How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[R_Daneel]

You are equivocating the real distinction with the formal distinction. Existence physically, and existance conceptually is only distinct in a formal sense.

What the heck are you talking about? Physical existence is “there”, whether there is anyone to observe of conceptulaize it. Yes, if there is no one around in the forest, a falling tree still makes the air vibrate, in other words there is a sound.

Why is this a meaningless distinction? It is particularily useful in determining if there are any “nessecary” things in the universe. You for example claim STEM is “nessecary”; wheras you or I am merely “contingent”.

Because such an observation does not lead to any meaningful consequences. The whole physical world is composed of STEM. We can imagine other (possible) worlds, where you or I would be missing. We can imagine a possible world, which is comprized of one electron, and another one, which contains only one positron. These are both possible worlds. They do not have anything specific in common, therefore there is no “necessary” being. On the other hand, if we realize that they are both STEM-particles, then we can say that STEM is present in both worlds, and thereby STEM (regardless of its actual shape of form) is necessary - though it is not a “being”.

This claim is unfounded.

Is it, now? Read Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Causality can be applied to objects of the mind; not merely physical particles. However; you shall likely dismiss the distinction between physicality and the mind.

The mind is simply the elecrto-chemical activity of the brain (just like walking is the physical activity of the leg-muscles). The concepts the mind holds are inert, they do not interact with each other. Two conceptual atoms of hydrogen and one conceptual atom of oxygen will not form a conceptual water molecule. Only the physical atoms will interact with each other, and causation will take place.

Time is nessecarily finite. Time exists seperate from the mind. This position is called realism.

Sure, time exists independenty from the mind. Time is the fourth dimension of the space-time continuum, which is turn is dependent on the matter/energy. Without matter/energy there is no space, there is no time, there is nothing. These entities are described by mathematical equations, which allow predictions about them. The predictions are borne out by experiments. It may be impossible to visualize these entities in everday terms, that is true. (In the time when Niels Bohr came up with the model of hydrogen atom it “looked like” a miniature solar system, where the proton “looked like” of the Sun, and the electron “looked like” a planet. This visally pleasing model was discarded. The hydrogen atom does not “look like” anything in our macro world.) But visualizing is useful if possible, however it is not relevant. If it can be calculated, and the calculations are vindicated by observation, then the lack of visualizing the entities is not important.

 

[JohnDamian]

What the heck are you talking about? Physical existence is “there”, whether there is anyone to observe of conceptulaize it. Yes, if there is no one around in the forest, a falling tree still makes the air vibrate, in other words there is a sound.

I was correcting your error that there is a real distinction between concept and materials.

Because such an observation does not lead to any meaningful consequences. The whole physical world is composed of STEM. We can imagine other (possible) worlds, where you or I would be missing. We can imagine a possible world, which is comprized of one electron, and another one, which contains only one positron. These are both possible worlds. They do not have anything specific in common, therefore there is no “necessary” being. On the other hand, if we realize that they are both STEM-particles, then we can say that STEM is present in both worlds, and thereby STEM (regardless of its actual shape of form) is necessary - though it is not a “being”.

Being simply denotes existence. You claim STEM exists; which appears correct to myself (although some Kantial idealists would disagree). So STEM has being; it exists. You can see the difference between nessecary things and contingent things. However I do disagree that STEM is nessecary; nonetheless you concede that there is nessecary things, and contingent things?

If you do so; it is only logical that contingent things come from a nessecary things. Because contingent things alone cannot be the cause of themselves.

Is it, now? Read Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

I have. The general presumption of univocity is alarming. Inertia presumes a state that is bound by unicity and so forth. The arguments of Einstein only demonstrate further the existence of universals; which itself presupposes the principle of quiddities which; along with the theory of haecceities and predicate logic demonstrate clearly that the applicability of the theory to genera specified. Ergo; your statement is false and unjustified. Einsteins theory of relativity does not prove that all things are within STEM.

The mind is simply the elecrto-chemical activity of the brain (just like walking is the physical activity of the leg-muscles). The concepts the mind holds are inert, they do not interact with each other. Two conceptual atoms of hydrogen and one conceptual atom of oxygen will not form a conceptual water molecule. Only the physical atoms will interact with each other, and causation will take place.

