Need help with Aquinas' proofs

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

This is a common misconception and completely wrong. That lightspeed is constant in any reference frame was measured long before Einstein (e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment). The Lorentz-transformation was derived from those experiments to match the observable reality. Einstein made the theoretical foundation for those observations, basically “the natural laws are always the same, no matter what reference frame one uses”, not the other way round.

i think you misunderstood me.

my primary point is that einstein simply rejected the aether - and a privileged frame of reference along with it - as a basic assumption of his 1905 theory; he in fact opens his paper with the rejection, calling the aether unnecessay for his purposes. because he was a positivist who refused to countenance entities for the existence of which empirical proof was unavailable (as he believed) in principle.

as for the constancy of the velocity of light, einstein does, in fact, use it as an unproven postulate - that much is indisputable.

however, i didn’t mean to imply by such an observation that einstein didn’t have any experimental basis for the assumption; i am quite aware of the michelson-morley experiments.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

my primary point is that einstein simply rejected the aether - and a privileged frame of reference along with it - as a basic assumption of his 1905 theory; he in fact opens his paper with the rejection, calling the aether unnecessay for his purposes.

He did not simply reject the aether. Scientist spend years to find the aether in the 19th century and did not find it, they found out instead, that light travels with a constant speed. Einstein declared those experimental findings as a fundamental principle and build a theory around it. A theory btw that made all kinds of strange predictions, which wre all observered later on.

Einstein:

…], sowie die mißlungenen Versuche, eine Bewegung der Erde relativ zum “Lichtmedium” zu konstatieren, führen zu der Vermutung, daß dem Begriffe der absoluten Ruhe nicht nur in der Mechanik, sondern auch in der Elekrodynamik, keine Eigenschaften der Erscheinungen entsprechen, sondern daß vielmehr für alle Koordinatensysteme, für welche die mechanischen Gleichungen gelten, auch die gleichen elektrodynamischen und optischen Gesetze gelten, wie dies für die Größen erster Ordnung bereits erwiesen ist. Wir wollen diese Vermutung (deren Inhalt im folgenden “Prinzip der Relativität” genannt werden wird) zur Voraussetzung erheben und außerdem die ihm nur scheinbar unverträgliche Voraussetzung einführen, daß sich das Licht im leeren Raume stets mit einer bestimmen, vom Bewegungszustand des emittierenden Körpers unabhängigen Geschwindigkeit V fortpflanze.

Guess, we’re both right there…

 

[BibleReader]

Hi, john doran.

One of the things I have discovered is that folks who disagree on whether Aquinas’ “proofs” are inherently compelling, or inherently unconvincing and lacking in compelling content so that we are left with a need to have faith anyway, even think differently from one another.

in fact, depending on what you mean by “certain”, i would say there aren’t any of those, either.

Interestingly, the Catechism uses the word “certainty.”

I think that you are still missing my point. I agree that

“1+1=2” as a piece of mathematical formalism is necessarily true.

Your own distinction, “as a piece of mathematical formalism,” verifies that we are on the same page on this one.

The problem is that Aquinas applies his formalism to reality. He applies it to our reality, and purports to climb to God, to the extent of proving God’s existence with certainty, from our reality, with it.

But, Aquinas’ formalism *isn’t inherently warranted by anything to fit our reality, and in fact doesn’t fit our reality. *Again, as I pointed out, aspects of quantum mechanics are not inherently analyzable as a “caused” phenomenon. (a) The paths chosen by quantum “wavicles” are only partially predictable with probablistic math (which is why it is called “probablistic math”), and (2) Finite math dead-ends at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, even up to the present moment.

In the end, everything in the material world – everything – is made of particles operating at the quantum level. There are no exceptions. (Even individual atoms and small molecules, freed of larger agglomorations of matter, seem to behave in a quantum way, so that the quantum threshhold appears to be somewhere between the macroscopic level of operation of human life and the level of individual atoms.) This is a pretty big exception to the things Aquinas looks at to supposedly climb to “knowledge” of God’s existence – nothing Aquinas ever looked at to climb up to a “certain” knowledge of God’s existence was ever made of non-quanta matter.

I, personally, believe that God directly controls quantum behavior. I.e., when a photon unexpectly goes left instead of right as it leaps from the tip of the photon gun used in the “Schroedinger’s Kitten” - type experiments, defying the odds slightly, I personally believe that God did that.

But the point here is, WE CAN’T PROVE THAT THAT IS TRUE.

I *believe *that anyone, anytime, can begin the climb to God’s infinity from formal mathematics.

