaneous measurement of these conjugate variables is impossible, introducing fundamental indeterminacy rather than mere experimental limitation. For instance, localizing an electron to within an atomic radius (\sim 10^{-10} m) renders its momentum uncertain by at least \sim 10^{-24} kg m/s, blurring the object's classical path. The state of a quantum object is described by the wave function \psi, governed by the Schrödinger equation i \hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = \hat{H} \psi, where \hat{H} is the Hamiltonian operator encapsulating the system's energy. Introduced by Erwin Schrödinger in 1926, this equation yields solutions representing superpositions of states, where an object like an electron in a hydrogen atom occupies multiple energy levels simultaneously until measured. The probability density |\psi|^2 determines the likelihood of finding the object at a given position, as per the Born rule, emphasizing that quantum objects lack definite properties independent of observation. In the classical limit of large quantum numbers, such as for macroscopic objects, quantum predictions align with classical mechanics via Bohr's correspondence principle. Quantum objects are fundamentally excitations in underlying quantum fields pervading spacetime, rather than isolated point particles; for example, an electron is a quantized ripple in the electron field. This field-theoretic perspective, central to quantum field theory, accommodates particle creation and annihilation as field interactions. Entanglement extends this non-local character: when two particles interact and then separate, their wave functions become correlated such that measuring one instantly determines the state of the other, regardless of distance, as highlighted in the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, which questioned quantum completeness but was later affirmed by experiments violating Bell inequalities. The measurement problem arises from the apparent collapse of the wave function upon observation, transitioning the system from a superposition to a definite state. In the Copenhagen interpretation, this collapse is postulated as irreversible, with the act of measurement—interaction with a classical apparatus—selecting one outcome probabilistically, though the exact mechanism remains unresolved. This issue underscores the tension between quantum description and classical observation, where physical objects evade full classical characterization at quantum scales.

Other Scientific Disciplines

Chemistry

In chemistry, physical objects are fundamentally aggregates of atoms and molecules, where atoms represent the basic building blocks of elements as organized in the periodic table, first systematically arranged by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869 based on atomic weights and chemical properties.^[32] Molecules form through chemical bonding, primarily ionic bonds—where electrons transfer between atoms, as in sodium chloride (NaCl)—and covalent bonds, involving electron sharing, as detailed in Linus Pauling's seminal work on valence bond theory.^[33] These atomic and molecular assemblies constitute everyday physical objects like water (H₂O, a covalent compound) or table salt, exhibiting distinct chemical identities derived from their elemental composition and bonding. The properties of these chemical objects manifest through states of matter, classified as solid, liquid, gas, and plasma, each characterized by the arrangement and mobility of atoms or molecules. In solids, particles occupy fixed positions in a lattice, yielding rigidity and definite shape; liquids allow particle sliding, resulting in flow while maintaining volume; gases feature high mobility and expansion to fill containers; and plasma consists of ionized particles responsive to electromagnetic fields, as observed in stars.^[34] Phase transitions between these states—such as melting (solid to liquid) or vaporization (liquid to gas)—occur at specific temperatures and pressures, driven by thermodynamic principles where the Gibbs free energy of phases equilibrates, as formulated by J. Willard Gibbs in his 1876–1878 treatise on heterogeneous equilibria.^[35] For gaseous objects, the ideal gas law, PV = nRT, quantifies behavior under dilute conditions, relating pressure (P), volume (V), moles (n), the gas constant (R), and temperature (T); this empirical relation combines earlier observations by Boyle, Charles, and others.^[36] Chemical reactions transform physical objects by rearranging atoms into new molecules, with the law of conservation of mass ensuring that the total mass of reactants equals that of products, as established by Antoine Lavoisier in his 1789 Traité Élémentaire de Chimie.^[37] In such reactions, objects serve as reactants or products; for instance, the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen gases forms water molecules via $2H_2 + O_2 \rightarrow 2H_2O, an exothermic process releasing energy while preserving atomic counts.^[38] Advanced materials exemplify physical objects where microscopic arrangements dictate macroscopic properties: polymers, such as polyethylene, consist of long covalent chains that entangle to confer flexibility and tensile strength; crystals, like diamond, feature ordered atomic lattices yielding exceptional hardness and thermal conductivity due to directional bonding; and alloys, such as steel (iron-carbon mixtures), derive enhanced durability and corrosion resistance from distributed microscopic phases and grain boundaries.^[39]

