Atomists

[Matthias123]

I am having difficulties understanding the superiority of Aristotelian philosophy compared to that of the Atomists.

For example: Does a string (M-Theory) have form? It is a one dimensional bisect of a two dimensional object – therefore all it is just a line. What about if string theory was false, and an elementary particle is a 0-dementional object?

How would Aristotelian philosophy apply to modern theoretical physics? Do we need forms to explain the physical?

Also would it be contrary to Occam’s razor to conclude that there must be immaterial beings in order to explain physical beings. How exactly is mechanism flawed compared to the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquanis?

 

[Areopagite]

I am having difficulties understanding the superiority of Aristotelian philosophy compared to that of the Atomists.

For example: Does a string (M-Theory) have form? It is a one dimensional bisect of a two dimensional object – therefore all it is just a line. What about if string theory was false, and an elementary particle is a 0-dementional object?

How would Aristotelian philosophy apply to modern theoretical physics? Do we need forms to explain the physical?

I might be misinterpreting what you’re saying, and also I might be plain wrong. Not only might I misunderstand that physics (or string-theory) but also the Aristotlelian and Thomistic philosophy on this subject. If I am wrong, please, anyone, correct me.

One pretty good objection against the Atomists is in the consideration of forces (at least certain forces). Atomists (or at least the ones that I’ve known … including Democritus) believe that every physical thing is composed of a material particle. However, forces like gravity and even the strong forces on the atomic level bring that idea into question. Why do certain things, for example, attract one another? One makes one particle act differently than another? If you explain it by saying there those particles are made with a certain construction of smaller particles, you ask the same question about those smaller particles. Democritus’ attempt to solve this problem was by positing that the atoms are shaped differently and thus hook onto each other differently … but that’s silly, and that certainly doesn’t seem to answer gravity’s deal.

I might have said nothing intelligent or deep or anything at all by saying that. Oh well. All I’m saying though is that all physical things cannot be explain by material particles. Forces are one of those physical things I am referring to. Form is something a little richer in Aristotle’s conception and admits to necessarily more encompassing accidents that allow for observable phenomena more than Atomism does.

Also, without form, I think our abstract knowledge regarding the physical universe is all fake. This is kind of a different topic, maybe, but if we said that physical things did not have a form … then we could only talk about objects in terms of their material … not only in terms of something like “cells, protein, amino acids, etc” but really we could only talk about thing in terms of “atoms, and …” actually not even that … we had to go to the lowest level … whatever that is … until we get to the theoretical prime matter that doesn’t even exist by itself? In other words, we could not say about “horses” or anything like that, because a “horse” is a form, that is, an organization of matter. If we get rid of form, then we could not talk about a horse, but just the material … the atoms … and less than that. Atomism, in terms of epistemology, really doesn’t make any sense.

Now, I have not really even tried to delve into string theory. But from my small and dubious knowledge, string theory, if it is true, disproves atomism. For atomism necessary requires all physical things to be three-dimensional. If there are 1-dimensional or 0-dimensional physical realities, then atomism is out the window. Such a thing, though, is not reprehensible to Aristotle’s physical forms though, as far as I can see (though I may be wrong).

Perhaps I am really being puerile and green in my philosophical observation if you can even call them that. I pray that I might have had some glimmer of insight into this topic. But, please, those who are more knowledge on this topic, speak out.

 

[Matthias123]

Can you explain why Atomists need 3 dimensions? According to M-Theory there are 10 spatial dimensions and one dimension of time. Strings, the smallest particles, vibrate in 11th dimensional space.

 

[Areopagite]

Can you explain why Atomists need 3 dimensions? According to M-Theory there are 10 spatial dimensions and one dimension of time. Strings, the smallest particles, vibrate in 11th dimensional space.

That’s true, maybe they don’t need 3 dimensions. I was just going on the old-school, Ancient Greek, Democritean Atomism which only thought things were possible in 3 dimensions (at least, it apparently did). I might not be one to answer this question, since, as I said, I don’t know string theory very well.

Perhaps, though, if you could define what you mean by Atomism, that might help. It’s possible that if you really considered what exactly the question is you’re asking, you might find the answer more apparent. But maybe not. Once again, I’m anything but an expert on this topic.

 

[Matthias123]

I am trying to get at why modern mechanism/materialism is flawed.

 

[Al_Masetti]

It’s a little difficult for a 3D/4D creature to visualize 10D or 11D.

An atom is almost all empty space. A tiny nucleus surrounded by empty space and some kind of electrical charge in a statistical distribution that “looks like” electrons in various orbits.

Pretty amazing.

Even more amazing when you look at the Periodic Table and look at how these atoms are arranged.

Get your kids to memorize the Periodic Table. Pay them to memorize it.

 

[reggieM]

Also would it be contrary to Occam’s razor to conclude that there must be immaterial beings in order to explain physical beings. How exactly is mechanism flawed compared to the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquanis?

Physical beings do not explain their own existence. They are caused by something. Rationality itself is an immaterial process. The property of existence, or being is immaterial and everything that exists possesses that property. Physical nature possesses the property of existence, but could not give that property to itself – it had to come from elsewhere.

Theories about the physics of the universe cannot address this problem.

 

[Matthias123]

Physical beings do not explain their own existence. They are caused by something. Rationality itself is an immaterial process. The property of existence, or being is immaterial and everything that exists possesses that property. Physical nature possesses the property of existence, but could not give that property to itself – it had to come from elsewhere.

Theories about the physics of the universe cannot address this problem.

Sorry I am just trying to understand this. Why can’t the property of existance be given to physical things by other physical thngs?

 

[reggieM]

Sorry I am just trying to understand this. Why can’t the property of existance be given to physical things by other physical thngs?

In an ultimate sense existence cannot come from physical things that must rely on something else to give them existence. They can’t be the source of existence itself.
Existence is a non-physical quality of things. This is why physical things cannot be the explantion for their own being. When we look for the source of the property of existence itself, it cannot be found in any physical thing, or even the sum total of all physical things – because all of those things possess existence, and they did not create themselves. They are all contingent and dependent on something else. If you take the sum total of all physical things, what gives that sum total existence? It can’t be another physical thing, because that’s already counted in the total we’re trying to explain. It cannot be itself, because it would have to be “something” before it existed – but it didn’t exist before it existed, so it could not create itself.

So, the property of existence, which can be observed empirically (versus non-existence) cannot have its source in physical nature, since all of physical nature relies on something else to provide its existence.