Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

[Linusthe2nd]

…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.

But the human soul, angels and God are all spirits. These are Dogmatic teachings of the Church. By definition a spirit is a living, immaterial being. Don’t you believe that? If you do, what is the exact point of your objection?

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

But the human soul, angels and God are all spirits. These are Dogmatic teachings of the Church. By definition a spirit is a living, immaterial being. Don’t you believe that? If you do, what is the exact point of your objection?

Linus2nd

My objection is that these are the only noticably concrete substances in the world. Physical objects are just based on perception, they have no base substance which is the same as we see it.

 

[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 think we can trust God, don’t you? He told us he created the heavens with the stars and planets, the sees and the rivers, the dry earth, man, animals, birds, fish, crawling things, vegetation, etc. He didn’t call them substances that’s true. But there is nothing wrong with Aristotle and St. Thomas calling them substances. They did that so they could talk about the different ways things exist, whether in themselves or in another. I don’t think they were being arbitrary, they were laying the ground work for science.

I don’t believe that science has yet " seen " an atom. But they are convinced that all substances are composed of various types of atoms. Are you saying atoms don’t exist?

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

I don’t believe that science has yet " seen " an atom. But they are convinced that all substances are composed of various types of atoms. Are you saying atoms don’t exist?

Linus2nd

If atoms are the basic unit of matter (not accepted) then they are the only real physical substance. The objective substance of physical matter comes into question when one looks at how complex the macroscopic world is, and sees that it comes from smaller and smaller particles which become proportionally more simple.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My objection is that these are the only noticably concrete substances in the world. Physical objects are just based on perception, they have no base substance which is the same as we see it.

I thought you were objecting to the objective existence of souls ( spirits ).

Certainly the material substances of the world have a certain appearance to us. That is how we come to know them. We can see them, feel them, taste them, hear them, smell them.

And they do have a base substance, What we sense exists by reason of the base substance these things exist in. That is, what we sense exists by reason of a base substance. The substance is an existing nature having a specific kind of matter and form, from which the observable characteristics of that thing are known. Philosophers would call these " observables " accidents. Not in the sense that they were not essential, but in the sense that they could have been other wise. They are called accidents because they cannot exist apart from the nature/form/substance to which they adhere. It is also true that these " observables " could be quite different from what they actually are.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If atoms are the basic unit of matter (not accepted) then they are the only real physical substance. The objective substance of physical matter comes into question when one looks at how complex the macroscopic world is, and sees that it comes from smaller and smaller particles which become proportionally more simple.

Then you don’t think God created substances with different natures composed of these various " atoms." So you think that " substances " are just big piles of atoms. In other words that there is no such thing as human nature, or various kinds of animal and vegatative natures, and various kinds of mineral natures?

Do you think that what God calls man is just a pile of " atoms, " having no nature other than that of the individual natures of the " atoms " other that being a " pile of atoms " rather than a single " atom? "

What about the human soul? How does it fit into the " pile of atoms? "

Do you reject the truths and realities of Divine Revelation?
Do you reject mathematical truths?
Do you reject the real discoveries of science?
Do you reject the truths of reality discovered by Philosophy?

Or, is it rather that you just don’t understand one or the other of these things?

Linus2nd.

 

[blase6]

Then you don’t think God created substances with different natures composed of these various " atoms." So you think that " substances " are just big piles of atoms. In other words that there is no such thing as human nature, or various kinds of animal and vegatative natures, and various kinds of mineral natures?

Do you think that what God calls man is just a pile of " atoms, " having no nature other than that of the individual natures of the " atoms " other that being a " pile of atoms " rather than a single " atom? "

What about the human soul? How does it fit into the " pile of atoms? "

Do you reject the truths and realities of Divine Revelation?
Do you reject mathematical truths?
Do you reject the real discoveries of science?
Do you reject the truths of reality discovered by Philosophy?

Or, is it rather that you just don’t understand one or the other of these things?

Linus2nd.

Simply put, since substance is a purely spiritual reality, human natures are real if humans have spiritual souls, animal natures are real if animal natures have spiritual souls, plant/bacteria/etc natures are real if they respectively have spiritual souls.