This is incorrect; I shall provide referances;

Refuting the predication of materials;

humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/wjds.html

This adequately demonstrates that things are not individuated by materials. Feel free to point out where (and if) the good author has been incorrect or is making a mistake. I hope you can do the same honor of reading the evidence; as I have done (previous to today) for the Good Einstein; who was a better scientist than a thinker.

Sure, time exists independenty from the mind. Time is the fourth dimension of the space-time continuum, which is turn is dependent on the matter/energy. Without matter/energy there is no space, there is no time, there is nothing.

This pressuposes motion ad the proper function of time. This is incorrect. This also presupposes a real unity between STEM; wheras it is only a formal unity.

 

[R_Daneel]

I was correcting your error that there is a real distinction between concept and materials.

Nonsense. A concept may be about a physical object, it may be about another concept, or it may be about a completely imaginary entity. A concept about a physical object may or may not accurately reflect the object. But before anything else, a concept presupposes a mind which forms that concept. P-existence does not rely on a mind. C-existence does.

Being simply denotes existence. You claim STEM exists; which appears correct to myself (although some Kantial idealists would disagree). So STEM has being; it exists.

I make a distinction between “has a being” and “is a being”. Maybe this distinction is not necessary, but to me the “is a being” somehow denotes a “thinking being” or a person. For other entities I prefer to use the terminology of “object”. It is possible that this distinction does not exist to you, but since English is not my mother tongue, sometimes I see words a bit differently.

You can see the difference between nessecary things and contingent things. However I do disagree that STEM is nessecary; nonetheless you concede that there is nessecary things, and contingent things?

Yes, I am aware of this distinction, but I attach no significance to it. When talking about a causal chain of A->B->C, then B is contingent upon A and necessary in relation to C. The other meaning: “necessary under any and all conditions” is pretty meaningless, unless one says that it is the physical universe (STEM) which exists necessarily, which is true, but simply trivial. A possible world is the null-world, which is totally empty. Now one can say that such a world is not a “real” world, only an abstraction. If you wish to postulate a world which is totally void of physical objects, but is not “empty”, be my guest. What does “existence” mean in such a world? How can ir be distinguished from an empty one? P-existence does not presuppose anything. However C-existence presupposes a mind, which is the activity of the brain, which is a P-existing object.

If you do so; it is only logical that contingent things come from a nessecary things. Because contingent things alone cannot be the cause of themselves.

Again, causation is only defined within the physical universe, and it is some kind of a physical phenomenon. The concept of causation cannot be defined for the collection of all physical objects, the Universe.

I have. The general presumption of univocity is alarming. Inertia presumes a state that is bound by unicity and so forth. The arguments of Einstein only demonstrate further the existence of universals; which itself presupposes the principle of quiddities which; along with the theory of haecceities and predicate logic demonstrate clearly that the applicability of the theory to genera specified. Ergo; your statement is false and unjustified. Einsteins theory of relativity does not prove that all things are within STEM.

Sorry, more gobbledegook. Einstein’s theory is not about some metaphysics. It is about physics, and it shows that time and space are not independent variables. As they say: don’t speculate, sit down and calculate.

This is incorrect; I shall provide referances;

Oh, please, give me a break. Don’t quote theologians to me. Quote biologists, if you wish to quote. But I prefer to hear your own arguments.

 

[JohnDamian]

Nonsense. A concept may be about a physical object, it may be about another concept, or it may be about a completely imaginary entity. A concept about a physical object may or may not accurately reflect the object. But before anything else, a concept presupposes a mind which forms that concept. P-existence does not rely on a mind. C-existence does.

Thomistic Nominalism is an acceptable position. So I shall leave the formal/real distinction here, you are in agreement with Aquinas; and I don’t want to derail the thread.

When talking about a causal chain of A->B->C, then B is contingent upon A and necessary in relation to C.

Granted; for essentially ordered sequences.

Again, causation is only defined within the physical universe, and it is some kind of a physical phenomenon. The concept of causation cannot be defined for the collection of all physical objects, the Universe.

How is the universe seperate from it’s constituant parts; unless you accept that it has a real existance beyond a concept of a totality; which would contradict your earlier nominalism. Do you believe the “universe” as a thing exists, and is different from it’s parts?

This would only be true if the universe is per se distinct from it’s parts. Which it is not.

