Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

[blase6]

But your evidence of whether the “matter at hand” is a dog or a man is purely physical evidence. If physical evidence cannot reveal the nature of things, then your treating me as a human being (and not a dog) is irrational.

The way the “human” matter behaves suggests that it is controlled by a real personal spirit? So why then is it irrational to not believe it is a person?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The way the “human” matter behaves suggests that it is controlled by a real personal spirit?

If you’re willing to admit that, then why not admit that the way a tree looks suggests that it is an independent organism – and thus, trees are not merely things we mentally create?

 

[blase6]

If you’re willing to admit that, then why not admit that the way a tree looks suggests that it is an independent organism – and thus, trees are not merely things we mentally create?

spirit =/= organism

 

[ChainBreaker]

A protein is a real nature because we see it as such. But if we don’t see it as proteins, then it doesn’t exist. Its has no objective nature.

And yet proteins do exist. Otherwise we would not be speaking of them as such.

A human being is a human being because we see it as such. A biological organism is a biological organism because we see it as such. It is not a subjective invention, but rather we discover these natures in the things we see and we give names to them.

 

[blase6]

And yet proteins do exist. Otherwise we would not be speaking of them as such.

A human being is a human being because we see it as such. A biological organism is a biological organism because we see it as such. It is not a subjective invention, but rather we discover these natures in the things we see and we give names to them.

That is where I differ. I find them to be nothing more than ideas used to make sense of a world composed of a clutter of particles.

 

[ChainBreaker]

That is where I differ. I find them to be nothing more than ideas used to make sense of a world composed of a clutter of particles.

And yet what I see is not just a clutter of particles. Rather; I see natures.

 

[blase6]

And yet what I see is not just a clutter of particles. Rather; I see natures.

And I see that it is that I only see natures.

 

[inocente]

Your quote: " This seems to be a reductionist attempt to mate Aristotle’s notion of substances and natures with modern biology. But there is no jump straight from elementary particles to cats, there are many steps along the way: atoms, molecules, cells, organs, etc. There is no reductionist “nature of cat” which supernaturally directs individual electrons hither and thither for the benefit of the cat. At every level, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, patterns beget patterns. "

I am still at sea on how, from there, you thought I was “saying that God just created piles of atoms, differently arranged and combined”. But let us move on.

I am not denying the reality of either.

Then we are as one.

*many materialists and naturalists today do deny that there are such things as natures, substances, essences - in the Aristotelian/Thomistic sense. *

I think you could extend that to most of the Free World, me included. Aristotle taught various things at odds with what we now know - he thought species are fixed, matter is enchanted, the default state is no motion/change, that nature is qualitative not quantitative, etc. His scheme might work in some other possible world, but it doesn’t in ours.

Quite a few on this forum might say that. Forgive me if I don’t cite any notable except atheists and skeptics in general. I am taking the word of people I have read or heard and trust.

Then I think the people you read made it up, it’s a myth by which they hope to draw attention away from their own lack of rationale.

*And nothing in the Scriptures say that God didn’t create natures for man, the beasts, the crawling things, the fish, the birds, the vegetation, the elements. Indeed Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas believe and tautght that that is exactly what he did.

And I say that if you don’t think God created natures. then you deny the truth of Divine Revelation.:tiphat:*

I didn’t realize your philosophical argument was such a disaster that you have to threaten me with hell unless I worship a bust of Aristotle.

Thanks for the offer but I’ll stick with the 1st Commandment. :tiphat:

Ah, yes, but only one school can be right, that of God and Aristotle and St. Thomas. :tiphat:.

Wot? Your Holy Trinity is God, Aristotle and Thomas? Wot? :tiphat:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am still at sea on how, from there, you thought I was “saying that God just created piles of atoms, differently arranged and combined”. But let us move on.

Then we are as one.

I think you could extend that to most of the Free World, me included. Aristotle taught various things at odds with what we now know - he thought species are fixed, matter is enchanted, the default state is no motion/change, that nature is qualitative not quantitative, etc. His scheme might work in some other possible world, but it doesn’t in ours.

Then I think the people you read made it up, it’s a myth by which they hope to draw attention away from their own lack of rationale.

I didn’t realize your philosophical argument was such a disaster that you have to threaten me with hell unless I worship a bust of Aristotle.

Thanks for the offer but I’ll stick with the 1st Commandment. :tiphat:

Wot? Your Holy Trinity is God, Aristotle and Thomas? Wot? :tiphat:

If we can’t call the " substances " created by God natures which exist, it is hard to see what else we could call them.

The problem today is that most of the population who have been to school have never been exposed to any view of existence other than that given by the science they have received. There is nothing with the science per se, but it is only half the story.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

The problem today is that most of the population who have been to school have never been exposed to any view of existence other than that given by the science they have received. There is nothing with the science per se, but it is only half the story.

