Does gravity have mass?

[Linusthe2nd]

You can be any age you like - see on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.

On another thread today you recommended Anthony Rizzi. I looked up his most famous paper. Turns out it’s on ripples in space-time, using math. Good to know you’ve finally seen the light.

“ABSTRACT: Although considerable progress has been made in generalizing the concept of angular momentum to general relativity, until now no satisfactory definition that allows for the exchange of angular momentum has been given. I here give the first such definition. It is a definition at null infinity, the place and time where gravity waves reach in the limit far from all masses. The definition applies to any isolated system of masses including those that change their angular momentum L by emitting gravity waves. L̇ is given solely in terms of parameters in principle measurable directly by Michelson interferometer gravitational wave detectors such as LIGO or LISA.” - journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1150

It may be all light to you but I am just an ordinary guy, sounds like " wool gathering " to me .

P.S. Hecd2 has kindly pointed out that, in my enthusiasim, I erroneously promoted Rizzi to the ranks of the Nobel Laureats. I don’t know if he is correct or not but Rizzi is well qualified to speak on topics related to physics and Relativity in particular.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t believe that’s the case in modern science. The notion of natures, although intuitive, turns out to be false. The properties of carbon (or any other element) don’t exist in the particles from which it is made. The properties of a cell don’t exist in the chemicals from which it is made. The properties of an elephant don’t exist in the cells from which it is made.

Just wanted to revisit the notion of Nature in modern science. Atheist physicist Sean Carroll does not hold to your view. In fact he leaves the impression that the idea of the laws of nature is widely accepted in moderh physics at least:

" The real problem is that these are not the right vocabulary words to be using when we discuss fundamental physics and cosmology. This kind of Aristotelian analysis of causation was cutting edge stuff 2,500 years ago. Today we know better. Our metaphysics must follow our physics. That’s what the word “metaphysics” means. And in modern physics, you open a quantum field theory textbook or a general relativity textbook, you will not find the words “transcendent cause” anywhere. What you find are differential equations. This reflects the fact that the way physics is known to work these days is in terms of patterns, unbreakable rules, laws of nature. Given the world at one. " ( Sean Carroll in Edward Feser’s blogspot, Carroll on laws and causation, edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/carroll-on-laws-and-causation.html#more )

This post is interesting for many reasons, it should be interesting to you.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

But your example of carbon shows how the concepts can actually be misleading. You say that the form of carbon is carbon, and the matter is protons, neutrons and electrons and that attributes like fundamental forces are accidents which proceed from its form. I would say that you have this almost exactly back to front. Carbon is defined by the number of protons in its nucleus and its form is a consequence of what the fundamental forces cause in terms of, for example, the energies of the electrons in the carbon atom, which in turn give rise to its thermal and electrical conductivity, its magnetism, its density, its melting point, etc etc. But what is more, the element carbon has three distinct naturally occurring forms at room temperature: amorphous carbon, graphite and diamond which have radically different physical properties and the reason why the forms are so different is well known - and yet all of these forms are carbon. In fact there are several orther exotic forms of carbon such as fullerenes. It is almost certain that Aristotle would have regarded diamond and graphite as fundamentally different in nature, but a physicist would not.

How do you count the number of protons in the nucleus of a carbon atom or predicate any other properties of a carbon atom unless you first have a carbon atom from which to make such predications? The number of protons in the nucleus of a carbon atom are not the carbon atom but a part of the carbon atom just as the hand of a man is not man but a part of man. You can’t define the nature or essence or the accidents of a substance or being unless the substance or thing first exists.

We can’t accuse Aristotle for not knowing what we may know due to electron microsopes or what have you concerning the chemical or elemental composition of the three states of carbon you mention. If Aristotle knew this, he would have most likely said that these three states of carbon are accidental forms of the substance carbon just as the substance water can have the accidental forms of a liquid, solid, or gas. These are accidents of the substances.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

When we get down to the basic structure of the " elements " on the periodic table there will obviously be difficulty in pinning down the nature of the subatomic " substances. " That does not mean that there is no nature to these foundational substances. It is enough that the principle has already been established in the macro world of substances, animate and inanimate.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Just wanted to revisit the notion of Nature in modern science. Atheist physicist Sean Carroll does not hold to your view. In fact he leaves the impression that the idea of the laws of nature is widely accepted in moderh physics at least:

" The real problem is that these are not the right vocabulary words to be using when we discuss fundamental physics and cosmology. This kind of Aristotelian analysis of causation was cutting edge stuff 2,500 years ago. Today we know better. Our metaphysics must follow our physics. That’s what the word “metaphysics” means. And in modern physics, you open a quantum field theory textbook or a general relativity textbook, you will not find the words “transcendent cause” anywhere. What you find are differential equations. This reflects the fact that the way physics is known to work these days is in terms of patterns, unbreakable rules, laws of nature. Given the world at one. " ( Sean Carroll in Edward Feser’s blogspot, Carroll on laws and causation, edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/carroll-on-laws-and-causation.html#more )

This post is interesting for many reasons, it should be interesting to you.

I don’t understand how Carroll helps you rather than me, as he dismisses both Aristotelian physics and metaphysics in the quote you gave, and Fesser says Carroll’s remarks contain “key begged questions, missed points, and non sequiturs”.

But it is interesting, thanks, because Fesser and Craig are repeating an argument made by Descartes’ followers against Newton, which Descartes already lost.

Descartes (and Aristotle and Thomas) want physics to depend on a metaphysics. They want to use deduction from a priori metaphysical causes such as yon transcendental first mover.

Newton said no, that’s putting the cart before the horse. Only go as far as evidence and induction will take you, there’s no need for any metaphysics, it just adds baggage.

Descartes’ camp said (I paraphrase) it’s crazy that Newton’s law of gravity doesn’t explain how the Sun reaches out and invisibly tugs on the Earth, Newton is fudging it. Newton responded with his famous “hypotheses non fingo” (I frame no hypotheses) - don’t invent stuff you can’t test.

Newton won, of course, and centuries later Einstein worked out how it happens, the curving of spacetime. Note how that shows there never was a need to invent a metaphysical cause, it was physical all along.

So that’s why modern science gets along fine without all the metaphysical baggage of natures and essences and substances (or any other metaphysics). Trying to add them back as Fesser does is to ignore a lesson already learned.

Maybe Fesser never took a philosophy of science class, but all these guys, including Carroll, are making money from blogs and debates, so I tend to ignore them.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t understand how Carroll helps you rather than me, as he dismisses both Aristotelian physics and metaphysics in the quote you gave, and Fesser says Carroll’s remarks contain “key begged questions, missed points, and non sequiturs”.

But it is interesting, thanks, because Fesser and Craig are repeating an argument made by Descartes’ followers against Newton, which Descartes already lost.

Descartes (and Aristotle and Thomas) want physics to depend on a metaphysics. They want to use deduction from a priori metaphysical causes such as yon transcendental first mover.

Newton said no, that’s putting the cart before the horse. Only go as far as evidence and induction will take you, there’s no need for any metaphysics, it just adds baggage.

Descartes’ camp said (I paraphrase) it’s crazy that Newton’s law of gravity doesn’t explain how the Sun reaches out and invisibly tugs on the Earth, Newton is fudging it. Newton responded with his famous “hypotheses non fingo” (I frame no hypotheses) - don’t invent stuff you can’t test.

Newton won, of course, and centuries later Einstein worked out how it happens, the curving of spacetime. Note how that shows there never was a need to invent a metaphysical cause, it was physical all along.

So that’s why modern science gets along fine without all the metaphysical baggage of natures and essences and substances (or any other metaphysics). Trying to add them back as Fesser does is to ignore a lesson already learned.

Maybe Fesser never took a philosophy of science class, but all these guys, including Carroll, are making money from blogs and debates, so I tend to ignore them.

The issue I wanted to point out was that Carroll, who is a qualified physicist, expresses the fact science, contrary to your contention, uses the concept of nature all the time when it speaks of the laws of nature. So science uses the concept of nature in a meaningful way, not in the loose sense as you thought.

The other issues you raise, interesting though they may be, belong on another thread - should you wish to start a thread.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

The issue I wanted to point out was that Carroll, who is a qualified physicist, expresses the fact science, contrary to your contention, uses the concept of nature all the time when it speaks of the laws of nature. So science uses the concept of nature in a meaningful way, not in the loose sense as you thought.

I said “loosely talk” of human nature, not of the laws of nature.

You were using natures in the sense of a specific ancient concept where each kind of thing has its own nature, but in modern usage we talk of nature singular, all things in one collective nature with a single, universal, set of laws of nature.

The other issues you raise, interesting though they may be, belong on another thread - should you wish to start a thread.

