Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

[Prodigal_Son]

So your hair and nails are just “contaminants” on “your body” which is objectively different from dead matter?

No more than my wedding ring is a contaminant. The Bible calls hair an “adornment”. That sounds about right.

Why can’t your body just be a relative concentration of matter through which your soul experiences the physical world?

It could be. But you haven’t proven it.

The idea of an objective physical object “Bob” is present only in your mind. Your sight just includes an image which you associate with “Bob”.

Again, this is begging a question. You haven’t given me a reason to believe that Bob (the physical person) doesn’t cause the image.

Others have said this and I don’t buy it. Substance has to be at the basic level of this vs. that. Combinations don’t make objectively new substances.

I’m not clear on what you mean by “substance” here – it is a controversial and ambiguous philosophical term. My point is that objects have parts which *compose *them, and that we can become aware of these objects by becoming aware of their parts. I’m fine with saying that the fundamental distinction between X and Y is immaterial. But I’m not fine with saying that Bob’s body exists only in my mind, or whatever you seem to be saying about Bob.

Most schools don’t teach logic classes anymore. I would have to go out of my way to find a pretentious school, which would be expensive. Better to just get a reputable summary and study it by yourself.

Well, do something. Because your level of talent is high, but it would be good to steer clear of fallacies.

 

[blase6]

Again, this is begging a question. You haven’t given me a reason to believe that Bob (the physical person) doesn’t cause the image

It doesn’t matter whether or not “Bob” (the label of a sample of physical matter) causes the image or not. What matters is that there is no distinction of Bob’s matter from other matter which comprise the image you receive. You add that in from your own mind.

I’m not clear on what you mean by “substance” here – it is a controversial and ambiguous philosophical term. My point is that objects have parts which *compose *them, and that we can become aware of these objects by becoming aware of their parts. I’m fine with saying that the fundamental distinction between X and Y is immaterial. But I’m not fine with saying that Bob’s body exists only in my mind, or whatever you seem to be saying about Bob.

My soul and your soul are distinct entities, thus they are objective substances. You cannot say, some of my soul overlaps with yours, nor can you look closer at a soul and see that it is made up of “soul-parts” etc. You can do this with physical matter, so physical matter at our level does not have objective substance. It is all in our mind!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It doesn’t matter whether or not “Bob” (the label of a sample of physical matter) causes the image or not. What matters is that there is no distinction of Bob’s matter from other matter which comprise the image you receive. You add that in from your own mind.

My soul and your soul are distinct entities, thus they are objective substances. You cannot say, some of my soul overlaps with yours, nor can you look closer at a soul and see that it is made up of “soul-parts” etc. You can do this with physical matter, so physical matter at our level does not have objective substance. It is all in our mind!

Could you please define what you mean by “substance”?

When I look at the world, I immediately infer to 3-dimensional objects, and I think that some of these 3-d objects have properties that make them mereological wholes. I don’t “see matter”. I see images, and I infer matter.

 

[blase6]

Could you please define what you mean by “substance”?

When I look at the world, I immediately infer to 3-dimensional objects, and I think that some of these 3-d objects have properties that make them mereological wholes. I don’t “see matter”. I see images, and I infer matter.

“Substance” is what something can be basically reduced to. My soul cannot be reduced to anything which makes up a soul. But physical objects can be reduced to lower matter, almost indefinitely. So physical objects do not have objective substance apart from matter and/or energy.

You see a two-dimensional image. You infer that there are separate entities in your mind. However, if you look closer into a target of your sight, you cannot distinguish between the entities anymore. So the entities were not objectively there to begin with; you just conceived of them.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“Substance” is what something can be basically reduced to. My soul cannot be reduced to anything which makes up a soul. But physical objects can be reduced to lower matter, almost indefinitely. So physical objects do not have objective substance apart from matter and/or energy.

So you seem to be saying that spiritual objects are simples, and physical objects are complex. We can agree on that. I don’t know what you mean by “what something can be reduced to”, though. If I were to take five atoms that make up my body, I would not be reducing my body. If I were to take ALL the atoms that make up my body, I might be talking about a set – “the atoms that make up my body” – but I would not be “reducing” my body to anything, since the set would be identical to the whole (my body). The properties of my body are identical to the properties of that set.

Perhaps you want to say that the EVENTS that take place concerning my body are determined by the actions of atoms, not the actions of the “big thing” (the whole)? If so, I’m fine with that, but I’m not sure why it matters.

So in essence, I don’t think that the definition of “substance” as “what something can be reduced to” makes sense. Or rather, I myself can’t make sense of it.

You see a two-dimensional image. You infer that there are separate entities in your mind. However, if you look closer into a target of your sight, you cannot distinguish between the entities anymore. So the entities were not objectively there to begin with; you just conceived of them.

The entities aren’t in my mind! I infer that there are separate entities in the world. I might be wrong, of course. But if the inference is caused by genuinely separate entities, it stands to reason that my visual field was evidence (to whatever degree) of the separateness of the relevant entities.