Biology

In biology, physical objects encompass living organisms and their constituent structures, such as cells, tissues, and organs, which possess measurable mass and volume and are fundamentally composed of biomolecules including proteins and DNA.^[40] Cells, the basic structural units of life, exhibit these physical properties through their bounded membranes and internal organization, enabling them to maintain integrity as discrete entities with defined spatial dimensions.^[41] Tissues and organs arise from the aggregation of these cells, forming complex architectures that support physiological functions while adhering to physical principles of matter and energy.^[42] Vital properties of biological physical objects, including homeostasis, metabolism, and growth, manifest as dynamic physical processes governed by underlying biophysical laws. Homeostasis involves the regulation of internal conditions, such as temperature and pH, through feedback mechanisms that counteract environmental perturbations, ensuring the stability of the object's material composition.^[43] Metabolism encompasses the transformation of energy and matter within cells via enzymatic reactions, providing the physical basis for sustaining mass and enabling responses to external stimuli.^[44] Growth occurs through the accumulation of biomolecules and cellular division, increasing the object's volume and mass in a controlled manner. These processes rely on diffusion, described briefly by Fick's first law, which states that the flux of molecules across a membrane is proportional to the concentration gradient (J = -D * ΔC / Δx, where J is flux, D is the diffusion coefficient, and ΔC/Δx is the gradient), facilitating nutrient uptake and waste removal essential for organismal integrity.^[45] In biomechanics, properties like muscle contraction generate forces—typically on the order of 200-300 kPa in skeletal muscle—through the sliding filament mechanism involving actin and myosin interactions, enabling movement and structural support as physical responses to neural signals.^[46] From an evolutionary perspective, physical adaptations in biological objects, such as skeletal structures, arise through natural selection acting on heritable variations, shaping material forms to enhance survival and reproduction. Charles Darwin illustrated this in On the Origin of Species (1859), noting how homologous skeletal elements in the forelimbs of diverse vertebrates—like the humerus, radius, and ulna in humans, bats, and whales—reflect shared ancestry while diverging for specialized functions, such as flight or swimming, demonstrating the physical modification of structures over generations. These adaptations underscore the physical object's responsiveness to selective pressures, optimizing biomechanical efficiency without altering fundamental molecular compositions. Biological physical objects span scales from microscopic to macroscopic, with viruses representing borderline cases as non-cellular entities possessing mass and volume but lacking independent metabolic machinery, relying instead on host cells for replication.^[47] At larger scales, individual organisms maintain distinct physical boundaries despite interactions within ecosystems, emphasizing their autonomy as cohesive units of matter subject to life's processes. The chemical composition of biomolecules, such as the carbon-based polymers in proteins and nucleic acids, underpins this hierarchical organization across scales.^[48]