Just divide 22 by 7 and don’t stop.

Just try to calculate pi, and don’t stop.

You’ll die trying.

And I believe that God can see the entire transcendental numbers all at once.

I.e., those unending transcendental numbers are a pretty good picture of God’s infinity, and partially partake of God’s infinity, which is why I believe they are possible.

But, note well: I always have to add “I believe.”

Just remember what Aquinas purports to do – look at reality, and climb-up to God’s existence from there.

As you consider Aquinas’ “proofs,” don’t inadvertantly substitute-in mathematical formalism for reality, and then wrongly conclude, “Ah-HAH! I DID it! I climbed from the existence of the world around me to certain knowledge of the fact of God’s existence!”

No you didn’t. No one does.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

He did not simply reject the aether. Scientist spend years to find the aether in the 19th century and did not find it, they found out instead, that light travels with a constant speed. Einstein declared those experimental findings as a fundamental principle and build a theory around it. A theory btw that made all kinds of strange predictions, which wre all observered later on.

his rejection of the aether was “simple” in that it was done out of hand and was premised on a tacitly assumed positivistic epistemology.

the velocity of light was always thought to be constant relative to the aether, since it was always thought to be a wave, and waves propagate through their media at a constant velocity - i.e. at a velocity independent of the velocity of their source. and the medium for the transmission of light was the aether. the only variance that was being sought was the relativistic variance associated with the motion of the observer through the aether. which, as you say, was never found, (but which was accounted for by lorentz).

what einstein did was jettison the medium of the transmission of light, but maintain the constancy of its velocity.

as i have said all along, lorentz and poincare - both of whom articulated (at least nascent) relativistic theories prior to einstein - did so without rejecting the aether, and with physically equivalent formalisms. which means that rejection of the aether is unnecessary. which in turn makes just stipulating its non-existence “simple”. in my books.

and it’s this gratuitous rejection of the aether that leads to all the bizarrely counter-intuitive paradoxes in STR, like time travel, and which so far forth makes STR less preferable to other theories which, while preserving the mathematical physics of STR, nonetheless avoid the absurdities.

AnAtheist:

Guess, we’re both right there…

if you say so…

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

and it’s this gratuitous rejection of the aether that leads to all the bizarrely counter-intuitive paradoxes in STR, like time travel, and which so far forth makes STR less preferable to other theories which, while preserving the mathematical physics of STR, nonetheless avoid the absurdities.

What time travel? You do not mean the twin “paradox”, do you?
That has been proven too, by measuring the life span of moving myons. It is real, so it may be bizarre but not absurd.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

What time travel? You do not mean the twin “paradox”, do you?
That has been proven too, by measuring the life span of moving myons. It is real, so it may be bizarre but not absurd.

no - the twin paradox is an example of time dilation.

i am thinking of phenomenon such as that what is present for you could be future for me, etc… which is a direct result of the relativization of simultaneity.

incidentally, this is what einstein said about the role of the invariance of the speed of light in his theory:

Einstein:

That light requires the same time to traverse the path A —> M as for the path B —> M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.

A.Einstein, RELATIVITY, THE SPECIAL, THE GENERAL THEORY, (Chicago, 1951), p. 18

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

i am thinking of phenomenon such as that what is present for you could be future for me, etc… which is a direct result of the relativization of simultaneity.

Ok, but why is that absurd? I find it quite logical, that without an absolute reference frame “simultanous” events require a different definition than “at the same point on the time scale”.
An event occupies one point the space-time-continuum, so another event must occupy a different point. Present, past and future are terms belonging to an absolute time scale, in a 4-dimensional vectorspace their meaning is somewhat different. Frankly, I don’t see a problem here.

 

[BibleReader]

I’m very lucky – God has blessed me with a really good looking wife, who is smart enough to discuss Special Relativity.

No joke, just the other night we were discussing the relative nature of simultaneity: The guy sitting sideways on a freight train, precisely hallf way down its length, when, just as he is passing a guy sitting beside the track, facing the train, the guy sitting beside the track facing the train sees lightning hit the front and back, and sees them hit “simultaneously,” but for that reason, and because he is moving toward the front lightning and away from the back lightning, the guy on the train sees the front lightning hit first. Who saw “real reality”? I.e., was “real reality” simultaneous or non-simultaneous?

The answer is, Neither has a preferred frame of reference, and so both saw “real reality.” I.e., there is no such thing, in our reality, as an “objectively simultaneous event.”