Indeed, how could you ever even DETERMINE that atoms existed without first assuming that your visual field constitutes evidence of reality?

 

[blase6]

So you seem to be saying that spiritual objects are simples, and physical objects are complex. We can agree on that. I don’t know what you mean by “what something can be reduced to”, though. If I were to take five atoms that make up my body, I would not be reducing my body. If I were to take ALL the atoms that make up my body, I might be talking about a set – “the atoms that make up my body” – but I would not be “reducing” my body to anything, since the set would be identical to the whole (my body). The properties of my body are identical to the properties of that set.

Perhaps you want to say that the EVENTS that take place concerning my body are determined by the actions of atoms, not the actions of the “big thing” (the whole)? If so, I’m fine with that, but I’m not sure why it matters.

So in essence, I don’t think that the definition of “substance” as “what something can be reduced to” makes sense. Or rather, I myself can’t make sense of it.

The problem with saying that the parts make up the objective substance of the whole, is that there is no clear boundary at the atomic level. How can you really say for sure at which point the matter belongs to your body or not? The physical world is not as exact as our minds perceive it to be.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The problem with saying that the parts make up the objective substance of the whole, is that there is no clear boundary at the atomic level. How can you really say for sure at which point the matter belongs to your body or not? The physical world is not as exact as our minds perceive it to be.

Again, you’re picking up one puzzle, and simply assuming that there’s no way to solve it. The puzzle you identify here is the puzzle of vagueness. Don’t assume there’s no solution to this puzzle until you study it:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/

 

[blase6]

Again, you’re picking up one puzzle, and simply assuming that there’s no way to solve it. The puzzle you identify here is the puzzle of vagueness. Don’t assume there’s no solution to this puzzle until you study it:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/

Why will you not admit that at least you don’t know if objective substance of physical matter is real or not, since all perception of “substance” is within yourself? Even with an objectively real physical world apart from your perception, you cannot perceive substance with your senses. I already covered that.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why will you not admit that at least you don’t know if objective substance of physical matter is real or not, since all perception of “substance” is within yourself?

The conversation isn’t about what I know. The conversation is about your argument. You said you could prove something. Prove it.

Of course, I can’t prove that the objective substance of physical matter is real. I never said that I could.

Even with an objectively real physical world apart from your perception, you cannot perceive substance with your senses.

I never said you could. You infer substance from the evidence of your senses, the same way you infer a poopy diaper from the evidence of your nose.

 

[blase6]

The conversation isn’t about what I know. The conversation is about your argument. You said you could prove something. Prove it.

Of course, I can’t prove that the objective substance of physical matter is real. I never said that I could.

I never said you could. You infer substance from the evidence of your senses, the same way you infer a poopy diaper from the evidence of your nose.

Substance is an idea. An idea is purely spiritual. Substance is a purely spiritual thing. Therefore physical matter has no substance in and of itself.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m not sure that logic works:

Matter is an idea.
An idea is purely spiritual.
Matter is a purely spiritual thing.

Huh?

 

[blase6]

I’m not sure that logic works:

Matter is an idea.
An idea is purely spiritual.
Matter is a purely spiritual thing.

Huh?

Matter is that which is sensed in what is referred to as the physical world. Substance is distinct from basic matter, right? But you cannot show me through basic matter that the substance of a larger object is real. The problem arises in how the large “substance” can be broken down into smaller parts, indicating that the large “substance” did not exist objectively, but was conferred from one’s mind.

I am typing this on a computer. That I experience the computer as a distinct substance is real. But in “reality”, it is a mass of atomic particles and energy.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I am typing this on a computer. That I experience the computer as a distinct substance is real. But in “reality”, it is a mass of atomic particles and energy.

That is merely how you have chosen to conceptualize it.
An atom is not any more real than the computer.
Forces, energy, atoms, are theoretical concepts that emerge from our relationship with the world as we manipulate its various aspects.
They in themselves are as real as the computer with which you are relating in this moment.
I would say that they may be understood as being more real when one favours one sort of relationship with the world than another.
The reality is that there is a computer in front of you, just as there are people and not complex collections of atoms, when you are sitting and conversing with friends.

 

[blase6]

That is merely how you have chosen to conceptualize it.
An atom is not any more real than the computer.
Forces, energy, atoms, are theoretical concepts that emerge from our relationship with the world as we manipulate its various aspects.
They in themselves are as real as the computer with which you are relating in this moment.
I would say that they may be understood as being more real when one favours one sort of relationship with the world than another.
The reality is that there is a computer in front of you, just as there are people and not complex collections of atoms, when you are sitting and conversing with friends.

I prefer to look as deep as possible.

 

[Aloysium]

I prefer to look as deep as possible.

Look truly deeper and you will find He who over-arches all creation.
What you are referring to is merely smaller not deeper.
:twocents:

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Substance is an idea. An idea is purely spiritual. Substance is a purely spiritual thing. Therefore physical matter has no substance in and of itself.

Either (a) you mean that the *concept *of substance is an idea, or (b) you mean that substances *themselves *are ideas.

I agree with (a).

You haven’t given me any reasons to believe (b).