I’d think most kids learn views of existence from the novels they read in Eng Lit, from history, religious studies, art, drama, …

It’s not surprising if teachers give lots of other things higher priority than classes in incorrect, dry and convoluted metaphysics. If you want to teach alienated teenagers about existence, reading and discussing Catcher In The Rye would be far more productive imho.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’d think most kids learn views of existence from the novels they read in Eng Lit, from history, religious studies, art, drama, …

It’s not surprising if teachers give lots of other things higher priority than classes in incorrect, dry and convoluted metaphysics. If you want to teach alienated teenagers about existence, reading and discussing Catcher In The Rye would be far more productive imho.

Of course one doen’t expect that in K1-12. I meant what passes for higher education these days. And when I say " existence :" I am talking about the things God made, I thought you would see that I wasn’t talking about history, mores, etc.

So what do we call the things God made then. Keep in mind that God didn’t mention atoms, molecules, cells, etc either. Surely you see that there is an inner " something " which defines the things God made, something that makes them unique from one another? If the term " nature " disturbs you so, what would you call it?

Take the cycle of a butter fly as an example. First it is an egg, then it is a caterpiller, and then it is a butter fly. At each of these stages is is a unique thing, something entirely different from what it is at the other stages. What term would you use? Aristotle called it nature. And whether or not scientists call it nature, they do assume it exists. Otherwise they would not be able to do science. Because the success of science depends on the fact that the substances they handle each day, animate and inanimate, behave uniformely the same within each class and species.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd.

 

[blase6]

Of course one doen’t expect that in K1-12. I meant what passes for higher education these days. And when I say " existence :" I am talking about the things God made, I thought you would see that I wasn’t talking about history, mores, etc.

So what do we call the things God made then. Keep in mind that God didn’t mention atoms, molecules, cells, etc either. Surely you see that there is an inner " something " which defines the things God made, something that makes them unique from one another? If the term " nature " disturbs you so, what would you call it?

Take the cycle of a butter fly as an example. First it is an egg, then it is a caterpiller, and then it is a butter fly. At each of these stages is is a unique thing, something entirely different from what it is at the other stages. What term would you use? Aristotle called it nature. And whether or not scientists call it nature, they do assume it exists. Otherwise they would not be able to do science. Because the success of science depends on the fact that the substances they handle each day, animate and inanimate, behave uniformely the same within each class and species.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd.

Like I said, it is all perception. Yes, you can say that there is a unique “nature” in the egg, that is not in the caterpillar or butterfly, because you see it that way. But looking at it in terms of basic units of matter reveals that it is only matter.

So what it is, depends on how you see it.

 

[Aloysium]

Like I said, it is all perception. Yes, you can say that there is a unique “nature” in the egg, that is not in the caterpillar or butterfly, because you see it that way. But looking at it in terms of basic units of matter reveals that it is only matter.

So what it is, depends on how you see it.

A couple of questions:

• How do you know the “basic units of matter” exist?
• If you are out on a date, and your new girl-friend looks really pretty, and you want to give her a kiss, but you hold back not wanting to offend her.
  Where in this complex human interaction are these “basic units of matter” of which you speak?

 

[blase6]

A couple of questions:

• How do you know the “basic units of matter” exist?
• If you are out on a date, and your new girl-friend looks really pretty, and you want to give her a kiss, but you hold back not wanting to offend her.
  Where in this complex human interaction are these “basic units of matter” of which you speak?

-There is more reasonable evidence in my experience that atomic-related particles exist, than not. I have never seen one, but the way matter works suggests that this is the case. I do not know for certain, and their presence may only be illusions, in the way that large objects are not absolutely solid like people used to believe. So I believe that they exist, but do not know certainly.
-In this case your brain indicates to your spirit that kissing your girlfriend is a good course of action, but your spirit rejects it. I don’t know what this has to do with physical nature.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Like I said, it is all perception. Yes, you can say that there is a unique “nature” in the egg, that is not in the caterpillar or butterfly, because you see it that way. But looking at it in terms of basic units of matter reveals that it is only matter.

So what it is, depends on how you see it.

No, both perspectives are correct. Naturally each existing nature is composed of a number of different elements. Yet, especially discernable in living natures, there is an identifiable set of behaviors and operations, which are substantially different from one to the other. That factor, which determines and carries out the specifically different set of behaviors and operations in each thing is its nature. Aristotle and Aquinas would call it the essence, the specifically different matter and form composit of each.

It is obvious that the egg, the catepiller, and the butterfly are specifically different beings, natures, substances, essences ( these terms may be used synomously at times, but I think " nature " particularly apt. ). Yet they contain the same material building blocks. But in each nature these building blocks combine differently and interact differently, according to the dictates of a given specific nature.