 

[oriel36]

AnAtheist:

Ok, but why is that absurd? I find it quite logical, that without an absolute reference frame “simultanous” events require a different definition than “at the same point on the time scale”.
An event occupies one point the space-time-continuum, so another event must occupy a different point. Present, past and future are terms belonging to an absolute time scale, in a 4-dimensional vectorspace their meaning is somewhat different. Frankly, I don’t see a problem here.

It is fortunate for you that no Catholics can handle the relativistic cartoon concept and why,after 100 years of the nonsense,it still enjoys popular support.Apparently Catholics like the sound of the jargon surrounding Albert’s odd creation such as warped space,time dilation,reference frames and all the other nonsense without really caring where it comes from.

Newton borrowed on Aquinas in creating conceptions of absolute/relative,surprising considering Newton’s anti-Catholic bias -

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm

Technically Newton created a mess but people would prefer to sound profound than actually go to the center of the mess and sort it out like men.

 

[oriel36]

BibleReader:

I’m very lucky – God has blessed me with a really good looking wife, who is smart enough to discuss Special Relativity.

No joke, just the other night we were discussing the relative nature of simultaneity: The guy sitting sideways on a freight train, precisely hallf way down its length, when, just as he is passing a guy sitting beside the track, facing the train, the guy sitting beside the track facing the train sees lightning hit the front and back, and sees them hit “simultaneously,” but for that reason, and because he is moving toward the front lightning and away from the back lightning, the guy on the train sees the front lightning hit first. Who saw “real reality”? I.e., was “real reality” simultaneous or non-simultaneous?

You would not be shocked at what Newton wrote but as an astronomer,I am.

The insight on finite light distance or the Mora Luminis by Ole Roemer is completely anonymous in Newton’s idea of the way planets move.He scrambles Keplerian motion with the finite light distance insight to create one giant mess that has been allowed to snowball.

What a horrible thing to do in scrambling astronomical insights which lead all the way to relativistic framehopping - the ultimate cartoon concept.

---

Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of description.

For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined.

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Ok, but why is that absurd? I find it quite logical, that without an absolute reference frame “simultanous” events require a different definition than “at the same point on the time scale”.
An event occupies one point the space-time-continuum, so another event must occupy a different point. Present, past and future are terms belonging to an absolute time scale, in a 4-dimensional vectorspace their meaning is somewhat different. Frankly, I don’t see a problem here.

i’m not saying that it’s not self-consistent - i’m saying that it makes no sense to me.

look, as with everything else, it comes down to which propositions you find more certain, and here the choice is between ***two physically equivalent theories ***: one theory (some version of lorentzian relativity) which supports our intuitions about space and time, and one (STR) which is radically at odds with them. in a situation like that, why would i choose the latter?

not to mention that there are problems with both STR and GTR that have never been resolved (e.g. the Sagnac effect; geometrization of gravity vs. gravity-as-a-force)…

 

[oriel36]

john doran:

i’m not saying that it’s not self-consistent - i’m saying that it makes no sense to me.

look, as with everything else, it comes down to which propositions you find more certain, and here the choice is between ***two physically equivalent theories ***: one theory (some version of lorentzian relativity) which supports our intuitions about space and time, and one (STR) which is radically at odds with them. in a situation like that, why would i choose the latter?

not to mention that there are problems with both STR and GTR that have never been resolved (e.g. the Sagnac effect; geometricization of gravity vs. gravity-as-a-force)…

Relativity is not just on par with the Da Vinci code, it surpasses it as bad fiction.The attraction of relativity is that nobody will understand it but I assure anyone of reasonable intelligence that they do not need to understand it.

Einstein was supposed to get rid of Newtonian aether/absolute space but is there anyone here who has a problem with the explicit way Newton rejected aether or any conception of a medium.

“The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314] weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected.”

Optics 1704

In short,you cannot reject what was already rejected so say goodbye to Albert and his spacetime nonsense.

It still leaves Newton and the problems he created for generations of men who did not know , still do not know and do not want to know what he did to attempt to achieve the grandiose sounding ‘universal laws of gravitation’.

bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

I will make one more attempt to explain what exactly went wrong and where.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

one theory (some version of lorentzian relativity) which supports our intuitions about space and time, and one (STR) which is radically at odds with them. in a situation like that, why would i choose the latter?

Because it matches the observable evidence better. And it is derived from a simple principle. And btw it does support our intuition as long as velocities are low. Quantum physics stretches human imagination even further, yet QED is the best proven theory of all times. It’s simple, it’s elegant, it works, and describes reality - what else could you expect from a theory?

not to mention that there are problems with both STR and GTR that have never been resolved (e.g. the Sagnac effect; geometrization of gravity vs. gravity-as-a-force)…

Yes, GTR is far from perfect. And you haven’t even mentioned the biggest obstacle - to produce a quantum version of it.

