Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

[TarkanAttila]

Walk into a room and look around at all the objects. They are all objective substances, right? Look closer, and with the general understanding scientists have of matter. For example, you may think a tin can has objective substance. But if you look closer, it is just tin arranged in a way which you think is the shape and consistency of a can.

Yes, and that’s what makes a tin can a substance - not only the matter of which it is composed, but how the matter is arranged. Substances are both form and matter!

And then if you look closer, the “tin” is just atoms which have a certain number of protons in them. And if you look closer, there are no protons, just deeper and deeper particles, which may just keep going on infinitely.

But the atoms are arranged in a certain fashion. They make a certain form. And the protons and neutrons and electrons come in certain quantities and are arranged in a certain form. No one is making the assertion that matter consists only of what a thing is made of except you.

So you have to accept that all the “substances” you see are only in your immediate and superficial perception. Even you yourself looking closer will find that those “substances” do not remain under your own perception.

They do, because of how atoms and subatomic particles and sub-sub atomic particles are arranged!!!

 

[blase6]

Yes, and that’s what makes a tin can a substance - not only the matter of which it is composed, but how the matter is arranged. Substances are both form and matter!

But the atoms are arranged in a certain fashion. They make a certain form. And the protons and neutrons and electrons come in certain quantities and are arranged in a certain form. No one is making the assertion that matter consists only of what a thing is made of except you.

They do, because of how atoms and subatomic particles and sub-sub atomic particles are arranged!!!

Then form is just another quality of matter, which we arbitrarily assign names to from our perception.

 

[MPat]

Walk into a room and look around at all the objects. They are all objective substances, right? Look closer, and with the general understanding scientists have of matter. For example, you may think a tin can has objective substance. But if you look closer, it is just tin arranged in a way which you think is the shape and consistency of a can. And then if you look closer, the “tin” is just atoms which have a certain number of protons in them. And if you look closer, there are no protons, just deeper and deeper particles, which may just keep going on infinitely.

So you have to accept that all the “substances” you see are only in your immediate and superficial perception. Even you yourself looking closer will find that those “substances” do not remain under your own perception.

Yes, “big” things have parts. That is rather obvious even without “the general understanding scientists have of matter”.

But your argument still needs one more assumption: “A substance can have no parts.”. Where do you get it from?

For example, Thomists say that a substance is a composite of matter and form. Thus, if you simply assume that substance has no parts, you are attacking a strawman.

 

[blase6]

Yes, “big” things have parts. That is rather obvious even without “the general understanding scientists have of matter”.

But your argument still needs one more assumption: “A substance can have no parts.”. Where do you get it from?

For example, Thomists say that a substance is a composite of matter and form. Thus, if you simply assume that substance has no parts, you are attacking a strawman.

I disagree that a substance is a composite of matter and form. I say that a substance is the basic description of what something could be, without parts that could be described as different substances.

I think of substance as the combination of “sub” and “stance”, as in, “that which stands below (sub)”. If a large object is composed of smaller objects, then only the smaller objects can be called “substance”.

 

[MPat]

I disagree that a substance is a composite of matter and form. I say that a substance is the basic description of what something could be, without parts that could be described as different substances.

I think of substance as the combination of “sub” and “stance”, as in, “that which stands below (sub)”. If a large object is composed of smaller objects, then only the smaller objects can be called “substance”.

Ah, so you just use the same word to mean something completely different? Sure, that’s fine (although confusing). Just try to avoid misunderstandings (in that case this whole thread is one big misunderstanding)…

 

[blase6]

Ah, so you just use the same word to mean something completely different? Sure, that’s fine (although confusing). Just try to avoid misunderstandings (in that case this whole thread is one big misunderstanding)…

So you agree that by my definition of substance, objective substance of physical objects does not exist?

 

[MPat]

So you agree that by my definition of substance, objective substance of physical objects does not exist?

If you define “blase6 substance” (keeping the name different to avoid misunderstandings) as something that has no parts, then “big” objects are not “blase6 substances” at all - neither “objective” nor “subjective”. Something like photons, leptons or quarks could be “blase6 substances” if they have no parts.

That is true, although it does not seem to be very useful or interesting…

 

[blase6]

If you define “blase6 substance” (keeping the name different to avoid misunderstandings) as something that has no parts, then “big” objects are not “blase6 substances” at all - neither “objective” nor “subjective”. Something like photons, leptons or quarks could be “blase6 substances” if they have no parts.

That is true, although it does not seem to be very useful or interesting…

It is useful because I realized that all the objects I see don’t really exist as objective substances, even though some theologians think so.

 

[MPat]

It is useful because I realized that all the objects I see don’t really exist as objective substances, even though some theologians think so.

