By irreducibility I simply mean that the entity has no part. This to me applies to both material and immaterial unless you can argue otherwise.A confusion of categories. Properties unique to the category of material beings (irreducibility) do not apply to the category of spiritual beings.
I am not sure whether spiritual being can be annihilated. We have no evidence for that, similar to material entities.Elevate the categories to created things and one might claim:
Spiritual beings and material beings can be annihilated.
Isn’t soul immortal?Therefore, spiritual and material beings that can be annihilated are created.
Yes, but you have no evidence nor an argument for that. I have no evidence for this too but I have an argument: designability requires that the being is made of parts.I did read it, that is why I am posting. There you posted that “Something which is irreducible is indesignable.” which you said later is as assumption. I am giving an example that is counter to your assumption, by showing the definitions of the words used. Something which is irreducable (the simplest form: essence) is designable (has intention, purpose) according to the dictionary.
Originally Posted by Vico View Post
An entity with the simplest essence is such.
Collins Dictionary
design (noun) an end aimed at or planned for; intention; purpose
irreducable (adjective) not able to be brought to a simpler or reduced form
form (noun) (philosopny) essence as opposed to matter
- By irreducibility I simply mean that the entity has no part. This to me applies to both material and immaterial unless you can argue otherwise.
- I am not sure whether spiritual being can be annihilated. We have no evidence for that, similar to material entities.
- Isn’t soul immortal?
Translation: “There is no problem in creation of entity which is irreducible and is not composed of parts.” We agree.There is no problem in creation of entity which is irreducible and has no design.
In the OP, premise 3 states that “an act of creation requires design.” By modus tollens, if something does not have a design, then it was not created. But you are saying that a string does not have design but yet it can be created. Therefore, one of the following is false:I didn’t say that string cannot be created. They have no design and they are irreducible.
Again that contradicts premise 3 in the OP.The issue is that if the an irreducible entity has design. If it doesn’t have then it can be created.
Why is there a problem with the soul? Because a soul is immaterial? A string would also be immaterial since it is not composed of parts, i.e it does not have matter. What is your definition of “material” and “immaterial?”The problem with material world is resolved but we still have the problem with the soul.
This is the crux of the matter. Earlier we said something is “designed” if it composed of parts. But now we are saying that something is designed if it “has attributes.”It is impossible to create an angel since an angel is irreducible yet it has attributes (it has design).
That is an assumption and is contrary to some of the dictionary definitions of the words themselves. So you have narrowly defined design and do not define parts.Yes, but you have no evidence nor an argument for that. I have no evidence for this too but I have an argument: designability requires that the being is made of parts.
The bold part is meaningless. Something which has no part/irreducible cannot be annihilated. The problem is how it could be created.
- Material things can only be reduced to 1 part.** If the 1 part is reduced then the material is annihilated.** Souls have no parts.
Why? Things could be irreducible meaning that they cannot be created but once they exist then they cannot be annihilated, such as God.
- If a thing can be created from nothing then it can be annihilated to nothing.
This makes no sense to me.
- Souls are immortal only by God’s choice.
I think we are deviating from OP because I see problem arises: The main ideas in OP were designability and creability, namely, if something is irreducible is indesignable and something which has no design cannot be created.Translation: “There is no problem in creation of entity which is irreducible and is not composed of parts.” We agree.
I think (2) is wrong. Something which is irreducible cannot be created and annihilated, such as string. However to the best of my knowledge in particle physics, electron and positron can be created and annihilated so I am in trouble now.In the OP, premise 3 states that “an act of creation requires design.” By modus tollens, if something does not have a design, then it was not created. But you are saying that a string does not have design but yet it can be created. Therefore, one of the following is false:
- An act of creation requires design.
- Strings are created and have no design.
I think that our discussion deviated from OP. Something which is irreducible cannot be created.Again that contradicts premise 3 in the OP.
I think that we have problem with soul and string since both of them are irreducible and cannot be created, yet they cannot be annihilated if they already exist. I don’t understand how a irreducible thing can be simply annihilated so I accept my error in accepting that string can be annihilated.Why is there a problem with the soul? Because a soul is immaterial? A string would also be immaterial since it is not composed of parts, i.e it does not have matter. What is your definition of “material” and “immaterial?”
I think that is because we deviated from OP and now we return to it.This is the crux of the matter. Earlier we said something is “designed” if it composed of parts. But now we are saying that something is designed if it “has attributes.”
String interact with each other. I am however not well literate on subject matter.Unless there is equivocation occurring, then by transitivity “being composed of parts” is the same as “having attributes.” Hence if strings have no parts, then they have no attributes, and if they have no attributes then they should have no causal influence on anything else, but yet they supposedly enter into composition in reducible entities. Unless the phrase “having attributes” is not denoting that the object in question has some kind of characteristic being, in which case you will have to define what you mean by “having attributes.”
We can define words for our own purpose.That is an assumption and is contrary to some of the dictionary definitions of the words themselves.
By design I mean that the being has some attributes which are derived from its parts. By parts I mean what a being is constituted of.So you have narrowly defined design and do not define parts.
If using Categories metaphysics of Aristotle, primary substances, e.g., the individual plants and animals, are compounds of form and matter, and Aristotle suggests that a compound (has parts) cannot be a substance.We can define words for our own purpose.
By design I mean that the being has some attributes which are derived from its parts. By parts I mean what a being is constituted of.