Everything that is not spiritual is only seen to have objective substance from perception. But since perception of physical things can be different depending upon the person, and the point of view, the “substance” of a physical object is not objectively real. It is subjectively real as long as one thinks it is so.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Simply put, since substance is a purely spiritual reality, human natures are real if humans have spiritual souls, animal natures are real if animal natures have spiritual souls, plant/bacteria/etc natures are real if they respectively have spiritual souls.

Everything that is not spiritual is only seen to have objective substance from perception. But since perception of physical things can be different depending upon the person, and the point of view, the “substance” of a physical object is not objectively real. It is subjectively real as long as one thinks it is so.

And what makes you think all substances are spiritual?
And where did you pick up this idea?

Linus2nd

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12729810:

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.

And you can take those different particles, and break them down, and then break those resulting particles down, etc.My point is that large physical chunks of matter have no objective difference at the deep level, other than being separate instances of particles and location.

Sure, an electron is an electron, but this electron isn’t that electron. The objective difference is that, for the rock example, they are not the same individual particles as the particles composing a different rock. They are not the same particular rock.

 

[blase6]

And what makes you think all substances are spiritual?
And where did you pick up this idea?

Linus2nd

It’s quite simple really. By definition, that which is not physical is spiritual. In the case of matter, calling a group of matter a “dog” is a purely spiritual reality. You can refer to it as “substance”, “name”, “identity”, etc. But the underlying matter does not possess this reality by itself. The furry cellular-based matter does not have intrinsically “dog” as a physical reality. You do not look at an example and literally see “dog”. You are seeing matter, which appears in your mind to correspond to the pre-developed idea of a dog. The idea of the dog is real, but it is only in your mind. Apart from your mind it is only matter.

 

[inocente]

Read Genesis. You don’t hear it talking about atoms, etc. It talks about about living and non-living things, substances.

Yep, bronze age writers didn’t know about atoms but we do now. As a Catholic priest wrote:

“The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. …] The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.” - Georges Lemaître

Philosophically it is incorrect because it is only substances that exist, and these are divided in to ten categories, substances which exist on their own account and accidents which exist in substances or which condition substances or are related to substances in a relationship of dependency.

Aristotle claimed all things are made from the four elements earth, fire, wind and water. He also claimed that heaven is beyond the stars, and so on. His physics was not his strong point.

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.

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.

 

[inocente]

There is no objective substance, because that would be a spiritual reality, which purely physical matter does not have except at the basic level of “matter”, which may never be found.

*"A substance is matter which has a specific composition and specific properties.

Every pure element is a substance. Every pure compound is a substance.

Examples of substances: Iron is an element and hence is also a substance. Methane is a compound and hence is also a substance.

Examples of non-substances: Salt water is not a substance. It is a mixture of two substances - sodium chloride and water. Its composition and therefore its properties are not fixed. Gasoline is not a substance. It is a mixture of hydrocarbons and, depending on the composition of the gasoline mixture, gasoline’s properties can vary." - chemicool.com/definition/substance.html *

That which is physical comprises matter, or energy, or both. (or any other physical force).
That which is not physical is spiritual. A substance is an idea. An idea is not physical, so it must be spiritual.

I’ve been away and read the whole thread today. One reason why I think people are disagreeing with you is you’ve overcooked your dualism. You imply that since 1+1=2 isn’t physical, it must exist on some spiritual plane, and every idea which everyone ever had would need to exist in a similar supernatural manner.

Rather than dividing the world into physical and spiritual, a more usual distinction would be between facts and ideas, between concrete and abstract. The idea of substance is an abstraction. A specific instance of a substance is concrete. But neither are spiritual. The Holy Spirit is spiritual.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It’s quite simple really. By definition, that which is not physical is spiritual. In the case of matter, calling a group of matter a “dog” is a purely spiritual reality. You can refer to it as “substance”, “name”, “identity”, etc. But the underlying matter does not possess this reality by itself. The furry cellular-based matter does not have intrinsically “dog” as a physical reality. You do not look at an example and literally see “dog”. You are seeing matter, which appears in your mind to correspond to the pre-developed idea of a dog. The idea of the dog is real, but it is only in your mind. Apart from your mind it is only matter.

Then why would I have reason to believe the thing I see is a dog, and not a chicken? Surely I have no spiritual evidence, only physical evidence. Doesn’t your claim lead to skepticism?