Sorry, more gobbledegook. Einstein’s theory is not about some metaphysics. It is about physics, and it shows that time and space are not independent variables. As they say: don’t speculate, sit down and calculate.

I have explained why Einsteins theory is not univocal. Your dismissal of what I said merely affirms you lack any grounding in Philosophy.

Oh, please, give me a break. Don’t quote theologians to me. Quote biologists, if you wish to quote. But I prefer to hear your own arguments.

This is a philosophy section… I quoted the most important philosopher to live between Aristotle and Kant and you would rather hear what I have to say? You would rather hear my opinion rather than the critically aclaimed philosophy of the founder of modern economics, the developer of the most complex argument for the existence of God, the founder of Scotism, the reconciler of voluntarism and determinism; the theological refuter of slavery – who died before the age of forty five and you would rather here what I; an insignificant upstart have to say?

This seems to make demonstrably certain your lack of interest in Philosophy… You would rather pettifog and equivocate against weaker opponents and then when confronted by evidence that proves you wrong turn away without reason and go “la la la”. I must say; I am awfully surprised.

If you go on a philosophy section and get philosophy – do not be surprised when you get philosophy. If I went onto a physics board and decried all of their arguments as “gobbledegook” like you do here; I would be laughed at. I must confess, you certainly tempt me to laugh.

 

[R_Daneel]

How is the universe seperate from it’s constituant parts; unless you accept that it has a real existance beyond a concept of a totality; which would contradict your earlier nominalism. Do you believe the “universe” as a thing exists, and is different from it’s parts?

This would only be true if the universe is per se distinct from it’s parts. Which it is not.

Indeed the Universe is a collection of its constituent parts. Just like humanity is a collection of humans. For humans having an gender is an attribute. This attribute cannot be defined for the collection of humans, for humanity. For each element in the universe a causal predecessor (in a vague sense) can be defined. But for the collection (the Universe) such a predecessor cannot be defined.

I have explained why Einsteins theory is not univocal. Your dismissal of what I said merely affirms you lack any grounding in Philosophy.

Einstein’s theory is not a metaphysical speculation. It is hard core mathematics and physics. It proves beyond any doubt that time is not independent from matter/energy. Time cannot be defined outside the physical Universe. That is all.

This is a philosophy section… I quoted the most important philosopher to live between Aristotle and Kant and you would rather hear what I have to say? You would rather hear my opinion rather than the critically aclaimed philosophy of the founder of modern economics, the developer of the most complex argument for the existence of God, the founder of Scotism, the reconciler of voluntarism and determinism; the theological refuter of slavery – who died before the age of forty five and you would rather here what I; an insignificant upstart have to say?

Of course. At the very least I would like to see a conscise summary with a few excerpts if necessary. Philosophy is simple, it is made to look complex by some philosophers. Most people are too shy to play the role of the street urchin, who dares to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes. I like to be the street urchin. I am not going to be shy when I see lots of made-up words and convoluted 100-word long sentences which could be said in a few words.

Besides you brought up this theologian/philosopher to “prove” that the mind is not a function of the brain. Come on. Biologists are the authority on that subject. And you bring up the speculations of guy who lived in the 13th century as an authority? Puhleeze…

 

[JohnDamian]

Indeed the Universe is a collection of its constituent parts. Just like humanity is a collection of humans. For humans having an gender is an attribute. This attribute cannot be defined for the collection of humans, for humanity.

You are equivocating logical species with ordered species. An ordered species would flow like thus;

All human beings are conceived.
The species of human beings began with the first creatures being conceived with human characteristics (dna and whatnot).

Time cannot be defined outside the physical Universe. That is all.

Er, yes it can.

I don’t like Kant; but I shall use him to prove that one can define time outside of the physical universe; Kant in the Critiques describes time as an a priori notion that operates with similar functions such as space allowing us to comprehend sense experience. Time is not a substance; nor is space - but both are part of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience.

This is a breif distillation; but take it from me, time can be defined sensible operating outside of the physical universe.

Of course. At the very least I would like to see a conscise summary with a few excerpts if necessary. Philosophy is simple, it is made to look complex by some philosophers. Most people are too shy to play the role of the street urchin, who dares to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes. I like to be the street urchin. I am not going to be shy when I see lots of made-up words and convoluted 100-word long sentences which could be said in a few words.