None of this discussion belongs on this thread, but you raised it, and the fundamental differences between ancient and modern science are all brought out in that spat.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I said “loosely talk” of human nature, not of the laws of nature.]

You were using natures in the sense of a specific ancient concept where each kind of thing has its own nature, but in modern usage we talk of nature singular, all things in one collective nature with a single, universal, set of laws of nature.

So the laws of nature are derived from things which, individually, have no nature? An interesting but incoherent idea.

None of this discussion belongs on this thread, but you raised it, and the fundamental differences between ancient and modern science are all brought out in that spat.

If you say so.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

So the laws of nature are derived from things which, individually, have no nature? An interesting but incoherent idea.

I don’t know how you arrived at that. How could the laws of nature arise out of things produced by those laws? Isn’t that a bit circular? Has God been replaced by lots of animist spirits?

Shirley it’s not un-Catholic for me to say there is one God and one natural world containing all things governed by one set of laws, made by God?

 

[Jaaanosik]

I don’t understand how Carroll helps you rather than me, as he dismisses both Aristotelian physics and metaphysics in the quote you gave, and Fesser says Carroll’s remarks contain “key begged questions, missed points, and non sequiturs”.

But it is interesting, thanks, because Fesser and Craig are repeating an argument made by Descartes’ followers against Newton, which Descartes already lost.

Descartes (and Aristotle and Thomas) want physics to depend on a metaphysics. They want to use deduction from a priori metaphysical causes such as yon transcendental first mover.

Newton said no, that’s putting the cart before the horse. Only go as far as evidence and induction will take you, there’s no need for any metaphysics, it just adds baggage.

Descartes’ camp said (I paraphrase) it’s crazy that Newton’s law of gravity doesn’t explain how the Sun reaches out and invisibly tugs on the Earth, Newton is fudging it. Newton responded with his famous “hypotheses non fingo” (I frame no hypotheses) - don’t invent stuff you can’t test.

Newton won, of course, and centuries later** Einstein worked out how it happens, the curving of spacetime. **Note how that shows there never was a need to invent a metaphysical cause, it was physical all along.

So that’s why modern science gets along fine without all the metaphysical baggage of natures and essences and substances (or any other metaphysics). Trying to add them back as Fesser does is to ignore a lesson already learned.

Maybe Fesser never took a philosophy of science class, but all these guys, including Carroll, are making money from blogs and debates, so I tend to ignore them.

It appears that the curvature of the spacetime is just a mathematical model. It’s not real.
It also appears that what is real is a density of the force carriers.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t know how you arrived at that. How could the laws of nature arise out of things produced by those laws? Isn’t that a bit circular? Has God been replaced by lots of animist spirits?

I can’t figure out whether you are just being stubborn or are just having a little fun. Surely you don’t think the laws of nature are just a set of rules God " stamped " on the universe he made, while ignoring the individual things he created? Shouldn’t there be identifiable natures to the individual things as well? Didn’t God tell Adam to name all the animals, etc? Do you really think he was naming things which were mere collections of ultimate particles, having no identifiable nature?.Didn’t he say, " Let us make man in our image. "? What was that all about? Is man the only creature, thing, substance that has an identifiable nature?

Shirley it’s not un-Catholic for me to say there is one God and one natural world containing all things governed by one set of laws, made by God?

Now what in the world did I say that made you say that? The answer is, " of course not. " But he also created natures for all the things he created - in my opinion and in Aquinas’ opinion. And it is the nature of each thing which accounts for all its properties and behaviors, etc. It is the organizing principle for each and every substance. As Aristotle said, " Nature is the principle of motion and rest in all things which have a nature. "

Linus2nd

 

[hecd2]

How do you count the number of protons in the nucleus of a carbon atom or predicate any other properties of a carbon atom unless you first have a carbon atom from which to make such predications? The number of protons in the nucleus of a carbon atom are not the carbon atom but a part of the carbon atom just as the hand of a man is not man but a part of man. You can’t define the nature or essence or the accidents of a substance or being unless the substance or thing first exists.

