Does E = mc2 imply Prime Matter and is Space Really Empty?

[utunumsint]

Hi Ut
Eight years ago I started a thread entitled, “God Exists, But How?”. It introduced an extensive thesis based on the premise that the foundation of objective reality is discrete space. I contend that discrete of space is the foundation of matter and energy; it allows the hylomorphic presence of a spiritual component with which much of what remains a mystery for science can be explained.

Hi Yppop - There are lots of points here that I am not familiar with. I’ve been immersing myself in traditional Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy, so I’ll have to do some translating of my vocab to yours.

Here is OP:
Mar 20, 2009
*I present for discussion a thesis based on the premise: God exists. Given that premise, the question then becomes: How does God exist? The thesis will propose an answer. The answer describes how reality can have a dual nature — material and spiritual. The thesis is based on the idea that the space that gives dimensionality to the universe is discrete.
*

OK. The question is How does god exist, and the answer involves the dual nature of reality: matter and spiritual.

So, just to let you know where my intellect has led me so far, and from what basis I approach this intro: I normally think of the duality of nature in terms of the composite of matter and form. Form doesn’t necessarily equate to spiritual in this system. It only becomes spiritual in the case of humans with intellect which is the immaterial aspect of their form (soul in this case). I suppose I would only consider that to be spiritual.

Discrete space, which has gaps between points, is permeated by the infinite nothingness that came before and exists beyond our finite universe. It is the infinite nothingness that provides a spiritual component to reality.

Here is where I hit a wall. I’m not sure how nothingness can be a thing or in any sense a spiritual thing.

Discrete space provides the material component. The basic particle of matter is spatial, nothing more than a deformation in the otherwise homogeneous structure of discrete space. Since the basic particles are immersed in infinite nothingness, all matter has a spiritual component.

That nothingness … you seem to define in in the way Blue has been talking about it. Namely, as a field or force lines. Something like that?

A reality grounded on discrete space allows us to describe reality as a unified whole. Also at the ground of reality, in addition to discrete space, I contend that the impetus that induces motion is information not energy, and reality will be described algorithmically not mathematically. This is the basic foundation of my thesis, which goes on to describe time, energy, life, mind, and soul in a coherently comprehensive way.

Translating into my vocab, if we define form as information, then the initial conjoining of form to matter is not a physical event (i.e. not an event that involves a transfer of energy?).

I am terrible at mathematics, so I don’t understand what you mean by algorithmically vs mathematically.

I know the ideas I plan to present are beyond the sphere in which science operates, many may consider me to be a member of the flat earth society, so I present a number of quotations by persons of greater stature than me to show that I am not alone in entertaining such ideas.

LOL - I’ve been spending a lot of time reading Thomas and various other modern thomists, so I am unfamiliar with most if not all of the authorities you site. I think the bottom line is that I didn’t respond to your post because I am so ignorant of the content.

I’m happy to dialog with you, but you’ll have to do a lot of educating or at least submit to my attempts to translate into Thomistic ideas.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

1. If physical space has at all a real existence it is not necessary for it to be continuous; many of its properties would remain the same even if it were discontinuous. And if we knew for certain that physical space was discontinuous there would be nothing to prevent us, in case we were so desired, from filling up its gaps, in thought, and thus making it continuous; this filling up would consist in a creation of new point-individuals and would have to be effected in accordance with the above principle. (of continuity) (Richard Dedekind - World of Mathematics, pg 530)

How would thought fill in any gaps? Thought is abstraction. How does thought create new point-individuals?

1. Nevertheless, there are some intriguing hints that this particular universe may in fact be a discrete digital universe, not a continuous analog universe the way most people would expect.
   In fact these ideas actually go back to Democritus, who argues that matter must be discrete, and to Zeno, who even had the audacity to suggest that continuous space and time were self-contradictory impossibilities.
   Through the years I’ve noticed many times, as an armchair physicist, places where physical calculations diverge to infinity at extremely small distances. Physicists are adept at not asking the wrong question, one that gives an infinite answer. But, I’m a mathematician, and each time I ’ wonder if Nature wasn’t really trying to tell us something, that the real numbers and continuity are a sham, and that infinitesimal small distances do not exist! – (Gregor Chaitin - Meta Math, The Quest For Omega – pg. 91)

Sounds like a sort of Berkleyan idealism, right?

1. Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)
2. We are a part of Nature as a whole whose order we follow. (Spinoza - Ethics, 1673)

I need more context to understand this. I’ve not read any Leibniz or Spinoza. I’ve absorbed a lot of Edward Feser’s work, and he is fairly anti Rationalist in his thinking - at least on some topics. I just got a copy of his new Five Proofs of the Existence of God where he goes over a rationalist proof for the existence of God usually associated with Leibniz, but he states that he

…departs from Leibniz in several ways and interprets the key ideas in an Aristotelian-Thomistic way. (Hence, while it is definitely “rationalist” insofar as it is committed to a version of PSR and to the thesis that the world is intelligible through and through, it is not “rationalist” in other common senses of that term. For example, it is in no way committed to the doctrine of innate ideas or other aspects of the epistemology associated with continental rationalists philosophers like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz.

Anyway, Feser is probably not the best person to learn about Rationalist thinkers. If you can suggest a good beginner’s book on these authors, do let me know.

1. …man’s general way of thinking of the totality, i.e. his general world view, is crucial for overall order of the human mind itself. If he thinks of the totality as constituted as independent fragments, then that is how his mind will tend to operate, but if he can include everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole that is undivided, unbroken and without border (for every border is a division or break) then his mind will tend to move in a similar way, and from this will flow an orderly action within the whole. (David Bohm - Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

Interesting.

1. “What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just appearances.” (Erwin Schroedinger - Life and Thought,1989)

Translation: space has a structure that can have shapes and variations applied to it. Space is a very basic structure, so it has a form itself, that can receive additional forms.

1. “ But if the ultimate model for the universe is to be as simple as possible, then it seems much more plausible that both space and its contents should somehow be made of the same stuff—so that in a sense space becomes the only thing in the universe.” ( Stephen Wolfram - A new Kind of Science, pg. 474)

Interesting. But space is a thing that has properties and the like, so it isn’t exactly formless. Right? In this theory, space is that which is most fundamental and the most basic building block from which all other aspects of the physical world are built.

8.“The world of explicate structures and sequential processes in time, which has been studied by science over the last centuries, now turns out to be a manifestation of a deeper, enfolded order that constantly sustains them.” (David Peat - Synchronicity, pg. 185)
Yppop

What is an enfolded order? How does it system the world of explicate structures and the sequential processes in time? And how are they a manifestation of this deeper, enfolded order?

God bless,
Ut

 

[yppop]

IWant, Al, Ut
Thank you for responding.
In the last year or so I have avoided getting involved in discussions in this forum, instead I contribute an occasional extended comment on threads about subjects in which I am interested. I am embarrassed to say that I can’t answer each of your responses point by point. However, since you took the time to respond point by point, I will try to clarify my thesis for you as long as it holds your interest, if at all.

I am writing a 3-part book and when part 1 was finished, it contained 61,000 words. My aim is to dump it on Kindle, and that many words has no place on Kindle, especially since it was only 1/3 of the book. I’m reducing it to a synopsis and part 1 is now 26,000 words. I am including the opening paragraph of the synopsis to see if you are interested in continuing a dialogue.

METASCIENCE
How God Creates and Sustains Reality

Part 1 - Objective Reality

1. I developed this synopsis to provide those who believe in God with a plausible argument for countering the secular materialists whose main weapon is modern science. Secular materialists imply that since science completely explains reality based on nothing but space, matter, energy, and time, and the laws of physics there is no need for God.
2. If we believers are to win the intellectual battle for the mind of man, we must develop a theistic view that counters the scientific view. It is not enough to invoke the spiritual response “God did it” at every contested observation, but it is essential that we explain how God might create and sustain reality and that requires the existence of a second form of reality, one that consists of both material and psychical components.
3. The following synopsis presents the main ideas expressed in the full text of a book I am currently writing. The book is based on the view that the reality we experience and science describes (the descriptive view) is a manifestation of how God creates and sustains at a deeper reality (the explicative view).
4. A model that explains reality as having a hylomorphic nature—the interdependence of the material and the psychical—is developed by utilizing both modalities of space, continuous and discrete. The model describes a basic mechanism, called the holonomic mechanism, that operates at the explicate level, the results of which are manifested at the descriptive level as matter, time, and energy. The holonomic mechanism not only explains the basic nature of objective reality, but also those phenomena that form subjective, rational, and transcendental reality, namely: life, mind, and soul.
5. Since no one can prove or disapprove the existence of God with certainty, I assume the existence of God as a premise in order to develop a comprehensive view of how God creates and sustains at the ground of reality. If what I believe about the duality of space and the holonomic mechanism is at all realistic, then what I present is a plausible description of HOW God might create and sustain reality.
6. What my thesis is intended to be is not a break through in science, philosophy or theology, but a counter argument to the materialists’ implication that God does not exist. I believe it is plausible, comprehensive view of how God might possibly create and sustain reality.

