Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

[Linusthe2nd]

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.).

Yes, that is understood. I presume that the existentialists were just as careful to define how they were using the term as were Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Thomas refined the term in more detail than Aristotle.

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).

Obviously, if something exists, God made it. And it doesn’t matter if we are just now discovering it. I don’t think we should demand that God make an entire list of the things he made. I recall from Genesis, that God put Adam and Eve in charge of the garden and gave them the job of tending it. And Adam began by naming the beasts and birds, etc. Are we not extensions of Adam and Eve? So we continue to name the things which we discover. We discovered viruses, cells, atoms, etc. So we naturally affix a name to those natures, so we can distinguish one from another.

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)

I still don’t see the connection. And is cancer something new? Probably not.

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?

Aristotle and Aquinas would say that cancer and other pathogens have an accidental existence. That is they exist only as a part of the host substance ( being, nature, essence ) in which they exist. It is the host substance which is primary, the accidents do not exist other than in a host.

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.

Aristotle never used the term ’ cast ’ in discussing his categories of substance.

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.

Language is the means men have to describe all of life’s experiences, all that we know. They are " signs " making communication and knowledge possible. Men have always used some form of classification to refine this endeavor, to make it more intelligible. To say that a nature or substance does not exist simply because the terms are a development of language misses the mark. If the " signs " point to something that really does exist, the goal has been accomplished. .

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.

Life is indeed complex. Aristotle simply organized its complexities in an intelligible way so it could be discussed intelligently. I don’t think it was wrong at all. Was it perfect? Probably not. But modern classification does not prejudice the validity of his classification. It is the purpose of classification which gives it its validity. I don’t think the pejorative " the Emperoror had no clothes " is an objective statement. Science would be much improved if it did not dismiss another view of reality simply because it did not comport strictly with certain modern conceptions of what some think science pronounces about reality.

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.

Yes, that is a theory, one that has a long way to go before it can be declared a scientific truth. And of course you know all about my views on " empty space. " My theory is that there is no such thing .

I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Linus2nd

 

[davidv]

A table is not a nature.

That is not the point. If you begin to break a geranium into its constituent parts, at some point it will no long be geranium. As a living thing a geranium has a nuture.

 

[blase6]

That is not the point. If you begin to break a geranium into its constituent parts, at some point it will no long be geranium. As a living thing a geranium has a nuture.

It is amazing how you can tell what has a nature and what doesn’t have a nature. I think this has just come down to a stupid semantics argument.

 

[davidv]

It is amazing how you can tell what has a nature and what doesn’t have a nature. I think this has just come down to a stupid semantics argument.

Why is it amazing? Even a toddler can tell difference in the natures of its mother and their teddy bear.

 

[blase6]

Why is it amazing? Even a toddler can tell difference in the natures of its mother and their teddy bear.

And you know that how? You can get inside the mind of a toddler? The difference is that the mother involves the presence of a spirit； the teddy bear does not. It has nothing to do with a “physical nature”.

 

[davidv]

And you know that how?

By watching my own children and my grand children.

You can get inside the mind of a toddler?

No. But I don’t need to.

The difference is that the mother involves the presence of a spirit； the teddy bear does not. It has nothing to do with a “physical nature”.

What is physical nature? It is quite possible the you are committing equivocation in objecting.

 

[blase6]

By watching my own children and my grand children.

No. But I don’t need to.

What is physical nature? It is quite possible the you are committing equivocation in objecting.

No, It is just that people still stick to strange ideas of “accident” and “substance”, and insist dogmatically that they are 100% free of logical inaccuracy or error. I have seen for myself that they are just illusions cast over one’s perception to make sense of the physical world, which does not have objective substance at our level.

 

[davidv]

No, It is just that people still stick to strange ideas of “accident” and “substance”,

Why are these strange ideas? Do you understand them?

and insist dogmatically that they are 100% free of logical inaccuracy or error. I have seen for myself that they are just illusions cast over one’s perception to make sense of the physical world, which does not have objective substance at our level.

These are baseless claims from my perspective. Seems to me an misinterpretation of what was seen.

 

[blase6]

Why are these strange ideas? Do you understand them?

These are baseless claims from my perspective. Seems to me an misinterpretation of what was seen.

They are strange ideas because they are continually losing ground due to modern science. “Accident” refers to how we sense a physical object, and “substance” refers to what it is. As I can see, there is no apparent real difference for physical objects. It comes from a time when the underlying qualities of matter were not known, and everything was assumed to be basically what it appeared to be, as a single objective unit.

Well, I have a hard time accepting this idea of objective physical substance. It remains only an idea imposed upon matter.

 

[Aloysium]

They are strange ideas because they are continually losing ground due to modern science. . . .

In teaching people to become better cogs, philosophical considerations have no place. These ideas are not losing ground to science, but to ignorance.

 

[blase6]

In teaching people to become better cogs, philosophical considerations have no place. These ideas are not losing ground to science, but to ignorance.