Philosophy is not simple. The only simple “philosophers” are the incompetent and popularist ones such as Nietzche, Camus, Hume and Hegel. These philosophers are not critical thinkers; they make wild and unverified claims.

In the same way as physics or biology is a specific and technical art; critical philosophy is. Pop-philosophy is as useless as flat-earth science.

Besides you brought up this theologian/philosopher to “prove” that the mind is not a function of the brain. Come on. Biologists are the authority on that subject. And you bring up the speculations of guy who lived in the 13th century as an authority? Puhleeze…

I shall put it simply; making two quotes from the article;

QUESTION 6: WHETHER A MATERIAL SUBSTANCE IS INDIVIDUAL THROUGH SOME POSITIVE ENTITY, PER SE DETERMINING THE NATURE TO SINGULARITY

To the question, therefore, I answer Yes.

Why should the time the person lived matter to their claim? Also, as the author proves irrefutably that things other than matter exist; why should we accept the claims of biology; a science that only deals with physically material substances?

 

[donsnow]

This is just another example of the fallacy of composition. How many times does this need to be pointed out?

Each and every time, of course.

 

[donsnow]

That is fine. I was simply wondering.

Well, if I remember correctly, in the time of Aristotele people thought that everything is composed of the four elements of fire, air, water and earth. They thought that the brain is merely an organ to cool the blood. In other words, they were incredibly ignorant. Thus they engaged in speculation about the nature of things. I don’t put any value on those musings.

People love to categorize things into neat little boxes. The trouble is that those neat little boxes are artifical constructs, and nature does not care about them. Physicist used ponder if light was composed of particles or if light is a wave. This particular dichotomy only existed in the minds of those people. In reality the dichotomy does not exist. Light is both particles and wave. This should be a fair warning to those who attempt to categorize things.

The categories develoeped by Aristotele belong to the books of history, as an interesting tidbit of how people attempted to make sense of the world around them. Apart from that they have no place in a discussion.

Very good. So if something exists in all possible worlds, we apply the label of “necessary” existence. If it only appears in some of the possible worlds, the label is “contingent”. First, this dichotomy is just another example of those neat little boxes, which are meaningless. We can go into detail if you so desire. It is easy to prove that there is no “necessary” existence, when one speaks of ordinary objects. If one speaks of generalizations, then the only “mecessarily” existing thing is the STEM.

Causality works only one way: physical particles are exchanged and some change takes place.

Another irrelevant dichotomy.

There is no “higher” level of existence. Some attributes simply cannot be defined for the set, which can be defined for the members. Every human has an attribute of having exactly one mother, but for a set of humans this attribute cannot be even defined. For each human there is an attribute of gender, or ethnic origin. But these attributes cannot be defined for a collection of humans.

Because physicists usually no not engage in useless conversations of philosophy. They measure, calculate, set up hypotheses and check them. The proposed dichotomy of “necessary” and “contingent” existence is just another meaningless invention. It was thought that space and time are independent variables, unconnected to matter/energy. It was also thought that matter and energy are two different entities. All these concepts are outdated. There is only STEM, matter/energy/space/time.

It would be if it were stated as an absolute truth. But it is not. Actually we have observed virtual particles come and go. There is no causation involved in the process, as far as it can be ascertained.

Hi, R. Daneel,

You’re doing better than me, to understand him, and I’m on his side.

The reason I’d like to butt in, is your assertions that STEM is all there is. Really? Then, tell me, how does spirit (for example, Esprit de Corps) and mind fit into your cosmology? These are invisible and intangible but they cause effects. These intangible powers exist, and we understand them to exist because of their results. So, are you willing to place spirit and mind into your own little box of STEM? That’s all that physicists have done, is boxed their understanding into STEM, imho.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist. Setting aside that this appeal does nothing to support their affirmative claim, how does one effectively respond to it?

The appeal is somewhat of a colloquial rearrangement of Russell’s teapot. I think the comparisons are faulty for several reasons. Except in folklore and legends, no one has ever seriously believed in such entities. Asserting otherwise, then, would be just that, an arbitrary and contrived assertion, and there could only ever be arbitrary and contrived reasoning to support it. The same can be said of other atheist standbys like the Greek and Viking gods/goddesses. By contrast, the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, in principle, would not be arbitrary, but necessary. Epistemologically, the comparisons are nonsensical.