Psychology

Perceptual Processing

Perceptual processing of physical objects begins with the detection of sensory stimuli generated by the object's interaction with the environment, primarily through specialized sensory modalities that transduce physical energy into neural signals. In the visual modality, shape is perceived via edge detection, where neurons in the primary visual cortex (V1) respond preferentially to oriented edges and contours formed by light intensity gradients on the retina.^[49] Tactile perception of texture occurs through mechanoreceptors in the skin, such as slowly adapting type 1 (SA1) afferents, which encode spatial variations in surface roughness by detecting minute deformations during touch.^[50] For auditory perception, object localization relies on interaural time and level differences in sound waves arriving at the ears, allowing the brain to compute the azimuthal position of a sound source.^[51] These modalities enable the initial capture of object properties like form, surface characteristics, and spatial position. Neural pathways refine these sensory inputs through hierarchical processing in the brain, transforming basic features into coherent object representations. In the visual system, signals from V1, which processes edge orientations, project to higher areas like V4, where neurons integrate color information from cone photoreceptors to contribute to object segmentation and recognition.^[52] Object recognition emerges from hierarchical feature extraction across ventral stream areas, starting with simple features in V1 (e.g., edges) and progressing to complex invariant representations in inferotemporal cortex, as modeled in computational frameworks inspired by cortical architecture. Auditory and tactile pathways similarly ascend through thalamic relays to cortical regions, such as the primary somatosensory cortex for texture and the superior temporal gyrus for sound localization, enabling multimodal integration for robust object perception. Perceptual errors, such as illusions, highlight the brain's interpretive mechanisms and potential misalignments in processing physical object distances. The Müller-Lyer illusion, for instance, induces depth misperception where lines flanked by inward- or outward-pointing arrows appear unequal in length due to contextual cues mimicking perspective in three-dimensional space, with neural responses in early visual areas reflecting this biased size estimation.^[53] From an evolutionary perspective, sensory adaptations for detecting physical objects in natural environments emphasize direct pickup of ambient information, as articulated in ecological optics, where perceivers attune to structured light arrays specifying object layouts, surfaces, and affordances without relying on internal representations. This framework posits that visual systems evolved to exploit optic flow and texture gradients for navigating and interacting with objects, optimizing survival in dynamic habitats.^[54]

Cognitive Representation

In cognitive psychology, physical objects are represented mentally through prototypes and schemas that organize categories based on typical exemplars rather than strict definitional boundaries. Eleanor Rosch's prototype theory posits that categories such as "chair" are structured around central prototypes—familiar instances like a standard wooden dining chair—that serve as reference points for classifying varying exemplars, with category membership graded by similarity to the prototype rather than all-or-nothing rules.^[55] This approach highlights how mental models of physical objects facilitate efficient categorization and storage in memory, allowing individuals to infer properties of novel objects based on prototypical features. Schemas extend this by integrating prototypes with contextual knowledge, enabling dynamic manipulation of object representations during thought processes.^[55] A foundational aspect of cognitive representation is object permanence, the understanding that physical objects continue to exist even when not directly perceived. Jean Piaget described this concept within his sensorimotor stages of development, where infants progress from lacking permanence in early stages (birth to about 8 months, where hidden objects are treated as nonexistent) to achieving it around 8-12 months through coordinated actions like searching under covers.^[56] By 18 months, in the later sensorimotor substage, children fully coordinate visibility and permanence, forming stable mental representations of objects' enduring spatial locations. This developmental milestone underscores how cognitive representations evolve from sensorimotor experiences to abstract mental models.^[56] Cognitive operations on physical object representations include mental rotation and perception of affordances. In mental rotation tasks, individuals mentally manipulate three-dimensional object images to compare orientations, with response times increasing linearly with the angle of rotation, indicating analog spatial representations in working memory.^[57] Roger Shepard and Jacqueline Metzler's experiments demonstrated this by presenting pairs of rotated object depictions, revealing that the mind simulates physical rotations to assess identity. Complementing this, James J. Gibson's theory of affordances describes how physical objects are cognitively represented in terms of action possibilities they offer to the perceiver, such as a door affording pushing or pulling based on its handle and structure, directly linking object properties to behavioral intentions.^[58] Disorders like visual agnosia illustrate breakdowns in these representations, where individuals fail to recognize physical objects despite preserved basic perception. In visual form agnosia, patients cannot categorize or identify objects by shape—such as distinguishing a hammer from a screwdriver visually—but can still grasp and use them accurately for actions, suggesting a dissociation between cognitive recognition and visuomotor processing.^[59] Seminal cases, as studied by A. David Milner and colleagues, show that such deficits arise from damage to ventral stream areas, impairing the formation of coherent object schemas while leaving affordance-based representations intact. Perceptual cues from earlier processing stages feed into these cognitive representations, but agnosia disrupts the integration needed for meaningful object identification.^[59]