 

[john_doran]

oriel36:

Relativity is not just on par with the Da Vinci code, it surpasses it as bad fiction.The attraction of relativity is that nobody will understand it but I assure anyone of reasonable intelligence that they do not need to understand it.

Einstein was supposed to get rid of Newtonian aether/absolute space but is there anyone here who has a problem with the explicit way Newton rejected aether or any conception of a medium.

“The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314] weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected.”

Optics 1704

In short,you cannot reject what was already rejected so say goodbye to Albert and his spacetime nonsense.

newton dismissed the aether because he was the principal proponent of the copuscular theory of light, for which a medium of transmission was unnecessary.

right?

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Because it matches the observable evidence better.

but it doesn’t - that’s what i mean when i say that the theories are formally and physically equivalent.

And it is derived from a simple principle.

which principle? lorentz and poincare used the same principles.

don’t forget the fact that it also rests on a mistaken positivist epistemology.

AnAtheist:

Quantum physics stretches human imagination even further, yet QED is the best proven theory of all times. It’s simple, it’s elegant, it works, and describes reality - what else could you expect from a theory?

as i have been at pains to point out, it’s not the experimental efficacy of these various theories i am questioning, but their interpretation; when you say QED is a spectacularly confirmed theory, what, exactly, are you referring to as “QED”? is it the copenhagen interpretation? the sum-over-histories approach? the many worlds interpretation? the transactional interpretation? matrix mechanics? wave mechanics? bohmian mechanics? they are all different models/interpretations of the same evidence.

only some require (much) more credulity than others.

Yes, GTR is far from perfect. And you haven’t even mentioned the biggest obstacle - to produce a quantum version of it.

well, that’s what i was getting at with the geometry vs. force thing.

also, don’t forget that STR utterly fails to account for the sagnac effect.

 

[oriel36]

john doran:

newton dismissed the aether because he was the principal proponent of the copuscular theory of light, for which a medium of transmission was unnecessary.

right?

No,Newton never understood the significance of Roemer’s insight on finite light distance and bluffs and blusters his way when he mentions the insight.The reason that Newtonians/relativists have so much trouble with finite light distance (sourse dependency) is that Newton mixes it into Keplerian motion where the insight goes totally anonymous.I have shown you that in the previous posting using the appropriate excerpt.

“Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of the Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]… But this inequality has no respect to the position of the Earth, and in the three interior Satellites is insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of their Gravity.”

dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/chapter3(part2).html

I am genuinely dissapointed that Catholics let these things slide or imagine that there is some self-correcting mechanism designed to stop celestial conceptions tending towards absurdity.

Relativity concocted a story based on Newton who was himself creating self-serving ambiguities and everyone loses.Relativity is a hoax within a hoax which is why the relativists forever taunt the aetherists as an alernative to relativity in terms of Lorentz et al knowing full well it is a dismal circular argument.

I can deal with the unethical restructuring of astronomical methods by Newton so there is really no basis to be drawn into the early 20th century concepts and whetehr they are valid or not.Understanding what Newton did will certainly take care of that.

 

[oriel36]

AnAtheist:

Because it matches the observable evidence better. And it is derived from a simple principle. And btw it does support our intuition as long as velocities are low. Quantum physics stretches human imagination even further, yet QED is the best proven theory of all times. It’s simple, it’s elegant, it works, and describes reality - what else could you expect from a theory?

Yes, GTR is far from perfect. And you haven’t even mentioned the biggest obstacle - to produce a quantum version of it.

Newton backslid into an odd version of geocentricity from the pure heliocentrism of the astronomers Copernicus and Kepler.

The first instance of ‘framehopping’ comes from Newton in determining a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.

“That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.”

members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

The only validity for a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency is the sidereal value for axial rotation which has no astronomical justification whatsoever.

There is a way out of this mess but it takes responsible people who have little time for spindoctoring or feigning understanding.It can be intricate but it is never impossible and with experience things become easier.Most of all it takes faith and a strong sense that we continue to harm future generations for concepts which are absurd in principle,structure and bottom line.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

also, don’t forget that STR utterly fails to account for the sagnac effect.