Well of course the thing exists, but otherwise I think you’re still misunderstanding. A carbon atom is *defined *by having six protons - create an atom with six protons and you have a carbon atom. This is unlike the case of the hand of a man which is not the man - in the case of the carbon atom, it is defined by having six and only six protons - although a carbon atom generally has other subatomic particles, it is the number of protons which define it. No other element has six protons and carbon always, invariably has six. Not only that but you can explain all of the properties of carbon by starting with the fact of its six protons. (In a similar fashion, the proton itself is defined necessarily and sufficiently by its constituents - two up and one down quarks). What you call accidents, the fundamental forces in conjuction with the nuclear and atomic structure, explain the properties of the various forms of carbon, as well as its properties in forming compounds with other elements (organic chemistry). All of this is far richer and leads to much deeper understanding than the wordy Aristotlean approach of nature, essences, forms and so forth, which are unnecessary, misleading and tell you nothing about what carbon is, what its propertes are and why the properties are as they are. Moreover, the rich scientific approach starts with the constituents and the physics to understand why carbon is as it is in all its forms - this is the reverse of the Aristotlean way, which starts with the nature of carbon and treats its constituents as a minor detail and its properties and forms as accidents. Saying that carbon has the nature of carbon is tautological and uninteresting.

We can’t accuse Aristotle for not knowing what we may know due to electron microsopes or what have you concerning the chemical or elemental composition of the three states of carbon you mention. If Aristotle knew this, he would have most likely said that these three states of carbon are accidental forms of the substance carbon just as the substance water can have the accidental forms of a liquid, solid, or gas. These are accidents of the substances.

The correct term for the forms of carbon (amorphous carbon, graphite, diamond, fullerenes etc) is ‘allotropes’ and the correct term for the different forms of carbon at different temperatures and pressures(solid, liquid, gas) is ‘phases’. Another variation of carbon is isotopes which are forms of carbon with different atomic weights. We use different terms for these phenomena because they arise from fundamentally different underlying physics. Calling them all accidents is unhelpful, misleading and unnecessary. Furthermore you seem to justify Aristotlean metaphysics by claiming that Aristotle would have called them accidents, but again, that tells me nothing about what the different phases, isotopes and allotropes of carbon are, what their properties are and how they arise from the underlying physics. In fact it tells me nothing other than carbon has different forms which is neither insightful nor interesting.

 

[hecd2]

It appears that the curvature of the spacetime is just a mathematical model. It’s not real.
It also appears that what is real is a density of the force carriers.

Pray tell…

 

[Richca]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
So the laws of nature are derived from things which, individually, have no nature? An interesting but incoherent idea.

I don’t know how you arrived at that. How could the laws of nature arise out of things produced by those laws? Isn’t that a bit circular? Has God been replaced by lots of animist spirits?

Shirley it’s not un-Catholic for me to say there is one God and one natural world containing all things governed by one set of laws, made by God?

Linus makes an excellent point here. I’d like to add a couple of other thoughts in response to Inocente. Firstly, where in the universe do these laws of nature exist? As far as I know, there is not a single existent thing that we call “the laws of nature.” The physical laws of nature which presumably some scientists talk about such as physicists are derived from actual existent things such as elemental atoms and the forces exerted by these atoms, plants, animals, etc. It is quite obvious that if we talk at all about the laws of nature, this can only refer to individual things having natures. For example, the speed of light is supposedly constant and its probably called a law of nature. But this law of the speed of light has no seperate existence from light itself. It is of the nature of light that its speed is constant.

The laws of nature do not produce anything as if those laws have some seperate existence from which the laws are derived. What produces things are other things such as man begets man and an oak tree produces another oak tree and stars produce light.

Our very idea of law has no existence outside the human intellect in the external world but because we can observe that things act always or nearly always in the same way, especially irrrational creatures, we say that this orderly way of acting is like a law to these things which you correctly ascribe to God who made these things. Properly speaking though, as St Thomas Aquinas says , law is something pertaining to reason and a rule and measure of acts. Consequently, irrational creatures, devoid of reason, are not properly said to partake of the Eternal Law except by similitude.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hecd2, Inocente, et al.

