Ahh, I see that this “reasonable audience” doesn’t include me.I am not really interested in what your opinions are I was addressing a wider audience, a reasonable audience.
Linus2nd
Of course they have their own natures but that nature is subject to the nature of the substance in which they exist. Their very purpose for existence is to function in the substance in which they exist.Ahh, I see that this “reasonable audience” doesn’t include me.
One more thing. You seem to have claimed that it is the natures of large objects that determine how the particles act. This is not supported by science; all atoms in general function the same no matter which object they are part of.
I tried reading the article. Quantum physics is most likely nonsense. I believe scientists have just reached a point where they can no longer find deterministic causes for subatomic movement; consequently, this field of science seems to be based on the assumption that since they can’t find a pattern or cause, none exists. It is illogical.Of course they have their own natures but that nature is subject to the nature of the substance in which they exist. Their very purpose for existence is to function in the substance in which they exist.
I think you could profit on the article " Causality and Radioactive Decay " by Edward Feser, in Strange Notions.
strangenotions.com/
Linus2nd
The point was that the basic principles of Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy apply at the atomic and subatomic levels of matter as well as at the macro level. There are real causes at work in reality at all levels of structure. These causes can be attributed to the efficient causality of agent causes which ultimately trace back to God and/or the spontaneous action of the nature of a thing. In the latter case the agent cause would ultimately be God who is the efficient cause of the nature. And while atomic and subatomic particles have their own natures, their overall activity is controlled by the substance in which they exist. And it is the nature of the substance in which they exist that is primary. In other words man or horse or water are not simply or primarily a collection of particles of various sorts, but substances with a specific nature.I tried reading the article. Quantum physics is most likely nonsense. I believe scientists have just reached a point where they can no longer find deterministic causes for subatomic movement; consequently, this field of science seems to be based on the assumption that since they can’t find a pattern or cause, none exists. It is illogical.
(I must admit that I don’t know much about quantum physics beyond the basic ideas.)
Oh come on. You can’t tell me that atomic particles behave the way they do because of larger substances. There is no support for that. All atoms generally behave the same way. Being part of a large chunk does create significant changes, but you cannot jump to say that that chunk is an objective substance then.The point was that the basic principles of Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy apply at the atomic and subatomic levels of matter as well as at the macro level. There are real causes at work in reality at all levels of structure. These causes can be attributed to the efficient causality of agent causes which ultimately trace back to God and/or the spontaneous action of the nature of a thing. In the latter case the agent cause would ultimately be God who is the efficient cause of the nature. And while atomic and subatomic particles have their own natures, their overall activity is controlled by the substance in which they exist. And it is the nature of the substance in which they exist that is primary. In other words man or horse or water are not simply or primarily a collection of particles of various sorts, but substances with a specific nature.
Linus2md
If atomic Particles all behave the same way, then this presents a problem for your position. If a substance or nature cannot be more than the sum of its parts, if there cannot be a holistic nature, then a chunk of atoms should not behave or appear any differently than a single atom. New natures and qualities should not emerge in relation to a specific arrangement of atoms. What we should be seeing is simply a mass of atoms, not new natures or qualities.Oh come on. You can’t tell me that atomic particles behave the way they do because of larger substances. There is no support for that. All atoms generally behave the same way. Being part of a large chunk does create significant changes, but you cannot jump to say that that chunk is an objective substance then.
That is not what I said, read it again. I said all the elements which constitute a substance have their activity coodinated by the nature of the substance in which they exist. That does not exclude their own internal functionality.Oh come on. You can’t tell me that atomic particles behave the way they do because of larger substances. There is no support for that. All atoms generally behave the same way. Being part of a large chunk does create significant changes, but you cannot jump to say that that chunk is an objective substance then.
I guess I have to relearn chemistry. I was taught that the element chlorine was a poisonous gas unless it was, along with another element called sodium, part of a larger benign substance called table salt and when this salt was dissolved in water the chlorine became a negatively charged ion.Seems to me that chlorine as part of a solid compound acquired a benign nature and when it became part of a saline solution acquired a electronic nature.Oh come on. You can’t tell me that atomic particles behave the way they do because of larger substances. There is no support for that. All atoms generally behave the same way. Being part of a large chunk does create significant changes, but you cannot jump to say that that chunk is an objective substance then.
No, it is the beginning of movement at the subatomic level which results in macroscopic movement and change.That is not what I said, read it again. I said all the elements which constitute a substance have their activity coodinated by the nature of the substance in which they exist. That does not exclude their own internal functionality.
Linus2nd
I am interested in how you derived such a supposition.No, it is the beginning of movement at the subatomic level which results in macroscopic movement and change.