Actually I do not agree with the philosophy behind modern science very much. But I am not inclined to believe in an idea about physical science which contradicts my own intuition and reasoning.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, I have a hard time accepting this idea of objective physical substance. It remains only an idea imposed upon matter.

What is “matter”? How did you ever get any notion of it? Do you have any notion of it?

 

[blase6]

What is “matter”? How did you ever get any notion of it? Do you have any notion of it?

Matter is just what stuff is made of. It is pretty simple. Everything that we see as objective substances is really just matter.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Matter is just what stuff is made of. It is pretty simple. Everything that we see as objective substances is really just matter.

But do you have any evidence that stuff is made of anything? Where does this evidence come from?

Moreover, what is “stuff” – if not the large sorts of items which you deny the genuine existence of?

 

[inocente]

Yes, that is understood. I presume that the existentialists were just as careful to define how they were using the term as were Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Thomas refined the term in more detail than Aristotle.

I suggest the question of existence, to know thyself, is far too broad for most young people for it to be settled by technical definitions, or even in a philosophy class.

*Obviously, if something exists, God made it. And it doesn’t matter if we are just now discovering it. I don’t think we should demand that God make an entire list of the things he made. I recall from Genesis, that God put Adam and Eve in charge of the garden and gave them the job of tending it. And Adam began by naming the beasts and birds, etc. Are we not extensions of Adam and Eve? So we continue to name the things which we discover. We discovered viruses, cells, atoms, etc. So we naturally affix a name to those natures, so we can distinguish one from another. *

The ebola virus didn’t exist one hundred years ago, it wasn’t there, that’s why no one died of it, or “discovered it” as you put it . Just like humans didn’t exist when T Rex stomped around. If Aristotle had such knowledge, do you think he would have tried to deny it in order to hang on to his notion of fixed natures?

I still don’t see the connection. And is cancer something new? Probably not.

You said the bible doesn’t mention atoms or molecules, and just like cancer and bacteria, it doesn’t mention them because the writers and their audience, unlike us, were ignorant of such things.

Aristotle and Aquinas would say that cancer and other pathogens have an accidental existence. That is they exist only as a part of the host substance ( being, nature, essence ) in which they exist. It is the host substance which is primary, the accidents do not exist other than in a host.

A & TA were ignorant of such things, so you can’t know what they would have said. I think it far more likely they would have modified or binned their scheme in the face of what we now know. They had no reason to hang on to something they could see was wrong.

Aristotle never used the term ’ cast ’ in discussing his categories of substance.

‘Caste’ not ‘cast’. His categories were arranged in a hierarchy whereas we now know that laws are universal.

Language is the means men have to describe all of life’s experiences, all that we know. They are " signs " making communication and knowledge possible. Men have always used some form of classification to refine this endeavor, to make it more intelligible. To say that a nature or substance does not exist simply because the terms are a development of language misses the mark. If the " signs " point to something that really does exist, the goal has been accomplished.

You remarked that the substances within different natures behave uniformly, as if that is some kind of proof of your classification scheme. I said that they’re not aware of your scheme so of course they behave uniformly. They behave the same with or without your scheme, and so your scheme can tell us nothing about them, it only tells us about how you organize them.

Life is indeed complex. Aristotle simply organized its complexities in an intelligible way so it could be discussed intelligently. I don’t think it was wrong at all. Was it perfect? Probably not. But modern classification does not prejudice the validity of his classification. It is the purpose of classification which gives it its validity. I don’t think the pejorative " the Emperoror had no clothes " is an objective statement. Science would be much improved if it did not dismiss another view of reality simply because it did not comport strictly with certain modern conceptions of what some think science pronounces about reality.

Even if the scheme wasn’t wrong, it adds no explanatory value - how often, in nature programs, does the narrator use Aristotle’s scheme to help explain something? Never. Because even if it weren’t wrong, it obfuscates rather than clarifies.

There are many dead religions, proved wrong. Aristotle used to be such a religion, for centuries men dared not challenge the received wisdom of the one called the Philosopher. Then, finally, they came to their senses.

*Yes, that is a theory, one that has a long way to go before it can be declared a scientific truth. And of course you know all about my views on " empty space. " My theory is that there is no such thing . *

Oh, string theory isn’t even a theory, it’s a speculative hypothesis, I just mentioned it to show that modern thinkers are not nearly as dogmatic as some would claim.

*I think we will just have to agree to disagree. *

As always you are wrong.

 

[inocente]

But do you have any evidence that stuff is made of anything? Where does this evidence come from?

Moreover, what is “stuff” – if not the large sorts of items which you deny the genuine existence of?

