An Indestructible Object

Common experience reveals that perceived objects in the external world tend to show visible signs of decay and wear with the passage of time.  Each day, certain items appear to have sustained far more use or have far less durability than others because of these signs alone.  For this reason, some people casually assert that everything deteriorates, making no distinction between the immutable laws of logic and the changeable nature of material objects.

The error extends beyond this, however, as there is no such thing as a sound extrapolation to the conclusion that all material objects inevitably degrade.  One can prove that it is possible for an indestructible object to exist just by realizing that the concept of an indestructible object does not contradict any necessary truths, the only requirement for logical possibility.  Sensory experience is not necessary to show that such a thing is possible, although it is impossible to prove that such an object does or does not exist without some sort of sensory experience.

No amount of sensory exploration short of absolute omnipresence could ever demonstrate that all material objects are capable of being destroyed.  The decay or marring of a fruit, cloth, tree, machine, or structure provides example upon example of the deterioration of matter, always falling short of illustrating if every single other object succumbs to slow destruction in the same way.  This is the inherent problem in inductive reasoning: what is true of the part may not be true of the whole.

An indestructible object is not and, indeed, cannot be legitimately ruled out even after numerous recalled instances of different material items changing form, whether by breaking or by simply wearing down in less dramatic ways.  Even though its flaws mean it is epistemologically useless, inductive reasoning is still used to give the fallacy of composition seeming credibility.  Unmasking inductive reasoning for the fallacious method that it is a vital part of rational epistemology.