If anyone is interest I can start with a discussion of the nature of space.
Yppop

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Yppop,

I am interested in points 3 and 4. Here is my attempt at summarizing in my own words:

All reality has a hylomorphic nature—the interdependence of the material and the psychical. Hylomorphic in this context means modalities of space, continuous (hyle?) and discrete(morph?). God creates reality from these modalities using the holonomic mechanism. It can be described as follows:

• the explicative view of the holonomic mechanism: How God creates and sustains at a deeper reality.
• the descriptive view of the holonomic mechanism: The reality we experience and science describes. This is the result of God’s creative action using the holonomic mechanism and are manifested at this level as matter, time, and energy.

This model explains the basic nature of objective reality, but also those phenomena that form subjective, rational, and transcendental reality, namely: life, mind, and soul [is this part of the descriptive view?].

God bless,
Ut

 

[Aloysium]

. . . All reality has a hylomorphic nature—the interdependence of the material and the psychical. Hylomorphic in this context means modalities of space, continuous (hyle?) and discrete(morph?). God creates reality from these modalities using the holonomic mechanism. . .

How I put this together is that all reality is continuous and discrete. Things are a form of existence which can exist in themselves as particles or within a unity that is something more complex, which is also discrete in itself. In experiments that examine the activity of very small things such as electrons, they are either discrete particles or waves in a beam. As far as we are concerned, the most complex of beings that we know, the wholeness of the person who acts, feels, thinks as acts, can be broken up into organs, tissues, cells, molecules, atoms, fundamental particles, all of which have particular relationships with one another, and have their being ultimately subsumed by that of the human spirit. I don’t see much difference between the spiritual and the physical. It’s a matter of what the discrete entity is and the rules that apply to its existence. The laws that apply to us are different from those that apply to animals, as their instincts are different from electromagnetic forces. The Source of all this wonder is God. And, we are meant to join with one another in love, together maintaining our individuality and giving everything that we are to God, who returns it to us.

 

[yppop]

UT wrote

I am interested in points 3 and 4. Here is my attempt at summarizing in my own words:

All reality has a hylomorphic nature—the interdependence of the material and the psychical. Hylomorphic in this context means modalities of space, continuous (hyle?) and discrete(morph?). God creates reality from these modalities using the holonomic mechanism. It can be described as follows:

• the explicative view of the holonomic mechanism: How God creates and sustains at a deeper reality.
• the descriptive view of the holonomic mechanism: The reality we experience and science describes. This is the result of God’s creative action using the holonomic mechanism and are manifested at this level as matter, time, and energy.

This model explains the basic nature of objective reality, but also those phenomena that form subjective, rational, and transcendental reality, namely: life, mind, and soul [is this part of the descriptive view?].
Ut

For objective reality I separate my (explicate) view from science’s (descriptive) view because the explicate view is of the ground of reality and is substantially different than what we experience and science describes. For subjective and rational reality, since science has no explanation for life or mind and ignores the soul; I deal only with an explicate view.

Al wrote:

How I put this together is that all reality is continuous and discrete. Things are a form of existence which can exist in themselves as particles or within a unity that is something more complex, which is also discrete in itself. In experiments that examine the activity of very small things such as electrons, they are either discrete particles or waves in a beam. As far as we are concerned, the most complex of beings that we know, the wholeness of the person who acts, feels, thinks as acts, can be broken up into organs, tissues, cells, molecules, atoms, fundamental particles, all of which have particular relationships with one another, and have their being ultimately subsumed by that of the human spirit. I don’t see much difference between the spiritual and the physical. It’s a matter of what the discrete entity is and the rules that apply to its existence. The laws that apply to us are different from those that apply to animals, as their instincts are different from electromagnetic forces. The Source of all this wonder is God. And, we are meant to join with one another in love, together maintaining our individuality and giving everything that we are to God, who returns it to us.

By “physical” I mean any thing associated with the four elements of objective reality, space, time, matter, and energy. Given that definition, then using the two possible modalities of space, provides a way to describe the psychical (spiritual when associated with the soul) physically. In other words, the spiritual (continuous space) is physically real. The reality of the spiritual derives directly from my basic premise, God exists, a premise that gets no credence in an argument with the materialistic non-believer because they have the weight of science on their side. The challenge is to describe in rational terms, how God creates and sustains reality.