Perhaps some of you will disagree with me, but I think I have shown, if only briefly, that the comparisons fail.

Atheists also bring these comparisons up to show that a negative cannot proven. If this is the case, why make a positive claim denying the existence of God? But is it true that a negative cannot be proven? If I say that there are no mints in pockets, I can empty my pockets and show you that there are no mints in them. Boom, negative proven. So how about the claim that unicorns don’t exist? Can that be proven?

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

You sound as if you’ve been to the Amazon.com “Religion” Forum . I used to hang on there, the place is completely overrun with supercilious atheists who make the same tired “arguments” about belief in God being the same as belief in fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, and don’t forget . . . The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

The odd thing is, many of them spend hours a day, every day, on there ranting about how crazy it is to believe in “the gods”, they don’t say “God”, always “the gods”. When someone spends that much time on a “Religion” forum arguing that belief in God is the same as belief in The Flying Spaghetti Monster you have to wonder what is going on in their head

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Ronnie,

You beat me to it!

I came back to return the thread to the OP.

I would like to offer, since this is a philosophy forum on a Catholic website, that a body could point out an ancient title for the Heavenly Father: The Father of spirits. To compare the Father of spirits to spirits, which He may have or may not have created, is not logical.

It seems to me, the intent of this thread is how to handle atheists, and an atheist has handled this thread away from the OP. Nicely done. But, we need to discuss how to refute the comparison of the creature as the same as the Creator. Isn’t that so?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Do you read the posts you respond to? I said the following:

Under that definition of “exist,” you can indeed make the positive claim that no gods exist, in the same way that I can make the claim that no leprechauns exist.

So would it be unreasonable for a scientist to believe that the existence of atoms was the best hypothetical explanation to some particular phenomena?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is just another example of the fallacy of composition.

The fallacy of composition does not apply to the context of contingency. The fallacy of composition does not apply to all possible contexts.

 

[In_Spiration]

Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist. Setting aside that this appeal does nothing to support their affirmative claim, how does one effectively respond to it?

The appeal is somewhat of a colloquial rearrangement of Russell’s teapot. I think the comparisons are faulty for several reasons. Except in folklore and legends, no one has ever seriously believed in such entities. Asserting otherwise, then, would be just that, an arbitrary and contrived assertion, and there could only ever be arbitrary and contrived reasoning to support it. The same can be said of other atheist standbys like the Greek and Viking gods/goddesses. By contrast, the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, in principle, would not be arbitrary, but necessary. Epistemologically, the comparisons are nonsensical.

Perhaps some of you will disagree with me, but I think I have shown, if only briefly, that the comparisons fail.

Atheists also bring these comparisons up to show that a negative cannot proven. If this is the case, why make a positive claim denying the existence of God? But is it true that a negative cannot be proven? If I say that there are no mints in pockets, I can empty my pockets and show you that there are no mints in them. Boom, negative proven. So how about the claim that unicorns don’t exist? Can that be proven?

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

God is not just a being among other similar beings; He is Subsistent Being Itself, above all beings as their grounding cause. One could not prove or disprove the existence of a unicorn by analyzing the nature of the universe in general, yet that’s arguably possible re: the existence of God. Nobody ever claims that a unicorn is inextricably tied to the existence of everything else, as God is believed to be.

I wouldn’t put much hope into arguing with any atheist who advocates such childish points. In order to apply an analogy of that sort within the debate, the atheist is most likely intellectually dishonest or else stuck to an anthropomorphic notion of “God.”

 

[JDaniel]

Typically, the atheist resorts to comparisons to fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. when the tenability of their position (i.e., there is no God) is challenged: unlike God, no one seriously thinks that they exist. Setting aside that this appeal does nothing to support their affirmative claim, how does one effectively respond to it?

The appeal is somewhat of a colloquial rearrangement of Russell’s teapot. I think the comparisons are faulty for several reasons. Except in folklore and legends, no one has ever seriously believed in such entities. Asserting otherwise, then, would be just that, an arbitrary and contrived assertion, and there could only ever be arbitrary and contrived reasoning to support it. The same can be said of other atheist standbys like the Greek and Viking gods/goddesses. By contrast, the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, in principle, would not be arbitrary, but necessary. Epistemologically, the comparisons are nonsensical.