As an aside, no one is claiming that name of an object is its essence. The name *refers to *the essence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yep, bronze age writers didn’t know about atoms but we do now. As a Catholic priest wrote:

“The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. …] The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.” - Georges Lemaître

So you don’t think God created men, animals, birds, fish, vegetation, the bodies of waters, etc?. In other words, are you saying that God just created piles of atoms, differently arranged and combined? Does it seem beyond reason to you that God would use " atoms " as the constituent materials for the natures he created for man, animal, bird, etc.?

Can’t see what Lemaitre has to do with this. And I don’t know about bronze age writers, but the ancient Greeks were smart enough to see that all the natures that comprised the universe were made of some underlying " stuff. " Pretty good for a bunch of " rubes. " And some of them even called this " stuff " atoms. Imagine that.

Aristotle claimed all things are made from the four elements earth, fire, wind and water. He also claimed that heaven is beyond the stars, and so on. His physics was not his strong point.

Yep. He was one of the rubes. And he really believed, along with the other rubes, that there was a common physical structure to " bodies. " He also insisted that these bodies were not simply piles of " stuff, " but were mere parts to a greater, more perfect nature.

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.

On the contrary, it is modern scientism ( notice I am not sayin science ) that is reductionist. It reduces all reality to " atoms, molecules, cells, etc., ignoring the natures God created.

Here is a quote of mine from another post.

" I think the confusion here is that you are thinking of substantial and accidental changes in a scientific manner. But when I speak of these things I am speaking in a metaphysical way. Science and philosophy view the same reality in different ways. Remember that " metaphysical " means beyond or underlying the physical.

Pretend that I am a builder and I want to build a house. I buy lumber, nails, wiring, plumbing materials, roofing materials and a lot of other stuff and build a house. You will agree that the house is a different thing, has a different nature, than the individual " stuff " that I use to build the house. All this " stuff " still contains its own individual nature, but now it all combines for the good of the house. It all becomes subject to the nature of the house.

Now I discover that I have some left over " stuff, " so I decide to add a small back porch to the house. This could be called an " accidental " change. The basic house is still there but now it has the added feature of a small back porch, something that does not change the nature of the house.

After many years a tornado comes along and demolishes the house. Now the house is gone and all my " stuff " is scattered around who knows where. This would be an example of a substantial change.

Your point about " layering " sees only the physical reality of the " stuff " which makes the man or the cat or the horse or whatever. The philosopher would say, " Yes but there is a deeper reality than the " stuff…" There is the reality of the man, the cat, the horse, or whatever. These natures are certainly composed of a lot of " stuff, " and while this " stuff " retains its own nature, it does not behave entirely on its own. It serves under the guidance or governance of the nature of which it is the physical building blocks.

Dr. Bonnette speaks to this in his video, but in a slightly different way. I think Edward Feser addresses the same things in Aquinas, in many of his blogs, and in his videos.

Here is a long video where Dr. Bonnette addresses some of these issues.
youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

*"A substance is matter which has a specific composition and specific properties.

Every pure element is a substance. Every pure compound is a substance.

Examples of substances: Iron is an element and hence is also a substance. Methane is a compound and hence is also a substance.

Examples of non-substances: Salt water is not a substance. It is a mixture of two substances - sodium chloride and water. Its composition and therefore its properties are not fixed. Gasoline is not a substance. It is a mixture of hydrocarbons and, depending on the composition of the gasoline mixture, gasoline’s properties can vary." - chemicool.com/definition/substance.html*

I’ve been away and read the whole thread today. One reason why I think people are disagreeing with you is you’ve overcooked your dualism. You imply that since 1+1=2 isn’t physical, it must exist on some spiritual plane, and every idea which everyone ever had would need to exist in a similar supernatural manner.

Rather than dividing the world into physical and spiritual, a more usual distinction would be between facts and ideas, between concrete and abstract. The idea of substance is an abstraction. A specific instance of a substance is concrete. But neither are spiritual. The Holy Spirit is spiritual.

I don’t really care what the scientist’s definition of “substance” is.

In a sense, 1+1=2 is somehow real in the physical world because we perceive it, but mathematics remains a purely abstract concept which we use to make sense of the world.

 

[blase6]

On the contrary, it is modern scientism ( notice I am not sayin science ) that is reductionist. It reduces all reality to " atoms, molecules, cells, etc., ignoring the natures God created.