My next post will explain how to use space to develop a possible and plausible view of the existence of the psychical/spiritual. The two modalities of space can be described mathematically in an easily to understand way.
Yppop

 

[Richca]

Hi All,

I have a few fun questions to ask for any physicists or philosophers out there.

 

[yppop]

Ut, Al, IWant
In my synopsis, I use the first 5 chapters to critique science. Following is chapter. 6:

6. SPACE - THE DESCRIPTIVE VIEW

1. I believe that God exists at all levels of reality and, in fact, is the ground of reality. I wondered and asked myself the question, how is God’s presence possible, how is it possible in a ‘physical’ sense? A possible answer can be based on the nature of physical space.
2. To counter the materialist’s belief that God is unnecessary, I explain not that God exists; that is my basic premise. A better approach is to argue not only that “God did it”, but also explain ‘how’ God did it. Such an explanation is a view of reality that includes more than matter; it is a view that also includes a spiritual component. There is a mathematical way of introducing the spiritual into reality using space.
   **A. Space **
3. Euclid described the properties of abstract space, other Greek philosophers contemplated physical space (the space that we live in). The most famous of those that argued about physical space was Zeno who in the 5th century presented several paradoxes demonstrating that if space and time were continuous, there could be no motion and if there was motion, space and time could not be continuous. Zeno was ignored and physical space and time has been assumed continuous ever since.
4. Continuity means that space (or time) is infinitely divisible; it is defined by the “real” numbers, which are infinitely dense (no gaps between points). Implicit in the assumption that physical space is continuous is the Cantor-Dedekind axiom of continuity that states that every number on the real number line is associated with a point and every point is associated with a number on the real number line. The continuity of space is true for abstract space of mathematics, but what about physical space that defines the dimensions of the universe?
5. The continuity assumption does not allow for the possibility that physical space is different from the abstract space of mathematics. Continuity is a tacit assumption that there is only one kind of space and it is continuous and abstract.
6. However, to describe how God might create and sustain reality, it is necessary to devise a way to merge the material and the spiritual aspects of reality; to do this we must challenge the continuity assumption. To understand how the challenge might work, we must first understand some of the amazing properties of infinity.
   B. Infinity
7. Infinity is one of those marvelous ideas that occur only in the human mind and it does not occur there with clarity. We can only crawl around the scaffolding, seeing only the intimate parts, not the whole of its construction. Our vision of infinity is necessarily myopic.
8. Georg Cantor offered this definition of infinity: “A collection of terms is infinite when it contains as parts other collections that have just as many terms as it has.” This means there is as many even numbers as there are integers in an infinite set. Consider the two sets:
   1, 2, 3, 4… n = 0
   2, 4, 6, 8 …2n = 0
   Every integer on the top line can be duplicated on the bottom line by multiplying by 2. Both lines end at aleph(0), referred to as aleph-null, first of the transfinite numbers.
9. Cantor solved the problem of dealing with infinity by inventing set theory to treat infinity as a number, the so-called transfinite numbers. He proposed a way of defining transfinite numbers and used “aleph”, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, to represent a sequence of transfinite numbers (aleph(0), aleph(1), aleph(2)…). Only the first two transfinite numbers, aleph(0) and aleph(1) are of interest because they are the only two that relate to the duality of space. Aleph(0) is associated with the “rational” numbers (the integers and the ratio of integers); aleph(1) is associated with the “real” numbers consisting of irrationals plus the integers and rational numbers.
10. There are other amazing properties of the infinite. For example, based on the infinite, Cantor showed that there are as many points in 2-dimensional space and in 3-dimensional space as there are on the real number line. Hence, it is possible to represent all the points in an infinite volume by the numbers on the real number line. The same holds true for the rational numbers, hence, the correspondence between points and numbers means 3-dimensional discrete space can be designated with a string of real numbers in binary form.
11. Bernard Bolzano showed that there are as many numbers, either rational or real in any segment, however small, of the real number line as there are on the entire line.
12. We can neither add nor subtract any number from an infinite number, for example if we subtract the infinity of rational numbers, aleph(0), from the infinity of real numbers, aleph(1), we would still have aleph(1). In other words, aleph(1) – aleph(0) = aleph(1). This implies that in comparison to aleph(1), aleph(0) is nothing.
    C. Discrete Space
13. The rational numbers, consisting of the integers and the ratio of integers that are imbedded in the real numbers, are countable, meaning they are separated by gaps on the real number line and can be used to represent points in 3-dimensional space that likewise are separated by gaps, i.e., form discrete space.
14. There is no possible way of determining whether physical space is discrete or continuous. There is nothing preventing us from constructing a model based on discrete space by assuming that a string of rational numbers can represent the physical space of the universe. In other words, we live in a digital universe.
15. The idea that reality is compose of two modalities of space allows me to model the spiritual with continuous space and to model the material with discrete space. How matter can be modelled with discrete space will be explained below.