Perhaps some of you will disagree with me, but I think I have shown, if only briefly, that the comparisons fail.

Atheists also bring these comparisons up to show that a negative cannot proven. If this is the case, why make a positive claim denying the existence of God? But is it true that a negative cannot be proven? If I say that there are no mints in pockets, I can empty my pockets and show you that there are no mints in them. Boom, negative proven. So how about the claim that unicorns don’t exist? Can that be proven?

Back to my original question: how does one effectively respond to the fairy, leprechaun, unicorn, etc. comparison?

Among all else that exists, is a set of hateful contraries called, sense and non-sense. Fairies, leprechauns, and the like, fall like an anvil into the latter. Really, not much more needs to be said.

God bless,
jd

 

[R_Daneel]

The reason I’d like to butt in, is your assertions that STEM is all there is. Really? Then, tell me, how does spirit (for example, Esprit de Corps) and mind fit into your cosmology? These are invisible and intangible but they cause effects. These intangible powers exist, and we understand them to exist because of their results.

What do you mean by intangible and invisible? Human emotions can be observed and measured - albeit in a rudimentary manner. The mind is the physical function of the brain. If you say that “enthusiasm” can propel someone to act in some manner, that is also part of STEM.

Let’s talk about STEM. Matter/energy are actual, physical objects. Activity of matter is related to STEM, even though the activity itself is not a physical object. Take the activity of walking. “Walking” is not a physical object, it is the activity of the physical muscles in the legs. “Thinking” is also not a physical object, rather it is the activity of the brain. Distance is not a physical object either, it designates an “untouchable” property of two different physical objects.

Concepts are related to brain-states, and by mutual agreement we assign meanings to them. If two people say “two” and “zwei”, respectively, and they can put up two fingers, they can agree that the words uttered will mean the same thing - even though the brain states are completely different.

Now, concepts are truly “immaterial” “things” - even thought they rely of the physical foundation of the brain. Concepts are “inert”, the concept of 2 hydrogen atoms cannot combine with the concept of an oxygen atom to form a water molecule.

So, are you willing to place spirit and mind into your own little box of STEM?

The answer is unequivocal “yes”.

That’s all that physicists have done, is boxed their understanding into STEM, imho.

This “little” box is large enough. And it keeps getting larger, as our understanding grows.

 

[R_Daneel]

You are equivocating logical species with ordered species. An ordered species would flow like thus;

All human beings are conceived.
The species of human beings began with the first creatures being conceived with human characteristics (dna and whatnot).

Not a good example, since the “human being” cannot be defined rigorously. We arbitrarily declare a range of DNA which we call human DNA. If you say that “this” being was almost, but quite “human”, but her child would qualify as “really human”, you would draw an arbitrary line in the sand. Reality is not like a mathematical “tree-structure”, not even like a “forest”. (mathworld.wolfram.com/Tree.html)

Er, yes it can.

I don’t like Kant; but I shall use him to prove that one can define time outside of the physical universe; Kant in the Critiques describes time as an a priori notion that operates with similar functions such as space allowing us to comprehend sense experience. Time is not a substance; nor is space - but both are part of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience.

This is a breif distillation; but take it from me, time can be defined sensible operating outside of the physical universe.

Only for the purposes of some speculation, which has nothing to do with reality.

I shall put it simply; making two quotes from the article;

Well, I tried to read it.

A few lines are quoted here:

[QUESTION 6: WHETHER A MATERIAL SUBSTANCE IS INDIVIDUAL THROUGH SOME POSITIVE ENTITY, PER SE DETERMINING THE NATURE TO SINGULARITY?]

[142] Because the solution of the Philosopher’s texts ‘against’ requires the solution of the sixth question, namely by what, completively, is a material substance individuated?, I therefore ask sixthly whether a material substance is individual through some positive entity [Note 5] per se determining the nature to singularity?

[143] That it is not. Because then that determinant would be related to the nature as act to potency; therefore of the specific nature and that determinant there would be truly and properly a composite, which is unsuitable: for that determinant would be either matter or form, or something composite from them; whichever is granted is unsuitable - for then in the composite there would be another matter besides the matter which is a part of the nature, or another form besides that which is posited as a part of the nature, or another composite besides that which is the composite of the nature.