Philosophy

Ontological Status

In ontology, physical objects are often conceptualized as substances, composite entities that serve as the fundamental bearers of properties and changes in the world. Aristotle's doctrine of hylomorphism posits that every physical object is a compound of matter (hylē) and form (morphē), where matter provides the potentiality and form actualizes it into a specific substance, distinguishing it from mere aggregates of properties or transient events. This view contrasts with alternative ontologies that reduce objects to bundles of properties, as in some nominalist traditions, or to processes and events, emphasizing relational dynamics over enduring substances. Categorization of physical objects further highlights their ontological structure through distinctions between inherent qualities and compositional relations. John Locke distinguished primary qualities—such as shape, mass, extension, solidity, motion, and number—as objective features inherent to physical objects themselves, resembling the ideas they produce in perceivers, from secondary qualities like color, sound, taste, and smell, which are mere powers in objects to produce sensory effects dependent on the perceiver's constitution.^[60] In modern ontology, mereology addresses the part-whole relations constitutive of physical objects, treating them as sums or fusions of parts without gaps or overlaps, providing a formal framework for understanding how extended entities emerge from their components.^[61] Realism about physical objects asserts their independent existence from observation or mind, grounded in corpuscular theories that explain macroscopic properties through microscopic particles. Robert Boyle's corpuscular philosophy, articulated in his 1661 work, argues that physical objects consist of insensible corpuscles whose shapes, sizes, motions, and arrangements determine all observable qualities, thereby supporting the view that objects possess a mind-independent reality. This realist foundation faces challenges from ancient atomism, which posits indivisible atoms as the ultimate physical objects. Democritus, in the 5th century BCE, theorized that all physical entities are composed of eternal, unchangeable atoms differing only in shape, position, and arrangement, moving through void, with composite objects emerging as mere configurations rather than irreducible substances.^[62]