Nature, an article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

" Etymologically (Latin natura from nasci, to be born, like the corresponding Greek physis from phyein, to bring forth) has reference to the production of things, and hence generally includes in its connotation the ideas of energy and activity. It will be convenient to reduce to two classes the various meanings of the term nature according as it applies to the natures of individual beings or to nature in general.
I. In an individual being, especially if its constitutive elements and its activities are manifold and complex, the term nature is sometimes applied to the collection of distinctive features, original or acquired, by which such an individual is characterized and distinguished from others. Thus it may be said it is the nature of one man to be taller, stronger, more intelligent, or more sociable than another. This meaning, however, is superficial; in philosophical terminology and even in ordinary language, nature refers to something deeper and more fundamental. These features are manifestations of a man’s nature; they are not his nature. Nature properly signifies that which is primitive and original, or, according to etymology, that which a thing is at birth, as opposed to that which is acquired or added from external sources. But the line that divides the natural from the artificial cannot be drawn with precision. Inorganic beings never change except under the influence of external agencies, and in the same circumstances, their mode of activity is uniform and constant. Organisms present a greater complexity of structure, power of adaptation, and variety of function. For their development out of a primitive germ they require the co-operation of many external factors, yet they have within themselves the principle of activity by which external substances are elaborated and assimilated. In any being the changes due to necessary causes are called natural, whereas those produced by intentional human activity are called artificial. But it is clear that art supposes nature and is but a special adaptation of natural aptitudes, capacities, or activities for certain esthetic or useful purposes. Stars, rivers, forests, are works of nature; parks, canals, gardens, and machines are works of art. If necessary conditions are realized, where the seed falls a plant will grow naturally. But the seed may be placed purposely amid certain surroundings, the growth of the plant may be hastened, its shape altered, and, in general, the result to be expected from natural activities may be modified. By training the aptitudes of an animal are utilized and its instincts adapted for specific ends. In such cases the final result is more or less natural or artificial according to the mode and amount of human intervention.

In scholastic philosophy, nature, essence, and substance are closely related terms. Both essence and substance imply a static point of view and refer to constituents or mode of existence, while nature implies a dynamic point of view and refers to innate tendencies. Moreover, substance is opposed to accidents, whereas we may speak of the nature and essence not only of substances but also of accidents like colour, sound, intelligence, and of abstract ideals like virtue or duty. But when applied to the same substantial being, the terms substance, essence, and nature in reality stand only for different aspects of the same thing, and the distinction between them is a mental one. Substance connotes the thing as requiring no support, but as being itself the necessary support of accidents; essence properly denotes the intrinsic constitutive elements by which a thing is what it is and is distinguished from every other; nature denotes the substance or essence considered as the source of activities. "Nature properly speaking is the essence (or substance) of things which have in themselves as such a principle of activity (Aristotle, “Metaphysics”, 1015a, 13). By a process of abstraction the mind arises from individual and concrete natures to those of species and genera …]

What value does this have for science? It saves science from the incoherence of teaching that the subatomic structure and activity of a substance explain what it is or why it is the way it is or that it is.

newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm

And the following links are important for similar reasons.

youtube.com/watch?v=mgVh8aJPPN8

vimeo.com/60979789

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I can’t figure out whether you are just being stubborn or are just having a little fun. Surely you don’t think the laws of nature are just a set of rules God " stamped " on the universe he made, while ignoring the individual things he created? Shouldn’t there be identifiable natures to the individual things as well? Didn’t God tell Adam to name all the animals, etc? Do you really think he was naming things which were mere collections of ultimate particles, having no identifiable nature?.Didn’t he say, " Let us make man in our image. "? What was that all about? Is man the only creature, thing, substance that has an identifiable nature?

Now what in the world did I say that made you say that? The answer is, " of course not. " But he also created natures for all the things he created - in my opinion and in Aquinas’ opinion. And it is the nature of each thing which accounts for all its properties and behaviors, etc. It is the organizing principle for each and every substance. As Aristotle said, " Nature is the principle of motion and rest in all things which have a nature. "

Linus makes an excellent point here. I’d like to add a couple of other thoughts in response to Inocente. Firstly, where in the universe do these laws of nature exist? As far as I know, there is not a single existent thing that we call “the laws of nature.” The physical laws of nature which presumably some scientists talk about such as physicists are derived from actual existent things such as elemental atoms and the forces exerted by these atoms, plants, animals, etc. It is quite obvious that if we talk at all about the laws of nature, this can only refer to individual things having natures. For example, the speed of light is supposedly constant and its probably called a law of nature. But this law of the speed of light has no seperate existence from light itself. It is of the nature of light that its speed is constant.

The laws of nature do not produce anything as if those laws have some seperate existence from which the laws are derived. What produces things are other things such as man begets man and an oak tree produces another oak tree and stars produce light.