It’s interesting, or at least to me, that the nucleus of an atom contains > 99.9% of the atom’s mass, and “if the nucleus was expanded to the size of a marble, the outer edge of the atom would be nearly a football field away.” - pbs.org/newshour/rundown/just-ask-what-would-a-baseball-sized-atom-look-like/

So we are mostly nothing. And it seems that the mass of those tiny nuclei comes largely from the relativistic motion of their constituent quarks. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_the_proton

It seems our substance is rather insubstantial - almost entirely (perhaps completely) due to tiny motions too small for us to see.

 

[blase6]

It’s interesting, or at least to me, that the nucleus of an atom contains > 99.9% of the atom’s mass, and “if the nucleus was expanded to the size of a marble, the outer edge of the atom would be nearly a football field away.” - pbs.org/newshour/rundown/just-ask-what-would-a-baseball-sized-atom-look-like/

So we are mostly nothing. And it seems that the mass of those tiny nuclei comes largely from the relativistic motion of their constituent quarks. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_the_proton

It seems our substance is rather insubstantial - almost entirely (perhaps completely) due to tiny motions too small for us to see.

This is an excellent explanation. We think that a rock is a mathematically solid surface at first, but as we look closer it is not. It is mostly empty space.

My point is that what we see does not necessarily correspond to what is “actually” there.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I suggest the question of existence, to know thyself, is far too broad for most young people for it to be settled by technical definitions, or even in a philosophy class.

If the ancient Israelites could understand Moses when he told them that " He Who is. " sent me, I think modern students should understand what it means to exist.

The ebola virus didn’t exist one hundred years ago, it wasn’t there, that’s why no one died of it, or “discovered it” as you put it . Just like humans didn’t exist when T Rex stomped around. If Aristotle had such knowledge, do you think he would have tried to deny it in order to hang on to his notion of fixed natures?

When a particular virus appeared had nothing to do with Aristotle’s definition of natures, substances, or essences. Nor does it mean God did not create them. The question is, is a virus or a cancer an invading substance/species, or are they accidental forms existing in the substance/nature of man.

You said the bible doesn’t mention atoms or molecules, and just like cancer and bacteria, it doesn’t mention them because the writers and their audience, unlike us, were ignorant of such things.

I was asking what term you would use to name that common element which was shared by all the beings God created and that man was given the task to name and to use? What difference does it make that the people of the Bible were ignorant of cancer, bacteria, etc? We are still men and it is still our job to name and identify these things and discover the common " something " between them that makes them what they are…

A & TA were ignorant of such things, so you can’t know what they would have said. I think it far more likely they would have modified or binned their scheme in the face of what we now know. They had no reason to hang on to something they could see was wrong.

You don’t jettison something just because those who know nothing about it say that it doesn’t make sense. I just point out that many Scholastic philosophers are also scientists and they don’t see a problem. Congratulations on using a verb I have never seen before. I assume it is a common British term.

‘Caste’ not ‘cast’. His categories were arranged in a hierarchy whereas we now know that laws are universal.

You remarked that the substances within different natures behave uniformly, as if that is some kind of proof of your classification scheme. I said that they’re not aware of your scheme so of course they behave uniformly. They behave the same with or without your scheme, and so your scheme can tell us nothing about them, it only tells us about how you organize them.

It isn’t just that within each species they behave uniformly but that this uniformity of behaviors and characteristics points to an inner principle from which all this commonality originates. And that is their nature. From their nature flow all their characteristics and behaviors. Therefore we can say that a human nature is a composite of body and soul. Or we can say that the nature of a cat is that it is an animal which has four legs, a tail, whiskers, is very agile, very curious, eats small rodents, has up to two litters a year, etc. We can say that the nature of an angel is a spirit or pure form or essence limited only by its act of existence. The natures actually exist. And that is the real point.

Even if the scheme wasn’t wrong, it adds no explanatory value - how often, in nature programs, does the narrator use Aristotle’s scheme to help explain something? Never. Because even if it weren’t wrong, it obfuscates rather than clarifies.

It means a lot to people who understand it. It makes communication much more exact.

There are many dead religions, proved wrong. Aristotle used to be such a religion, for centuries men dared not challenge the received wisdom of the one called the Philosopher. Then, finally, they came to their senses.

Now that simply is not true. The Platonists and the Neo Platonists have always been popular to name just a couple.

Oh, string theory isn’t even a theory, it’s a speculative hypothesis, I just mentioned it to show that modern thinkers are not nearly as dogmatic as some would claim.

And if they just stuck to science I might agree. But they do insist on straying into philosophy.

Linus2nd

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is an excellent explanation. We think that a rock is a mathematically solid surface at first, but as we look closer it is not. It is mostly empty space.

My point is that what we see does not necessarily correspond to what is “actually” there.

You’re just privileging one sensory observation over another – as if the one that was “through a microscope” was somehow more indicative of reality. How can you justify that?

 

[blase6]

You’re just privileging one sensory observation over another – as if the one that was “through a microscope” was somehow more indicative of reality. How can you justify that?

Looking closer at things in general gives a better and clearer image of what it is. Do you deny this?