Key Metaphysical Debates

One prominent metaphysical debate concerning physical objects centers on the problem of persistence through change, exemplified by the Ship of Theseus paradox. This thought experiment, originating in ancient philosophy and elaborated in modern discussions, questions whether an object retains its identity when all its parts are gradually replaced over time, such as a ship's planks being substituted one by one.^[63] If the original planks are later reassembled into a second ship, intuitions conflict over which vessel, if any, is the "true" Ship of Theseus, challenging traditional notions of numerical identity based on material continuity.^[63] A key solution to this paradox arises from four-dimensionalism, which posits that physical objects are extended in spacetime and composed of temporal parts, forming elongated "spacetime worms" that persist by having different stages at different times.^[63] Under this view, the Ship of Theseus is not a three-dimensional object changing diachronically but a four-dimensional entity encompassing all its temporal stages, including those before and after replacement; the reassembled ship constitutes a distinct spacetime worm overlapping partially with the original in earlier stages.^[63] This perdurantist approach, defended in detail by philosophers like Theodore Sider, resolves the paradox by allowing partial spatiotemporal overlap without requiring strict material sameness across time, thereby preserving identity through the object's full four-dimensional extent.^[63] Another enduring debate involves the ontological composition of physical objects, particularly David Hume's bundle theory, which denies the existence of an underlying substance and conceives objects as mere collections of sensory qualities or perceptions.^[64] In his 1739 A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume argues that what we call a physical body—such as an apple—is not a distinct substance supporting its attributes but a "bundle" of co-occurring impressions like color, shape, and texture, connected only by the mind's associative habits rather than any perceived real connection. For instance, we infer an enduring object from successive perceptions, but no empirical evidence supports a substratum beneath these qualities; the idea of substance is thus a fiction projected by the imagination onto bundles of qualities.^[64] This theory challenges substantivalist views, suggesting physical objects lack independent unity beyond their perceptible properties.^[65] Debates over causality further complicate the metaphysics of physical objects, particularly whether they function as genuine causes of events or merely as occasions for divine or mental intervention, as critiqued in George Berkeley's idealism.^[66] Berkeley, in works like A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), contends that physical objects cannot be efficient causes because they are passive collections of ideas in the mind, devoid of inherent power or activity; instead, observed regularities between ideas (e.g., a stone striking glass causing shattering) are occasions for God's active will to produce the subsequent perceptions.^[66] This occasionalist critique undermines materialist accounts where objects exert causal influence independently, arguing that attributing causality to insensible particles or substances is unverifiable and superfluous, as all phenomena reduce to perceptions sustained by a divine mind.^[66] Consequently, physical objects serve not as causes but as signs or occasions in a divinely ordered perceptual framework.^[66] In contemporary metaphysics, vagueness in the composition of physical objects remains a central issue, highlighted by Peter van Inwagen's special composition question (SCQ), which asks under what conditions multiple material simples or objects compose a further composite object.^[67] Posed in his 1990 book Material Beings, the SCQ exposes the indeterminacy in ordinary composition, as there appears to be no precise boundary for when scattered parts form a unified whole.^[67] A classic illustration is the sorites paradox applied to heaps: a single grain of sand is not a heap, yet adding grains gradually creates vagueness about the threshold where a "heap" emerges as a composite object, mirroring uncertainties in physical aggregates like clouds or statues.^[68] Van Inwagen notes that such vagueness challenges unrestricted composition (where any parts compose something) and restricted views alike, potentially requiring either nihilism (denying composites exist) or accepting indeterminate parthood for physical objects.^[67] This debate underscores ongoing tensions in mereology, where composition principles must accommodate both intuitive boundaries and the fuzzy nature of material reality.^[68]

