You said that, not me. It was right here:
If you wish to take this back, then very well.
What’s “discrete” space? Space is just a plane, and as far as I have observed, there is nothing “discrete” about it. Also, all space is continuous, and that doesn’t mean it can represent the spiritual. Nothing about space reflects anything spiritual.
I know a fair amount about math, and some about physics, but I don’t see how either is relevant here.
Am I missing something? I don’t understand how space can be characterized as a “plane.”
Oh, sorry, I just found out I was completely wrong about what “discrete” means.
Everybody knows physical and material are synonyms, and I didn’t “conclude” that you said that, you said those words exactly.
We can model space by associating every point in space with a number. Continuous space is modeled with real numbers; rational space is modeled with rational numbers. Rational numbers are all the natural numbers (1,2,3…) plus all the ratios of the natural numbers (1/4, 3/7, 37/41…). Real numbers are all the rational, irrational, and transcendental numbers). There are gaps between the rational numbers, hence there are gaps between the points of discrete space. There are no gaps between real numbers (even if the rational numbers are removed), hence there are no gaps in continuous space.
I would like to know your level of understanding, so I could gauge my response accordingly. So far you haven’t understood much of what I have written.
You are referring to this statement that I made:
To say “we must find a way to describe the spiritual in a physical way” does not mean exactly the same as saying we “can describe the immaterial in a material way”. That is what you contend I am saying. We obviously disagree on the meaning of “physical”. I’ve clearly stated what I mean when I use the word “physical” and you keep saying I mean material when I mean any of the elements of reality, namely, space, time, matter, and energy.
The spiritual aspect of reality is not “that which fills the gaps in discrete space”, that would make it just more material reality. Also if the bold highlight is true then to posit discrete space is recursive.
A false catholic. Someone who uses the label but doesn’t really follow the church.
Are you implying we can’t figure out these “spiritual truths”?
If you are saying that we must do something, I think it can be inferred that you think it is possible.
Yes, you could. The argument would then read:
Right, spirituality reality does not " fill the gaps " between discrete quanta. How is objective reality and physical reality mutually exclusive? I would have thought they are the same, excluding of course the spiritual which is not physical.
Aquinas came as close to an answer as any I’ve seen. But how can anyone be sure? It is not the kind of conlusion we can infer with necessity from the observation of nature, as we can infer the necessity of a First Cause, who we call God.
Just as an aside to this question. Anyone who thinks that matter or “the material” has definitive properties that can readily be defined are forgetting completely that the descriptions for those properties depend upon modes of expression that are ultimately immaterial, i.e., mental, in nature. We have absolutely zero knowledge of material things that is NOT expressed as ideas, conceptions, imaginings, visualizations, etc., that are all mental constructs.
I gave you the only answer we can have it this life. The Church has not defined it other than to say that God is active and present most intimately in his creation. Thomas Aquinas gives a metaphysical answer, as I repeated above. He goes on to say that God is active and present in the minutest aspect of His creation. If then, for example, quarks or strings are actual and real beings of creation, then God is active and present in each one, and so forth. In othe words, there is no where in creation that He is not active and present by His very Essence. Yet He is not a part of that reality, He maintains His Existence in His Eternal Now all the while He is active and present in His creation. That is as far as we can go with any accuracy.
Peter, we know reality because we receive our knowledge of it from that reality which exists outside of our minds. Our intellects collate the information received from the senses and form an idea of it, then judges the veracity of that idea. If it judges that what it knows is real and objective, we know that reality. It is true that in the senses of sight, hearing, and smell we are receiving emanations from reality, but in touch and taste we contact that reality directly. We know reality, not just an idea of it.
Humans can also be said to be present, though our essence is contained in a soul which is not itself “present” anywhere really. I think what it means for a soul to “be” somewhere is that it has causal correlation to that area. Humans fit this definition because since the soul has direct causal influence on the brain, it can be said to “be” wherever its body is.
. You’re on the brink of figuring out that to be perceived is what constitutes the essence of material reality. Don’t listen to Linus 
.Thomas Aquinas would say that the entire soul is present in every part of the body. And naturally it has a causal relation to every part of the body. It governs and directs every operation of the person, vegative, sentient, and intellectual. That is why the Church calls the soul the form of the body.
Oops, sorry
“Form is the shape, visual appearance, constitution or configuration of an object.” -wikipedia
My thesis was that it’s not objective, it was not an attempt to “explain how we know that it is objective”. And no, daily life would not be impossible, because daily life (insofar as it concerns physical “reality”) consists simply of the algorithm of the universe transmitting perceptions to us, which is plenty possible. Have you ever played a multiplayer video game? It’s like that.
I believe we are thinking the same way but are saying it if differently.
Agreed, but objective reality does not encompass physical reality.
From a Thomistic view there are some errors here.Oops, sorry
“Form is the shape, visual appearance, constitution or configuration of an object.” -wikipedia
You know, you’re right. Something immaterial, something that has free will and is therefore obviously a substance, is just the shape of a physical object. Because shapes can obviously be conscious, substantive beings.
Uh, no, this is not true. Consider the following:
If the soul can produce actions which cannot be traced back to a physical cause, then we might as well call it an immaterial substance.
If the soul cannot do that, then hylomorphism is vulnerable to the free will argument no less than materialism because all of our actions are still causally dependent on a preceding physical event.
This is wrong. Daily life is not an " algorithm, " whatever you mean by that.
You are confusing " perceptions " with reality. What is real is the source of those perceptions.
That is the error of Plato and of all idealists since. If it were true we would never be able to know reality. And, as I said, life and science would be impossible. But thankfull, even thouth it is " chick " to claim to be an idealist, people live their lives as if they are realists. People who attempt to live out their idealism are very strange indeed. Edward Fesser has documented the case of an Elimativist duo of two philosophers that is strange beyond belief.