No, they just use the word “substance” differently from you.

For that matter, in Chemistry the word “substance” is used in still other way. Although, admittedly, it is related, as change of “chemical substance” tends to be a “substantial change”, while change of other characteristics (like temperature) - an “accidental change”…

Anyway, even if you did “realize” that, is that useful? What other conclusions would it lead to? That is, other than “I am right and they are wrong!”?

 

[ChainBreaker]

I disagree that a substance is a composite of matter and form. I say that a substance is the basic description of what something could be, without parts that could be described as different substances.

I think of substance as the combination of “sub” and “stance”, as in, “that which stands below (sub)”. If a large object is composed of smaller objects, then only the smaller objects can be called “substance”.

When you speak of substance you seem to talking about something different to Aquinas.

From a meta-scientific point of view however if by substance you mean a being that is not composed of parts then it would seem at first glance that you are correct that macroscopic natures don’t really exist.

But then you are left without an explanation as to why there are qualities and natures that are not reducible to their parts and are yet dependent upon them.

Things start to get a little more complicated once you come across such natures.

 

[blase6]

ChainBreaker:

No, they just use the word “substance” differently from you.

For that matter, in Chemistry the word “substance” is used in still other way. Although, admittedly, it is related, as change of “chemical substance” tends to be a “substantial change”, while change of other characteristics (like temperature) - an “accidental change”…

Anyway, even if you did “realize” that, is that useful? What other conclusions would it lead to? That is, other than “I am right and they are wrong!”?

I explained that those natures are based in perception. They don’t exist objectively.

 

[blase6]

When you speak of substance you seem to talking about something different to Aquinas.

From a meta-scientific point of view however if by substance you mean a being that is not composed of parts then it would seem at first glance that you are correct that macroscopic natures don’t really exist.

But then you are left without an explanation as to why there are qualities and natures that are not reducible to their parts and are yet dependent upon them.

Things start to get a little more complicated once you come across such natures.

That’s because most scientists aren’t serious philosophers and use terms which are commonly understood, apart from their specific meaning that philosophers ascribe to them.

 

[ChainBreaker]

That’s because most scientists aren’t serious philosophers and use terms which are commonly understood, apart from their specific meaning that philosophers ascribe to them.

Words can take on different meanings depending on the context in which they are used.

For example when a scientist argues that the universe started itself from nothing, i can’t take this to be a metaphysical statement. I take this as meaning that given the nature of physics it makes sense that the big bang happened in purely physical terms.

This of course, while it may be true, does nothing to explain the existence of the universe; it merely explains how physical events proceeded from the big-bang.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Then form is just another quality of matter, which we arbitrarily assign names to from our perception.

Whatever. “El agua” and “the water” refer to the same substance, and without that substance there would be no life on Earth. And even if someone comes up with a different name for it, it will always be identifiable by its chemical structure of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, or 2+2+8 electrons, or in that it is largely clear and colourless, largely odourless, and largely tasteless.

 

[blase6]

Whatever. “El agua” and “the water” refer to the same substance, and without that substance there would be no life on Earth. And even if someone comes up with a different name for it, it will always be identifiable by its chemical structure of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, or 2+2+8 electrons, or in that it is largely clear and colourless, largely odourless, and largely tasteless.

Sure. Maybe there really is a “magic aura” that exists objectively in those atoms and defines what they are.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Sure. Maybe there really is a “magic aura” that exists objectively in those atoms and defines what they are.

http://jjstrength.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Facedesk-1.jpg

FGSFDS.

 

[blase6]

FGSFDS.

Not an argument.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, and that’s what makes a tin can a substance - not only the matter of which it is composed, but how the matter is arranged. Substances are both form and matter!

But the atoms are arranged in a certain fashion. They make a certain form. And the protons and neutrons and electrons come in certain quantities and are arranged in a certain form. No one is making the assertion that matter consists only of what a thing is made of except you.

They do, because of how atoms and subatomic particles and sub-sub atomic particles are arranged!!!

Isn’t it madening!

Linus2nd

 

[TarkanAttila]

Isn’t it madening!

Linus2nd

My question is, how do you draw the line between “I haven’t thought this through deeply enough” and “this guy just doesn’t want to hear it”?

He has referred to himself as a solipsist before. Might that radical doubt without any trace of faith have something to do with it?

 

[blase6]

My question is, how do you draw the line between “I haven’t thought this through deeply enough” and “this guy just doesn’t want to hear it”?

He has referred to himself as a solipsist before. Might that radical doubt without any trace of faith have something to do with it?

I do have faith. I just don’t have certainty. I see there is a difference. Asserting that I don’t have faith doesn’t really help me, it just provokes me to lose my faith, which I try to resist.