I will respond to clear any misunderstanding you may have.
Yppop

 

[utunumsint]

Ut, Al, IWant
In my synopsis, I use the first 5 chapters to critique science.

Cool

Following is chapter. 6:

6. SPACE - THE DESCRIPTIVE VIEW

1. I believe that God exists at all levels of reality and, in fact, is the ground of reality. I wondered and asked myself the question, how is God’s presence possible, how is it possible in a ‘physical’ sense? A possible answer can be based on the nature of physical space.

Sounds a little panthiestic to me. Or maybe Panentheistic. It reminds me of a disagreement we had a couple of years ago on whether God was being itself, or God’s power was what sustained and created being itself. Common esse versus divine esse.

1. To counter the materialist’s belief that God is unnecessary, I explain not that God exists; that is my basic premise. A better approach is to argue not only that “God did it”, but also explain ‘how’ God did it. Such an explanation is a view of reality that includes more than matter; it is a view that also includes a spiritual component. There is a mathematical way of introducing the spiritual into reality using space.

OK

**A. Space **

1. Euclid described the properties of abstract space, other Greek philosophers contemplated physical space (the space that we live in). The most famous of those that argued about physical space was Zeno who in the 5th century presented several paradoxes demonstrating that if space and time were continuous, there could be no motion and if there was motion, space and time could not be continuous. Zeno was ignored and physical space and time has been assumed continuous ever since.

Um… what about Aristotle’s Physics and St. Thomas’ response? Didn’t they deal with Zeno and Parmenides with his discussion of act and potency?

1. Continuity means that space (or time) is infinitely divisible; it is defined by the “real” numbers, which are infinitely dense (no gaps between points). Implicit in the assumption that physical space is continuous is the Cantor-Dedekind axiom of continuity that states that every number on the real number line is associated with a point and every point is associated with a number on the real number line. The continuity of space is true for abstract space of mathematics, but what about physical space that defines the dimensions of the universe?

Reminds me of David Hilbert’s statement that actual infinities are impossible in the physical universe because they end up destroying the physical laws of the universe if followed to their logical conclusion.

1. The continuity assumption does not allow for the possibility that physical space is different from the abstract space of mathematics. Continuity is a tacit assumption that there is only one kind of space and it is continuous and abstract.

OK.

1. However, to describe how God might create and sustain reality, it is necessary to devise a way to merge the material and the spiritual aspects of reality; to do this we must challenge the continuity assumption. To understand how the challenge might work, we must first understand some of the amazing properties of infinity.
   B. Infinity
2. Infinity is one of those marvelous ideas that occur only in the human mind and it does not occur there with clarity. We can only crawl around the scaffolding, seeing only the intimate parts, not the whole of its construction. Our vision of infinity is necessarily myopic.

Agreed… At least in terms of actual infinities. We can only imagine a potential, ever growing infinity.

1. Georg Cantor offered this definition of infinity: “A collection of terms is infinite when it contains as parts other collections that have just as many terms as it has.” This means there is as many even numbers as there are integers in an infinite set. Consider the two sets:
   1, 2, 3, 4… n = 0
   2, 4, 6, 8 …2n = 0
   Every integer on the top line can be duplicated on the bottom line by multiplying by 2. Both lines end at aleph(0), referred to as aleph-null, first of the transfinite numbers.

Math!!! Can’t understand!!! What is aleph, aleph-null and transfinite???

1. Cantor solved the problem of dealing with infinity by inventing set theory to treat infinity as a number, the so-called transfinite numbers. He proposed a way of defining transfinite numbers and used “aleph”, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, to represent a sequence of transfinite numbers (aleph(0), aleph(1), aleph(2)…). Only the first two transfinite numbers, aleph(0) and aleph(1) are of interest because they are the only two that relate to the duality of space. Aleph(0) is associated with the “rational” numbers (the integers and the ratio of integers); aleph(1) is associated with the “real” numbers consisting of irrationals plus the integers and rational numbers.