Um, see this

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm:

Despite the ease and clarity with which special relativity accounts for the Sagnac effect, people who lack a sound grasp of basic physics and mathematics sometimes imagine that this effect entails a conflict with the principles of special relativity. The usual claim is that the Sagnac effect somehow falsifies the invariance of light speed with respect to all inertial coordinate systems. Of course, any attempt to show that the Sagnac effect implies non-isotropic light-speed with respect to some system of inertial coordinates is doomed from the start, because the simple description of an arbitrary Sagnac device given above is based on isotropic light speed with respect to one particular system of inertial coordinates, and all other inertial coordinate systems are related to this one by Lorentz transformations, which are defined as the transformations that preserve light speed. Hence it’s clear that no description of a Sagnac device in terms of any system of inertial coordinates can possibly yield non-isotropic light speed, nor can any such description yield physically observable results different from those derived above (which are known to agree with experiment).

 

[Philthy]

Hi AnAtheist-

Thanks for responding to my post.

AnAtheist:

There is no observation of this “outside” (and by definition, no observation can be made; if it would, the outside became the inside).

Precisely my point - if the outside becomes the inside then “nothingness” converts to “somethingness” How do we explain that? Its really the same question Aquinas was asking: How do we explain any change we observe?

AnAtheist:

Why assume something without observation?

Because the fullness of reality has been demonstrated to exceed our ability to observe it, and we have other tools (reason, mathmatics) at our disposal. These tools have been of great value and have correctly appreciated things which subsequent observations validated.

AnAtheist:

1. Space and time are not nothing. Do we agree on that?

Gladly

AnAtheist:

1. The space-time does not expand into “something”. The space-time-continuum itself is a finite but boundless enclosure without an outside, there is nothing to expand into.

This is probably a stupid question, but when you say “finite but boundless”, the “finite” refers to the actual space it currently occupies and the “boundless” refers to the limitless capability for it to a) continually expand spacially and b) exist, even in a fixed spacial dimension, boundless in the temporal dimension? Is that right?
I thought we believed that the universe underwent significant spatial expansion following the big bang? If we ask the question "Does the universe contain more space now than it did immediately following the “big bang” ? What is the answer? If the answer is yes, then you believe that the universe expanded into the “nothing” that isn’t there for it to expand into. The alternative is to say that there was in fact “nothing” but that it became “something” simply because the universe expanded.

AnAtheist:

This assessment requires a bit of five-dimensional thinking, I suggest you master the appropiate mathmatics, then it’s rather easy to understand.

I wish I did know the math, but it’s a little too late I’m afraid…Fortunately you and Johnduran seem to have each other to speak to.
But this much I will comment on: It may be easy to conceive of, but I’m not sure that you arrive at a definitive model of reality that you fully “understand”. Just like Biblereader applied a mathematically valid principal(1+1=2) in attempting to understand a particular reality(sum of velocities), he incorrectly made the assumption that since a velocity could be represented and subject to the same principals as the number 1 in a certain characteristic of behavior, that it could therefore be applied to another characteristic and behavior of velocity (summation) in exactly the same manner. We have observational reality to confirm or deny such assumptions in many things. We don’t when it comes to the limits of space and the “outside”. We just don’t know if the mathmatical models continue to perfectly represent the realities we’re discussing, do we?

AnAtheist:

Life has no essence nor substance.

Life has no essence? That sounds like your view of life to me derived from someone’s definition, not reality.

con’d

 

[Philthy]

AnAtheist:

Your monitor does need a "Catholic-Answer-Forum"ness to produce the picture you see right now. The picture is made up of colored spots, yet it is more than the pixels, because it contains information (the pixels are organised). Life, incl. the mind, consists of ordinary matter, but **the way this matter is organised makes up the specialty. **

I’m sorry, but that is so far short of an understanding of life. All you’ve said is that observation of life operating within matter is consistent with the organization of the matter it inhabits, and we can categorize life forms by this organization. Have you ever heard the statement “When you’re a hammer, everything starts lookin’ like a nail”? I would say you have only scratched the surface of understanding life per se if this is all you recognize of it. The limitations of this perspective are of your own making.

AnAtheist:

Now you may argue, this organisation had to be planned (the intelligent designer argument, far better than the cosmological one, if you ask me, but the latter is the issue right now), but chances are these structures are self-organising. Self-organisation can be widely observed btw.

Self organization is irrelevent. Does life exist? Did it always exist? Precisely what is lost when life ceases? Does it affect the mass of the “structure” it inhabited? Is any energy gained or lost?Does it warp space time? Then what are we talking about?
Again, our observations are limited to the “accidentals” of life and not it’s “essence” per se. You are trying to limit life to these observable accidentals simply because that is your only means of measurement. That does not mean, however, that the sum total of all the measurable accidentals of a living being constitute it’s “life”.

Thanks again-

Phil