[144] Further: then the singular, composed of the nature and that per se determinant, would be per se one, therefore per se intelligible - which seems contrary to the Philosopher, II De Anima [417 b27.3] and VII Metaphysics [1035 b33 - 1036 a8], where he seems clearly to maintain that intellection is ‘of the universal’ and sensation ‘of the singular itself’.

I have absolutely no idea what this guy is talking about. And I admit that I am not even remotely interested in searching for a dictionary which would translate it into plain English. If you wish to translate it, I will be glad to read it. Line [143] contains a sentence of 98 words! I would prefer Hemingway, who was famous for writing short, conscise sentences. In my mind there is no excuse to string together such monstrosities, unless the intent is to create confusion, and pretend to be a “deep” thinker.

Why should the time the person lived matter to their claim? Also, as the author proves irrefutably that things other than matter exist; why should we accept the claims of biology; a science that only deals with physically material substances?

It does matter if he tries to talk about reality, and not just speculated about it. By the way, I did not deny that abstractions and concepts (which are clearly immaterial) exist. They are just inert concepts formed by the mind. They do not have independent existence.

 

[tonyrey]

By the way, I did not deny that abstractions and concepts (which are clearly immaterial) exist. They are just inert concepts formed by the mind. They do not have independent existence.

So the order in the universe, physical constants and mathematical truths did not exist before human beings existed?

 

[R_Daneel]

So the order in the universe, physical constants and mathematical truths did not exist before human beings existed?

The order existed - it is the objective property of physical existence, though it is not a physical object itself. Distance between objects existed - and distance is not a physical object, it describes the relation between physical objects. The physical constants existed - they are the attributes of the physical objects. What makes the mathematical truths possible - existed. However the numbers, which are the abstractions of physical objects - did not exist.

If a tree falls in the forest when there are no beings with the property of hearing present, it still makes the air molecules vibrate, and so it makes a sound. If one places a CD-player into a forest, and a device to turn it on after a day elapsed, the CD player will emit sounds, but if there is no one around, the sound is not “music” or “melody”. So very simple.

 

[tonyrey]

The order existed - it is the objective property of physical existence, though it is not a physical object itself. Distance between objects existed - and distance is not a physical object, it describes the relation between physical objects. The physical constants existed - they are the *attributes *of the physical objects. What makes the mathematical truths possible - existed. However the numbers, which are the abstractions of physical objects - did not exist.

All the terms I have emphasized are intangible realities. Many philosophers and mathematicians believe numbers are not fictions.

If a tree falls in the forest when there are no beings with the property of hearing present, it still makes the air molecules vibrate, and so it makes a sound. If one places a CD-player into a forest, and a device to turn it on after a day elapsed, the CD player will emit sounds, but if there is no one around, the sound is not “music” or “melody”. So very simple.

You stated:

By the way, I did not deny that abstractions and concepts (which are clearly immaterial) exist. They are just inert concepts formed by the mind. They do not have **independent **existence.

So the order in the universe, physical constants and mathematical truths did not exist before human beings existed? How could they if they are formed by the mind?

 

[R_Daneel]

All the terms I have emphasized are intangible realities. Many philosophers and mathematicians believe numbers are not fictions.

Yes, some people hold that there are “abstract objects”. I disagree with them. So do most philosophers.

So the order in the universe, physical constants and mathematical truths did not exist before human beings existed? How could they if they are formed by the mind?

I will make this simple. The “mass” of a physical object is an inseparable property of a physical object, and it is an invariant (the mass of a brick is the same whether it resides here of Earth, or it floats in space). The “weight” of the same physical object comes from the relation between two physical objects (the weight of the brick is different on Earth and on the Moon). The “heaviness” of the same physical object, assumes someone who can distinguish between a “heavy” and “light” object. Nevertheless what makes “heaviness” and “lighness” possible exists as an inseparable attribute of the aforementioned physical object - even though what makes “heaviness” and “lighness” possible (the mass and the weight) do exist independently from the observer.

So, to reiterate, the “mass” is an objectively existing property (which is not an ontological object itself). The “weight” is the result of two physical objects’ interaction. The “heaviness” or “lightness” of the object does not exist without an external observer/user. Can’t go any simpler than that.