Our very idea of law has no existence outside the human intellect in the external world but because we can observe that things act always or nearly always in the same way, especially irrrational creatures, we say that this orderly way of acting is like a law to these things which you correctly ascribe to God who made these things. Properly speaking though, as St Thomas Aquinas says , law is something pertaining to reason and a rule and measure of acts. Consequently, irrational creatures, devoid of reason, are not properly said to partake of the Eternal Law except by similitude.

You guys are ignoring all philosophical positions except your own.

Parse the claim that “things have natures”. First then, what is a thing? Some philosophers say things are just human constructs, others say things are interconnected and interdependent. If either of those views is correct then “things have natures” is only about how some humans happen to see the world, not how the world is.

Does an atom of radium exist objectively? Could it exist independent of the rest of nature? On average, half the atoms in a sample of radium will decay in 1600 years. But that’s a statistical law, some decay much earlier, others much later. What does it mean to claim that a law which only applies to lots of atoms is part of an individual atom’s nature?

That’s before you even get to the different philosophical views of what a law of nature actually is (see for instance plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/ and www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/).

With all these unanswered questions, the average scientist will adopt the simplest, least cluttered, most useful approach, and your philosophy is none of the above.

 

[Bahman]

So the laws of nature are derived from things which, individually, have no nature? An interesting but incoherent idea.

If you say so.

Linus2nd

No. Law of nature applies to any entity which has a certain properties, such as mass, electrical charge, etc. These properties however are limited opposite to what Aristotle propose that the number of natures is equivalent to number of different entities. So the modern science explain the subject matter better.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You guys are ignoring all philosophical positions except your own.

Parse the claim that “things have natures”. First then, what is a thing? Some philosophers say things are just human constructs, others say things are interconnected and interdependent. If either of those views is correct then “things have natures” is only about how some humans happen to see the world, not how the world is.

Does an atom of radium exist objectively? Could it exist independent of the rest of nature? On average, half the atoms in a sample of radium will decay in 1600 years. But that’s a statistical law, some decay much earlier, others much later. What does it mean to claim that a law which only applies to lots of atoms is part of an individual atom’s nature?

That’s before you even get to the different philosophical views of what a law of nature actually is (see for instance plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/ and www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/).

With all these unanswered questions, the average scientist will adopt the simplest, least cluttered, most useful approach, and your philosophy is none of the above.

Of course you can do science without referring to the nature of things, ( i.e. that things or substances have an underlying nature in the Aristotelian/Thomistic sense. ). Assuming you actually read my post and the two links provided, then I can only conclude that you are an obstructionist - for unstated reasons. And while the subject of nature is beyond the scope of this thread, it is of curcial importance to Philosophy itself, especially to Scholastic Philosophy.

P.S. All the varities of philosophies of science referenced in your links are modern, post Scholastic. Interesting that Scholastic Philosophy of Nature was not mentioned. Something which Feser addresses in the first link I provided.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Of course you can do science without referring to the nature of things, ( i.e. that things or substances have an underlying nature in the Aristotelian/Thomistic sense. ). Assuming you actually read my post and the two links provided, then I can only conclude that you are an obstructionist - for unstated reasons. And while the subject of nature is beyond the scope of this thread, it is of curcial importance to Philosophy itself, especially to Scholastic Philosophy.

P.S. All the varities of philosophies of science referenced in your links are modern, post Scholastic. Interesting that Scholastic Philosophy of Nature was not mentioned. Something which Feser addresses in the first link I provided.

If you have no response other than to call me names, I graciously accept your total surrender.

Two days ago you said you “wanted to revisit the notion of Nature in modern science” and now you’ve backtracked and say the subject is “beyond the scope of this thread”. I graciously accept your total surrender.

PS: The encyclopedia articles were written by professional philosophers, presumably they don’t see scholasticism as relevant to modern science. And thanks but I didn’t watch either of your videos as they’re both over an hour long and I noticed today you started a thread on them two days ago but no one had yet posted.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If you have no response other than to call me names, I graciously accept your total surrender.

Two days ago you said you “wanted to revisit the notion of Nature in modern science” and now you’ve backtracked and say the subject is “beyond the scope of this thread”. I graciously accept your total surrender.

PS: The encyclopedia articles were written by professional philosophers, presumably they don’t see scholasticism as relevant to modern science. And thanks but I didn’t watch either of your videos as they’re both over an hour long and I noticed today you started a thread on them two days ago but no one had yet posted.

I can always depend on you to be intertaining .

Linus2nd