Sorry… I don’t understand…

1. There are other amazing properties of the infinite. For example, based on the infinite, Cantor showed that there are as many points in 2-dimensional space and in 3-dimensional space as there are on the real number line. Hence, it is possible to represent all the points in an infinite volume by the numbers on the real number line. The same holds true for the rational numbers, hence, the correspondence between points and numbers means 3-dimensional discrete space can be designated with a string of real numbers in binary form.

I may not be your target audience.

Continued

 

[utunumsint]

1. Bernard Bolzano showed that there are as many numbers, either rational or real in any segment, however small, of the real number line as there are on the entire line.
2. We can neither add nor subtract any number from an infinite number, for example if we subtract the infinity of rational numbers, aleph(0), from the infinity of real numbers, aleph(1), we would still have aleph(1). In other words, aleph(1) – aleph(0) = aleph(1). This implies that in comparison to aleph(1), aleph(0) is nothing.

Still lost.

C. Discrete Space

1. The rational numbers, consisting of the integers and the ratio of integers that are imbedded in the real numbers, are countable, meaning they are separated by gaps on the real number line and can be used to represent points in 3-dimensional space that likewise are separated by gaps, i.e., form discrete space.

OK

1. There is no possible way of determining whether physical space is discrete or continuous. There is nothing preventing us from constructing a model based on discrete space by assuming that a string of rational numbers can represent the physical space of the universe. In other words, we live in a digital universe.

I understand the claim.

1. The idea that reality is compose of two modalities of space allows me to model the spiritual with continuous space and to model the material with discrete space. How matter can be modelled with discrete space will be explained below.

I will respond to clear any misunderstanding you may have.
Yppop

OK. So you are allowing, for the sake of argument, that the material world is discrete/digital, and that the spiritual aspect of reality is continuous space. It will be interesting to see where you go from here.

I am willing to take your word on the mathematical topics. No need to try to educate me on this, unless the mathematical part is key to your discussion going forward. In which case, I had better drop out now and save you the impossible task of educating me on these problems.

Thanks!
Daniel

 

[utunumsint]

In traditional catholic philosophy, prime matter and form are the two fundamental and irreducible principles or components of the things that exist in this material and physical world. This is the Aristotlelian theory of hylemorphism. It is also said that matter and form are neither generated or corrupted. Matter and form are distinct principles of material substances and the one cannot be converted to the other or vise versa. Matter in itself and by itself does not exist since it is essentially potentiality, potential being. In other words, matter does not exist without form; form is what gives matter being. Also, natural forms do not exist without matter. Material substances are composites of matter and form. In this theory, there is no further common principle as it were from which matter and form come from; matter and form were created together (concreated) by God to form the substances that exist in the material world. And a common principle if it did exist would certainly not be prime matter because philosophically prime matter in itself does not actually exist.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Hi All,

I have a few fun questions to ask for any physicists or philosophers out there.

Question 1:
If the matter of everything can theoretically be converted into energy, and energy can be similarly converted into any kind of matter (E = mc2), doesn’t that imply some kind of common principle that unites the two throughout the transformation from one form to another? And wouldn’t it make sense to call this common principle, prime matter?

Question 2:
Is the space between protons, neutrons, and elections really empty? Or is the electron really a field? And if an electron is a field, is there really ever anything like empty space anywhere in our universe? For example, is the electron field really what constitutes an Aether that binds everything together in the universe?

Paul Dirac Nobel laureate wrote in 1951

God bless,
Ut

For question #1, your description of “prime matter” is simply describing spacetime.

For question #2, isn’t this question the same as #1?

 

[utunumsint]

For question #1, your description of “prime matter” is simply describing spacetime.

Really? Can you clarify?

For question #2, isn’t this question the same as #1?

LOL - If it is, then trust me, it was completely unintentional. If you have the time, I’d love to know why you think so.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I think it is important for physicists to be able to recognize the importance of metaphysical concepts. . .

Asking from ignorance, what is the importance of Aristotle’s concepts of matter and form?
I should take a course, I suppose, but I’ve gone through the Wiki and CAF versions.
I don’t get the relevance and how the terms actually apply to reality.

I simply can’t get a handle on potentiality and form.

To me, it seems all about relationships between holistic things composed of other holistic things, all the way down a hierarchy of relationships.

The form might constitute the unified being of the thing, which contains ultimately atoms and that of which the atoms’ individual existence is comprised.
The relationships, be they gravitational, electrochemical, or love, in the case of the person, that exist are dependent on what the particular thing is.

And the potential would be what?

I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, so needless to say, I don’t get the usefulness of these Aristotlean concepts, either practical or in getting to the heart of what is the universe.