You continually state this but have not shown how God can create an objectively real physical nature. Since “nature” is a spiritual idea it can only objectively apply to a spirit.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It’s quite simple really. By definition, that which is not physical is spiritual. In the case of matter, calling a group of matter a “dog” is a purely spiritual reality. You can refer to it as “substance”, “name”, “identity”, etc. But the underlying matter does not possess this reality by itself. The furry cellular-based matter does not have intrinsically “dog” as a physical reality. You do not look at an example and literally see “dog”. You are seeing matter, which appears in your mind to correspond to the pre-developed idea of a dog. The idea of the dog is real, but it is only in your mind. Apart from your mind it is only matter.

You are correct in a way. The nature of the dog is the composite of its matter and its soul. The soul of the dog ( its substantial form ) is what determines this matter to be a dog. And you are right, we cannot see the nature as such, all we see is the outer surface of the matter. But we know in our mind that it is a dog we are looking at and not just a pile of atoms. Appart from my mind what I see is a furry creature that I know is a dog. So I am not deceived, the dog actually exists.

And all the elements on the periodic table also have a nature, they too are composits of matter and substantial form, which determine their natures. Thus we get gold, iron, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. Their substantial forms are not spiritual however since they are not living things. They have what Aquinas would call " material " forms. We can’t see these forms either, but we know they exist from observing the properties of the substances in which they exist.

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

You are correct in a way. The nature of the dog is the composite of its matter and its soul. The soul of the dog ( its substantial form ) is what determines this matter to be a dog. And you are right, we cannot see the nature as such, all we see is the outer surface of the matter. But we know in our mind that it is a dog we are looking at and not just a pile of atoms. Appart from my mind what I see is a furry creature that I know is a dog. So I am not deceived, the dog actually exists.

And all the elements on the periodic table also have a nature, they too are composits of matter and substantial form, which determine their natures. Thus we get gold, iron, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. Their substantial forms are not spiritual however since they are not living things. They have what Aquinas would call " material " forms. We can’t see these forms either, but we know they exist from observing the properties of the substances in which they exist.

Linus2nd

The problem with insisting that some matter objectively belongs to the spiritual reality is because there is no clear boundary between what is the body and what isn’t. We cannot say if the matter which is objectively “dog body” is the matter which makes up the cells, or the substances which are contained inside the cells, etc. This is compounded by the fact that organisms constantly replace the matter in their bodies.

I don’t get how a “material” form can be real. If a “form” is by definition spiritual, then a “material form” is an oxymoron.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You continually state this but have not shown how God can create an objectively real physical nature. Since “nature” is a spiritual idea it can only objectively apply to a spirit.

I really don’t know how God " does it, " and no one ever will. That is one of God’s little secrets and our puney intellects could ever understand it if God tried to explain it. However the nature of a thing is the entire thing, the matter and the substantial form. The nature answers the question, " What is this thing? " We also call it a substance or an essence or a being, and I guess that depends on what we want to stress.

These are spiritual only as concepts in the mind. They are real as they apply to a specific individual.

However some natures can be spiritual in reality. The human soul, an angel, God are spiritual essences or beings or substances.

L.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The problem with insisting that some matter objectively belongs to the spiritual reality is because there is no clear boundary between what is the body and what isn’t. We cannot say if the matter which is objectively “dog body” is the matter which makes up the cells, or the substances which are contained inside the cells, etc. This is compounded by the fact that organisms constantly replace the matter in their bodies.

I don’t get how a “material” form can be real. If a “form” is by definition spiritual, then a “material form” is an oxymoron.

I see no problem in calling the substantial form of inanimate substances spirits, for they clearly are not material. Thomas and Aristotle would cringe and give me a " D " for saying it though. But the truth is that neither of them ever gave a clear definition of what these forms actually were - as far as I know; So as long as we don’t confuse them with living spirits or souls, then we are O.K;

So let’s just say that these " spirits " are simply the organizing principle of a substance, which brings it existence and detemines the specific kind of matter for its nature, and carries with it the " operation manual " for the specific kind of substance it is organizing.

Both these non-living forms and the living forms or souls of man, animals, vegetation fill the entire substance they exist in, every atom, every molecule, through and through. In fact Thomas says the whole soul is in every part of the body. Likewise for the " spirits " of inanimate substances.

So there simply is no boundry between the material and the spiritual, the matter and the form.

You know I am trying to explain things to you that took me fifty years to learn. But then I am a slow learner.

Linus2md