Linus2nd.

 

[blase6]

No, both perspectives are correct. Naturally each existing nature is composed of a number of different elements. Yet, especially discernable in living natures, there is an identifiable set of behaviors and operations, which are substantially different from one to the other. That factor, which determines and carries out the specifically different set of behaviors and operations in each thing is its nature. Aristotle and Aquinas would call it the essence, the specifically different matter and form composit of each.

It is obvious that the egg, the catepiller, and the butterfly are specifically different beings, natures, substances, essences ( these terms may be used synomously at times, but I think " nature " particularly apt. ). Yet they contain the same material building blocks. But in each nature these building blocks combine differently and interact differently, according to the dictates of a given specific nature.

Linus2nd.

Sorry, I still hold that substance of physical objects comes from perception. Everything physical is shown that it can be broken down into smaller particles. Objective substance doesn’t change, but these things seem to do so.

 

[davidv]

Sorry, I still hold that substance of physical objects comes from perception. Everything physical is shown that it can be broken down into smaller particles. Objective substance doesn’t change, but these things seem to do so.

At some point the breakdown destroys whatever once was.

If I saw the legs off of a wooden table, what I have left is no long a table. I can break them down even further by burning them. Is the pile of ash and the released CO2 and water called a table? Only when the particles of wood are arranged in a certain way, does it deserve to be called a table. This is an example of a human manufacturing of an item, so it is a rather thin, but valid, analogy.

 

[blase6]

At some point the breakdown destroys whatever once was.

If I saw the legs off of a wooden table, what I have left is no long a table. I can break them down even further by burning them. Is the pile of ash and the released CO2 and water called a table? Only when the particles of wood are arranged in a certain way, does it deserve to be called a table. This is an example of a human manufacturing of an item, so it is a rather thin, but valid, analogy.

It is a table only because someone thinks it is. Another person may be looking to start a fire, and will see it as fuel. Or another person may think that it is a coat rack, if it is upside down.

 

[ChainBreaker]

At some point the breakdown destroys whatever once was.

If I saw the legs off of a wooden table, what I have left is no long a table. I can break them down even further by burning them. Is the pile of ash and the released CO2 and water called a table? Only when the particles of wood are arranged in a certain way, does it deserve to be called a table. This is an example of a human manufacturing of an item, so it is a rather thin, but valid, analogy.

A table is not a nature.

 

[inocente]

Of course one doen’t expect that in K1-12. I meant what passes for higher education these days. And when I say " existence :" I am talking about the things God made, I thought you would see that I wasn’t talking about history, mores, etc.

Then you’re not talking of existence in the way most students would (existentialism, why do I exist, what should I do with my life, etc.).

Did God make the ebola virus? If so, then that’s another proof that Aristotle’s fixed natures don’t work, as it only appeared recently. While if God didn’t make it then existence must be about far more than a simplistic “the things God made” (in its list of what God made, the children’s hymn All things bright and beautiful omits to mention pathogens).

So what do we call the things God made then. Keep in mind that God didn’t mention atoms, molecules, cells, etc either. Surely you see that there is an inner " something " which defines the things God made, something that makes them unique from one another? If the term " nature " disturbs you so, what would you call it?

Not sure why you refer to God in the past tense, but keep in mind that the bible also doesn’t mention cancer or bacteria (go back to post #151 and you’ll now see why I quoted that Catholic priest).

The hypothesis that a loving God made cancer raises more questions than answers. Does cancer have a nature? Or is it like an iPod in being nature-free?

The basis philosophical problem is, I think, that Aristotle thought there was a hierarchy of castes, each with different laws. But we now know that the laws of nature are universal - nature is singular. There is but one God, and God makes but one creation.

Take the cycle of a butter fly as an example. First it is an egg, then it is a caterpiller, and then it is a butter fly. At each of these stages is is a unique thing, something entirely different from what it is at the other stages. What term would you use? Aristotle called it nature. And whether or not scientists call it nature, they do assume it exists. Otherwise they would not be able to do science. Because the success of science depends on the fact that the substances they handle each day, animate and inanimate, behave uniformely the same within each class and species.

Well, there you go with your castes, with your classes and species. But they are merely our inventions by which we make sense of our world. So of course things behave uniformly, the explanation is simply that they don’t know about our classifications so there’s no reason for them not to.

Aristotle’s scheme only explains the complications it itself invents. Strip away the artificial complexities and it explains nothing. It was always wrong, it just took centuries before anyone finally admitted that the Emperor had no clothes.

Edit - although of course string theory is an attempt to explain the world through form alone - an atom is virtually all empty space, it’s as if matter is just space tied up in different geometrical shapes.