References

[1]
[PDF] WHAT ARE PHYSICAL OBJECTS - The Secular Frontier
The concept of a physical object has figured prominently in the history of philosophy, and is probably more important now than it has ever been before.
[2]
[PDF] On the Paradigmatic Conception of the Physical - Redalyc
Abstract: What “physical” means is sometimes clarified by appealing to paradigmatically physical objects, properties, or phenomena.
[3]
[PDF] Physical Object - Ned Markosian
Physical objects are the most familiar of all objects, and yet the concept of a physical object remains elusive. Any six-year-old can give you a dozen.
[4]
[PDF] Our Fundamental Physical Space: An Essay on the Metaphysics of ...
physical object, a physical field, or a law of nature. In this paper, I shall assume realism about the wave function—that is, what the wave function ...
[5]
PHYSICAL OBJECT definition in American English - Collins Dictionary
An object is anything that has a fixed shape or form, that you can touch or see, and that is not alive.
[6]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object
[7]
Object - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating from late 14c. Medieval Latin "obiectum," meaning "thing put before," object means a tangible thing or to oppose by presenting an argument.
[8]
History of the Designed Object - Ingrid Zippe - Medium
Mar 5, 2021 · The design of everyday objects is as old as human invention. In ancient history, any tool, pot, or storage vessel is an object designed for human use.
[9]
Perception: The Sensory Experience of the World - Verywell Mind
Jan 26, 2022 · Perception refers to our sensory experience of the world. It is the process of using our senses to become aware of objects, relationships.
[10]
Sensation and Perception - Noba Project
The physical process during which our sensory organs—those involved with hearing and taste, for example—respond to external stimuli is called sensation.
[11]
Visual and Tactile Sensory Systems Share Common Features in ...
Oct 4, 2021 · This study examined the role of shape features that enable human reliance on visual or tactile sensory modalities for object recognition and ...
[12]
[PDF] There are no abstract objects - Nyu
Sep 13, 2005 · Suppose you start out inclined towards the hard-headed view that the world of material objects is the whole of reality.
[13]
[PDF] Are Properties Abstract Entities? - Cowling - Denison University
In debates about the metaphysics of properties, the particular-universal distinction arguably occupies pride of place over the abstract-concrete distinction. It ...
[14]
Preface: Virtual Entities in Science - MIT Press Direct
Jun 1, 2024 · They represent auxiliary objects or processes without instantiation, with the purpose of efficiently describing specific physical systems. In ...
[15]
[PDF] No More than Meets the Eye: Shadows as Pure Visibilia - Ian Phillips
The thesis I propose to consider is that shadows are pure visibilia: objects constitutively and exhaustively connected in nature, existence and qualities to our ...
[16]
[PDF] Classical Mechanics - Richard Fitzpatrick
Classical mechanics is the study of the motion of bodies (including the special case in which bodies remain at rest) in accordance with the general ...
[17]
[PDF] Part CM: Classical Mechanics - Academic Commons
Sep 1, 2025 · ... rigid body motion. (vi) A particle (or “point particle”): a localized physical object whose size is negligible, and whose shape is ...
[18]
Classical Mechanics | Physics - MIT OpenCourseWare
This first course in the physics curriculum introduces classical mechanics. Historically, a set of core concepts—space, time, mass, force, momentum, torque, and ...
[19]
Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
Dec 20, 2007 · Once the force transmitted to each point-mass along the string is known, Newton's three laws of motion are sufficient to determine the motion.“Definitions” and absolute... · Newton's Laws of Motion · Book 1 of the Principia
[20]
[PDF] Chapter 4 Rigid Body Motion - Rutgers Physics
In this chapter we develop the dynamics of a rigid body, one in which all interparticle distances are fixed by internal forces of constraint. This is,.
[21]
Newton's first law of motion
Newton's first law of motion essentially states that a point object subject to zero net external force moves in a straight line with a constant speed.
[22]
A review of Newton's three laws of motion | Engineering Dynamics
A review of Newton's three laws of motion. Description: Prof. Vandiver goes over kinematics (describing the motion of particles and rigid bodies), Newton's ...
[23]
9 Newton's Laws of Dynamics - Feynman Lectures
Newton wrote down three laws: The First Law was a mere restatement of the Galilean principle of inertia just described.Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
[24]
Newton's Laws - Student Academic Success
Newton's Laws provide the fundamentals for understanding forces and the relationship between forces and motion.
[25]
[PDF] Chapter 4 One Dimensional Kinematics - MIT OpenCourseWare
4.5.2 Displacement: Area Under the Velocity vs. Time Graph ... 8.01 Classical Mechanics. Spring 2022. For information about citing these ...
[26]