By the way, as to transubstantiation, God’s word is reality.
The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ; that what it is, in itself albeit being composed of carbohydrates etc…

I’m rambling out of frustration.

 

[utunumsint]

Asking from ignorance, what is the importance of Aristotle’s concepts of matter and form?
I should take a course, I suppose, but I’ve gone through the Wiki and CAF versions.
I don’t get the relevance and how the terms actually apply to reality.

I simply can’t get a handle on potentiality and form.

To me, it seems all about relationships between holistic things composed of other holistic things, all the way down a hierarchy of relationships.

The form might constitute the unified being of the thing, which contains ultimately atoms and that of which the atoms’ individual existence is comprised.
The relationships, be they gravitational, electrochemical, or love, in the case of the person, that exist are dependent on what the particular thing is.

And the potential would be what?

I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, so needless to say, I don’t get the usefulness of these Aristotlean concepts, either practical or in getting to the heart of what is the universe.

Hi Aloysium!

I totally understand your frustration. I’ve spent years studying this stuff (mainly through Edward Feser’s books such as* Aquinas* then later on his book Scholastic Metaphysics. Basically Aristotle wanted to counteract Zeno and Parmenidies’ notion that change is an illusion. Their idea was that a being could only change if something other than it caused it to change. But the only other thing than being is non being. But everyone knows that non being is just nothing and nothing cannot cause anything to change. Therefore change was an illusion.

Aristotle said Parmenidies was wrong. Act and potency are also candidates that divide being. They are fundamental principles of things. For example, matter (in the modern scientific sense) has a form that defines its current state, which is its current form of actuality. However, matter has a slew of other potential states it can be in. That ability to swap one form of actuality for another potential form of actuality explains how change is possible.

Some changes in form do not alter the nature of the object. These kinds of changes are called accidental. Other forms of change do change the nature of an object. These kinds of changes are called substantial. For example, if I cut my hair or shave my beard, I have not changed my nature, just made an accidental change. Same thing if I died by hair pink. But if I was run over by a truck and I died, there would be a substantial change that occurs. My human form (the shape of my body in this context) slowly decompose over time into other component elements, but my body would no longer be the substance, human being. It has taken on another actuality. Currently, my nature has a massively large, but not infinite range of potential changes that could occur to it. Some are purely accidental in nature, some involve a substantial change.

Having said all that, there has to be something that is a unifying principle between my living body and the decomposing remains of my body. This unifying principle is prime matter. The prime matter that had the form of my living body exchanged that form for the form of my decaying body.

I was making a similar point with E=mc2. If a material object were to transform into energy, it would be in essence exchanging one form for another. The form of matter (in the modern sense of the term) with the form of energy. The thing that remains constant between the two is prime matter.

By the way, as to transubstantiation, God’s word is reality.
The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ; that what it is, in itself albeit being composed of carbohydrates etc…

Agreed! That is the ultimate truth that is being affirmed here. The use of Aristotelian terminology should not be the primary focus of this teaching.

I’m rambling out of frustration.

I hope I’ve been able to clarify. This Aristotelian/Thomistic way of looking at things is very anti-reductionistic.

God Bless,
Ut

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Really? Can you clarify?

LOL - If it is, then trust me, it was completely unintentional. If you have the time, I’d love to know why you think so.

God bless,
Ut

If the Higgs Field is “everywhere”, then wouldn’t that simply add up to the Higgs Field being the same thing as “spacetime”. Space can’t be empty; not only is it a contradiction in terms but it’s also not logical - if something exists, how can it occupy an area that doesn’t exist.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Having said all that, there has to be something that is a unifying principle between my living body and the decomposing remains of my body. This unifying principle is prime matter. The prime matter that had the form of my living body exchanged that form for the form of my decaying body.

Very nicely explained until here where your choice of words is going to confuse the heck perhaps.

PM is not a “unifying” principle though I know what you mean. It is in the the role of form to “unify” (as in essence or nature or soul).

I think you mean “underly”.

That is, matter is the uniform unchanging “substrate” which provides existential continuity between radical changes of form.

Think plasticine…then abstract out anything to do with form (not just shape but any property you can think of) even in the underlying plasticine.
Then you grasp PM…which of course cannot be grasped because the mind cannot actually conceptualise a thing with no shape, form or properties at all. Yet its coexistence with form can be inferred as its existence is necessitated to explain a substantial change of form.