I realize that that may have sounded materialistic. I didn’t mean that.I am interested in how you derived such a supposition.
Your capacity to have written the above statement and incapacity to understand what is basically common sense does not rest merely in movements happening at a subatomic level.
You, like Richard Dawkins (as pretty much everyone actually knows, but needs to be demonstrated by philosophers in the “enlightened” age - Thx Dr.B.) exist.
This is your belief, but if a nature is more than the sum of its parts, then the parts are also moved by the nature it is apart of. This is to say that subatomic objects behave in relation to the nature it is a part of and is not simply an arbitrary motion from a subatomic level.No, it is the beginning of movement at the subatomic level which results in macroscopic movement and change.
How the whole could be more than sum of its parts? Do you have any argument to support this because I am very interested at very topic?This is your belief, but if a nature is more than the sum of its parts, then the parts are also moved by the nature it is apart of. This is to say that subatomic objects behave in relation to the nature it is a part of and is not simply an arbitrary motion from a subatomic level.
The form is a cause also.
Are you just a pile of atoms then? Do you act and behave just like any one of the 14 or so types of atoms of which you are made? Do your eyes behave like an atom, you brain, your arms, etc. No. The atoms and other particles are a part of who you are. And each atom does have its own individual nature and internal activity. But when they become part of the nature of specific kind, man, dog, cat, etc., the specific nature of which they are a part, controls and coodinates the activity of the total mass of particles for the benefit and well being of the man, dog, cat, etc. And did you know that single atoms simply do not exist outside the nature of a known substance, animal, vegetable, or mineral? They can be trapped in a laboratory setting for brief periods of time. Ane or two sub-atomic particles move randomly through space, but this is not true of most identifiable atoms.No, it is the beginning of movement at the subatomic level which results in macroscopic movement and change.
…All of which are just composed of subatomic particles. Really, it just shows how amazingly simple physical reality is, that so many situations and functions can be constructed from little balls/waves/whatever. Especially when a spirit is allowed to control a group of matter.Are you just a pile of atoms then? Do you act and behave just like any one of the 14 or so types of atoms of which you are made? Do your eyes behave like an atom, you brain, your arms, etc. No. The atoms and other particles are a part of who you are. And each atom does have its own individual nature and internal activity. But when they become part of the nature of specific kind, man, dog, cat, etc., the specific nature of which they are a part, controls and coodinates the activity of the total mass of particles for the benefit and well being of the man, dog, cat, etc. And did you know that single atoms simply do not exist outside the nature of a known substance, animal, vegetable, or mineral? They can be trapped in a laboratory setting for brief periods of time. Ane or two sub-atomic particles move randomly through space, but this is not true of most identifiable atoms.
And it is the same God who made atoms and subatomic particles as the one who made man and the universe. And you know what, he made substances, land, water, the green vegatation, the animals, man, etc.
Linus2nd
All of creation is a miracle. But back to the point. It is true that living things have a spirit or soul. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas would say that primarily they are substantial forms of living things. And they teach, futher, that all substances have a substantial form which makes them to be and to be the specifice kind of thing that they are. Thus, even all the elements have substantial forms. And is the combination of the substantial form of a thing with its designated matter which make it an essence/substance/nature of a specific type.…All of which are just composed of subatomic particles. Really, it just shows how amazingly simple physical reality is, that so many situations and functions can be constructed from little balls/waves/whatever. Especially when a spirit is allowed to control a group of matter.
…And that’s why I stopped following Aquinas. That definition of a spirit is absolutely bizarre and almost insulting to immaterial reality. And from that he made other strange conclusions.All of creation is a miracle. But back to the point. It is true that living things have a spirit or soul. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas would say that primarily they are substantial forms of living things. And they teach, futher, that all substances have a substantial form which makes them to be and to be the specifice kind of thing that they are. Thus, even all the elements have substantial forms. And is the combination of the substantial form of a thing with its designated matter which make it an essence/substance/nature of a specific type.
Linus2nd
That’s where you went off on your logic. Even two rocks have an objective difference because they are different elemental particles. They are not the same physical objects.Everything physical is made of chemicals, chemicals are made of compounds of elements, elements are composed of protons, neutrons, electrons, which can be broken down into other stuff that I don’t know well.
In short, we can keep looking deeper into the composition of physical objects and break the boundaries of substance we perceive in those objects. If you look at a tree with a bird in it, you are basically just seeing the reflection of light from chemicals. The bird’s body has no objective difference in substance from the tree. The tree and the bird just have a different arrangement of matter.
And you can take those different particles, and break them down, and then break those resulting particles down, etc.That’s where you went off on your logic. Even two rocks have an objective difference because they are different elemental particles. They are not the same physical objects.