5.2 Newton's First Law – University Physics Volume 1
Newton's first law is general and can be applied to anything from an object sliding on a table to a satellite in orbit to blood pumped from the heart.
[27]
lectures - Richard Fitzpatrick - University of Texas at Austin
Conservation of energy · Introduction · Energy conservation during free-fall · Work · Conservative and non-conservative force-fields · Potential energy ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[28]
8.3: Conservation of Energy - Maricopa Open Digital Press
Apply the principle of mechanical energy conservation by setting the sum of the kinetic energies and potential energies equal at every point of interest. Simple ...
[29]
[PDF] ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES - Fourmilab
This edition of Einstein's On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies is based on the English translation of his original 1905 German-language paper. (published as ...
[30]
[PDF] The theory of the rigid electron in the kinematics of the principle of ...
Born – The theory of the rigid electron in the kinematics of the relativity principle. 2 the concepts of yardsticks whose lengths are independent of time and ...
[31]
[PDF] Space and Time - UCSD Math
However, that situation is crystal clear in Minkowski's spacetime physics – the worldline of a single particle in the Universe is either geodesic or deformed, ...
[32]
[PDF] On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether (with ...
The experimental trial of the first hypothesis forms the subject of the present paper. If the earth were a transparent body, it might perhaps be conceded, in ...
[33]
Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System
Mar 11, 2017 · A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.
[34]
[PDF] International Year of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements - IUPAC
In 1869, Dmitry Mendeleev (Russian) developed the modern periodic table as it is known today. In 1939, a French woman scientist, Marguerite Perey, discovered ...
[35]
THE NATURE OF THE CHEMICAL BOND. II. THE ONE-ELECTRON ...
Exploring the Bonding Nature of Iron(IV)-Oxo Species through Valence Bond Calculations and Electron Density Analysis. ... Are One-Electron Bonds Any Different ...<|separator|>
[36]
Standard Reference Data | NIST
NIST produces the Nation's Standard Reference Data (SRD). These data are assessed by experts and are trustworthy such that people can use the data with ...SRD Catalog · Mass Spectral Library · NIST ICSD Web Site · NIST Public Data
[37]
Gibbs' Phase Rule: Where it all Begins - SERC (Carleton)
Aug 8, 2007 · Gibbs' Phase Rule provides the theoretical foundation, based in thermodynamics, for characterizing the chemical state of a (geologic) system.
[38]
Gas Laws
... ideal gas equation. PV = nRT. In this equation, R is a proportionality constant known as the ideal gas constant and T is the absolute temperature. The value ...
[39]
Traité élémentaire de chimie t. 1 (1789) - Smithsonian Libraries
His concepts of the principles of the indestructibility and conservation of matter guided him in formulating his methods of organic analysis.Missing: original | Show results with:original
[40]
The nature of the chemical bond—1992 - ACS Publications
Commentary on errors in an earlier article on the nature of the chemical bond.
[41]
New Complex Alloys Push the Limits of Materials - ACS Publications
Sep 9, 2021 · The various phases affect a material's macroscopic properties, such as strength, ductility, and hardness.
[42]
The Structure and Function of Living Organisms - Systems Biology
Jun 9, 2023 · Proteins are among the most basic active biological structures. Most of the well-known proteins studied thus far perform effector functions: ...
[43]
[PDF] 1.2 | Basic Properties of Cells
Cells are the structural unit of life, are living, can arise from pre-existing cells, and are complex and organized.
[44]
Tissue matrix arrays for high throughput screening and systems ...
INTRODUCTION. Tissues and organs in the body are composed of cells and their surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM) generated by self-assembly and cellular ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[45]
Physiology, Homeostasis - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
May 1, 2023 · The human body is composed of thousands of control systems to detect change caused by disruptors and employ effectors to mediate that change.
[46]
Physiology, Metabolism - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
Metabolism refers to the whole sum of reactions that occur throughout the body within each cell and that provide the body with energy.
[47]
The Circulatory System and Oxygen Transport - NCBI - NIH
Fick's first law of diffusion (1855) describes the net rate of transfer of a substance from a location of high concentration to one of lower concentration:.Missing: biology | Show results with:biology
[48]
Physiology, Muscle Contraction - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
The physiological concept of muscle contraction is based on two variables: length and tension. In physiology, muscle shortening and muscle contraction are ...Introduction · Cellular Level · Mechanism · Related Testing