BTW matter is also need to explain number in uniformity.
That is how can more than one thing of the same form exist? It cannot, unless the form dwells in two different chunks of matter.
That is why we say matter is the principle of individuation. Form is not, it is unified.

That is why angels, without matter, are each a different form. Unlike humans who all share the same form.

So “human” defines a species but “angel” defines a genus or an “office”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If the Higgs Field is “everywhere”, then wouldn’t that simply add up to the Higgs Field being the same thing as “spacetime”. Space can’t be empty; not only is it a contradiction in terms but it’s also not logical - if something exists, how can it occupy an area that doesn’t exist.

The definition of emptiness hinges on your definition of existence.

Now you have previously defined space as not being empty even if matter is not immediately present I believe?

If that is so you have essentially posited that non-matter can exist.

So now we need t know what your definition of matter is (obviously you dont readily seem to mean Aristotelian matter but Einsteinian matter at least which involves energy).

So how do you define non matter?

You have to be careful to define it in a per se fashion not in a per accidens fashion I think.
That is, for something to truly exist it must be able to exist alone rather than in something else as a property.

This would seem to rule out force as existing non matter. Force resides in matter as a property of matter.

This also rules out energy. Pure energy does not seem to exist without matter as they are in a yinyang ping pong relationship. Its hard to say whether one is a property of the other. Its not like force where there is a moon earth type relationship. Perhaps more like a twin star relationship where they orbit each other. Neveryheless, it seems energy is not non matter because matter is always in the definition…and to that exstent energy may not rightly be said to per se exist as non matter.

So your call.
The answer to whether space is “empty” rests on your definition of “empty”, “exist”, and “non matter”?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The definition of emptiness hinges on your definition of existence.

Now you have previously defined space as not being empty even if matter is not immediately present I believe?

If that is so you have essentially posited that non-matter can exist.

So now we need t know what your definition of matter is (obviously you dont readily seem to mean Aristotelian matter but Einsteinian matter at least which involves energy).

So how do you define non matter?

You have to be careful to define it in a per se fashion not in a per accidens fashion I think.
That is, for something to truly exist it must be able to exist alone rather than in something else as a property.

This would seem to rule out force as existing non matter. Force resides in matter as a property of matter.

This also rules out energy. Pure energy does not seem to exist without matter as they are in a yinyang ping pong relationship. Its hard to say whether one is a property of the other. Its not like force where there is a moon earth type relationship. Perhaps more like a twin star relationship where they orbit each other. Neveryheless, it seems energy is not non matter because matter is always in the definition…and to that exstent energy may not rightly be said to per se exist as non matter.

So your call.
The answer to whether space is “empty” rests on your definition of “empty”, “exist”, and “non matter”?

I mean empty in the sense of “beyond the edge of the universe” empty. Space is surely empty of matter, for the most part. But space is not empty of things that exist.

A photon is non matter. So is time.

I would think that in order for an electromagnetic wave to travel through space it would have to have some sort of medium to travel through like, say, the Higgs Field or perhaps something else.

I think the standard definition of exist is fine for how I used it in that context.

Well, I’m not convinced that energy is an accident of matter. It seems more likely that matter is an accident of energy. I don’t know about force. But then, what do I know.

 

[utunumsint]

Very nicely explained until here where your choice of words is going to confuse the heck perhaps.

PM is not a “unifying” principle though I know what you mean. It is in the the role of form to “unify” (as in essence or nature or soul).

I think you mean “underly”.

That is, matter is the uniform unchanging “substrate” which provides existential continuity between radical changes of form.

Agreed! Continuity is the word I was looking for. Thanks for the clarification.

Think plasticine…then abstract out anything to do with form (not just shape but any property you can think of) even in the underlying plasticine.
Then you grasp PM…which of course cannot be grasped because the mind cannot actually conceptualise a thing with no shape, form or properties at all. Yet its coexistence with form can be inferred as its existence is necessitated to explain a substantial change of form.

Actually, prime mater only exists on its own as an abstraction in the mind. So conceptualizing it is no problem. Imagining it is impossible though.

BTW matter is also need to explain number in uniformity.
That is how can more than one thing of the same form exist? It cannot, unless the form dwells in two different chunks of matter.
That is why we say matter is the principle of individuation. Form is not, it is unified.

Right. The principle of individuation and the principle of continuity.

That is why angels, without matter, are each a different form. Unlike humans who all share the same form.

So “human” defines a species but “angel” defines a genus or an “office”.

I thought each person is a member of humanity, individuated by prime matter. Angels are not composites of form and matter so each Angel is its own unique species.

God bless,
Ut