 

[blase6]

Either (a) you mean that the *concept *of substance is an idea, or (b) you mean that substances *themselves *are ideas.

I agree with (a).

You haven’t given me any reasons to believe (b).

(a) is correct for physical things. Spiritual things have objective substance.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In order to protect the sanity of viewers who may have become confused by the " progress " of this thread I enclose below certain Dogmatic statements from the Council Vatican I which speak directly to the issues here. God Almighty created real substances, beings both material and spiritual, living and inanimate. In otherwords he created beings with real natures. In the material realm of course these beings have material constituents comprised of various ultimate particles. These however do not have an indepent nature as constituents of the created natures but function under the power of these natures for the good of the whole natures - they are not independent operators. And while they may be isolated in a laboratory setting for brief, nano seconds of time, that is not their normal state of existence. They normally and in nature exist as a functioning part of the natures of which they are a part. They do not determine the natures in which they exist, it is the natures in which they exist that determine their functionality. And these natures are really existing substances. God creates really existing things, he does not create illusions. And those who claim other wise are… well, are having problems facing reality.

THE VATICAN COUNCIL 1869-1870

Ecumenical XX (on Faith and the Church)

SESSION III (April 24, 1870)

Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith *

1781 But now, with the bishops of the whole world sitting and judging with us, gathered together in this Ecumenical Council by Our authority in the Holy Spirit, We, having relied on the Word of God, written and transmitted as We have received it, sacredly guarded and accurately explained by the Catholic Church, from this chair of PETER, in the sight of all, have determined to profess and to declare the salutary doctrine of Christ, after contrary errors have been proscribed and condemned by the power transmitted to Us by God.

Chap. 1. God, Creator of All Things

1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [can. 1-4].

1783 The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and the effect of creation] . This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body” [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5]

1784 [The result of creation] .But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, “reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly” [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For “all things are naked and open to His eyes” Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

In order to protect the sanity of viewers who may have become confused by the " progress " of this thread I enclose below certain Dogmatic statements from the Council Vatican I which speak directly to the issues here. God Almighty created real substances, beings both material and spiritual, living and inanimate. In otherwords he created beings with real natures. In the material realm of course these beings have material constituents comprised of various ultimate particles. These however do not have an indepent nature as constituents of the created natures but function under the power of these natures for the good of the whole natures - they are not independent operators. And while they may be isolated in a laboratory setting for brief, nano seconds of time, that is not their normal state of existence. They normally and in nature exist as a functioning part of the natures of which they are a part. They do not determine the natures in which they exist, it is the natures in which they exist that determine their functionality. And these natures are really existing substances. God creates really existing things, he does not create illusions. And those who claim other wise are… well, are having problems facing reality.

THE VATICAN COUNCIL 1869-1870

Ecumenical XX (on Faith and the Church)

SESSION III (April 24, 1870)

Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith *

1781 But now, with the bishops of the whole world sitting and judging with us, gathered together in this Ecumenical Council by Our authority in the Holy Spirit, We, having relied on the Word of God, written and transmitted as We have received it, sacredly guarded and accurately explained by the Catholic Church, from this chair of PETER, in the sight of all, have determined to profess and to declare the salutary doctrine of Christ, after contrary errors have been proscribed and condemned by the power transmitted to Us by God.

Chap. 1. God, Creator of All Things

1782 [The one, living, and true God and His distinction from all things.] * The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in and will, and in every perfection; who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world; most blessed in Himself and of Himself, and ineffably most high above all things which are or can be conceived outside Himself [can. 1-4].

1783 The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and the effect of creation] . This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body” [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5]

1784 [The result of creation] .But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, “reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly” [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For “all things are naked and open to His eyes” Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.

Linus2nd

Nothing in the quotes you provided address the idea of objective physical substances. I agree that spiritual objects have objective substance. But you haven’t show me how this applies to macroscopic physical objects.

“And while they may be isolated in a laboratory setting for brief, nano seconds of time, that is not their normal state of existence. They normally and in nature exist as a functioning part of the natures of which they are a part.”

Because you know what the “normal state of existence” for atoms is. All they do is exist and move. Everything we see that is not energy is made of this. It is precisely because physical objects are composed of particles that they do not have objective substance. You can see a mass of matter however your mind arbitrarily decides to, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is ultimately just matter, which even you can see if you look close enough.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nothing in the quotes you provided address the idea of objective physical substances. I agree that spiritual objects have objective substance. But you haven’t show me how this applies to macroscopic physical objects.

“And while they may be isolated in a laboratory setting for brief, nano seconds of time, that is not their normal state of existence. They normally and in nature exist as a functioning part of the natures of which they are a part.”

Because you know what the “normal state of existence” for atoms is. All they do is exist and move. Everything we see that is not energy is made of this. It is precisely because physical objects are composed of particles that they do not have objective substance. You can see a mass of matter however your mind arbitrarily decides to, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is ultimately just matter, which even you can see if you look close enough.

I am not really interested in what your opinions are I was addressing a wider audience, a reasonable audience.

Linus2nd