[49]
Are viruses alive? The replicator paradigm sheds decisive light on ...
Indeed, viruses can be viewed as not belonging to the category of living beings because they are incapable of autonomous reproduction and extracellular virions ...
[50]
CH106: Chapter 1 - Introduction to Biological Systems - Chemistry
Molecular biology is the study of molecular underpinnings of the processes of replication, transcription, translation, and cellular function.
[51]
Prior object-knowledge sharpens properties of early visual feature ...
Jul 18, 2018 · For instance, cells in primary visual cortex (V1) of many mammals including humans best respond to small, local edges of certain orientations, ...<|separator|>
[52]
Perceptual Constancy of Texture Roughness in the Tactile System
Nov 30, 2011 · Neurophysiological coding studies using a wide range of textured surfaces show that roughness perception is mediated by SA1 mechanoreceptors ...
[53]
Psychophysics and Neuronal Bases of Sound Localization in Humans
This review discusses behavioral and neuroimaging studies on sound localization, and some of the competing models of representation of auditory space in humans.
[54]
A distinct population of heterogeneously color-tuned neurons in ...
Feb 19, 2021 · We identified a distinct population of cells in macaque visual cortex (area V4) that have a heterogeneous receptive field (RF) structure in which individual ...Results · Materials And Methods · Color Tuning
[55]
The Müller-Lyer illusion explained by the statistics of image–source ...
Jan 18, 2005 · The Müller-Lyer illusion is a manifestation of the probabilistic strategy of visual processing that has evolved to contend with the uncertain provenance of ...
[56]
Optic Flow: Perceiving and Acting in a 3-D World - PMC - NIH
Feb 3, 2021 · Abstract. In 1979, James Gibson completed his third and final book “The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception”.
[57]
Natural categories - ScienceDirect.com
View PDF; Download full issue. Search ScienceDirect. Elsevier · Cognitive Psychology · Volume 4, Issue 3, May 1973, Pages 328-350. Cognitive Psychology. Natural ...
[58]
The Construction Of Reality In The Child | Jean Piaget | Taylor & Fran
Jul 4, 2013 · Initially published in 1954, in Piaget's words the study of sensorimotor or practical intelligence in the first two years of development has ...
[59]
Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects - Science
Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects. Roger N. Shepard and Jacqueline MetzlerAuthors Info & Affiliations. Science. 19 Feb 1971. Vol 171, Issue 3972. pp ...
[60]
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception | Classic Edition
Nov 20, 2014 · This book, first published in 1979, is about how we see: the environment around us (its surfaces, their layout, and their colors and ...
[61]
Perception and action in 'visual form agnosia' - PubMed
A single case study of a patient with 'visual form agnosia' is presented. A severe visual recognition deficit was accompanied by impairments in discriminating ...
[62]
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding - Project Gutenberg
bulk, figure, texture, and motion of parts and therefore I call them SECONDARY QUALITIES. 15. Ideas of primary Qualities are Resemblances; of secondary, not.
[63]
Parts: A Study in Ontology - Peter Simons - Oxford University Press
Free delivery 25-day returnsThis is the first full-length study of this key concept. Showing that mereology, or the formal theory of part and whole, is essential to ontology.
[64]
[PDF] DEMOCRITUS - University of Michigan Press
Research into the life and work of Democritus, best known of the Greek atomists, is sadly hampered by the one-sided nature of his extant writings;.
[65]
Temporal Parts - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 1, 2004 · This is because perduring objects stretch out through time just as (we all agree) earthworms stretch out through space. Worm theory has nothing ...
[66]
David Hume - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 26, 2001 · In his “Introduction” to the Treatise, Hume launches the constructive phase of his project by proposing nothing less than “a compleat system of ...Hume's Moral Philosophy · Kant and Hume on Causality · On Free Will · On Religion
[67]
17th Century Theories of Substance
... substance” (Treatise 1.4. ... Bundle-theories of substance, for example, deny that substances are subjects at all—they are merely bundles or collections of ...
[68]
George Berkeley - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sep 10, 2004 · Perhaps the most obvious objection to idealism is that it makes real things no different from imaginary ones—both seem fleeting figments of our ...
[69]
Material Composition | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The topic of material composition falls under the wider purview of mereology, which is simply the study of parts and wholes. Much of the focus of mereology over ...
[70]
Mereology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
May 13, 2003 · Mereology (from the Greek μερος, 'part') is the theory of parthood relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a ...