If it's not one thing, it's another. First, the one thing.
1. If it's not one thing....
Our intrepid Blazing Truth, whom I will call "Blaze" as a nickpseudonym, evidently believes that the God of classical theism is a scientific hypothesis put forward to explain natural phenomena, and that therefore Thomas Aquinas' "First Way" (a.k.a. the "argument from motion") is an attempt at physics and is therefore false because he did not know Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. Unlike many others, he is honest enough to admit that he has in earlier posts misunderstood the nature of the argument and the meanings of the terms as they were used in the argument. He does not change his mind, obviously. He simply reiterates his objections from physics.
Now one of the objections is to the proposition that "whatever is changing is being changed by another." He does not realize that Aristotle and Thomas were aware that a dog, for example, could be changed in location, by its own decision, and what was meant here was that in compound bodies, the motion of the whole (dog) was due to the motion of a part (legs). Thus, when Blaze says
It is wrong to think of the actualization of an atom’s beta decay as *dependent* upon the weak nuclear force. It should instead be said that the weak nuclear force is a property of the atom itself. To be clear, the weak nuclear force is contained within the atom, and it is not an external actualizer. There is no external force which facilitates beta decay.
You will notice that physicist William Wallace included the Weak Force as one of the powers of inorganic being in his model, above. (The others are strong force, gravitational force, and electromagnetic force.) Together, they constitute the substantial form of inorganic being, such as an atom. If any one of them were removed, the matter would cease to be matter as we understand it. Blaze recognizes this, but seems to think it is an objection to Aristotelianism rather than a feature of it.
It is because of virtual particles that spontaneous phenomena exist. Examples of these include but are not limited to: the Casimir force, spontaneous photon emission during decay, Hawking Radiation, etc. Again, it is wrong to say that these particles are dependent upon anything.He evidently thinks that spontaneous changes are not caused by anything. They are magic. On another, linked site, he counters the proposition "whatever is changing is being changed by another" by saying some things are changing without being changed at all. This is a neat trick, actually. (Pun intended.)
Some might say that the spontaneous virtual particle pairs are empirical evidences of God creating. Bingo, there they are, coming out of "nothing." (They aren't really; but then the not-nothing becomes the changer....) The respondeo is "IT JUST IS!" Curiously enough, this was the answer God is said to have given Moses when Mo asked him his name: I JUST AM! For those easily amused, such as me, this is easily amusing.On a linked site, Blaze says:
According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, 1997, 19)Now, the obvious response is that the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics must therefore be wrong. A physicist friend once commented that if a theory results in singularities and paradoxes, there is something wrong with the theory, not with the world. There are, after all, several other interpretations of quantum mechanics, all of them compatible with the observed data and the mathematical laws, and not all of them produce the paradoxes. Mathematical models typically break down precisely at boundary values.
Blaze has also, unwittingly, drawn a line inside the material universe and said, "Thus far can physics lead, but no farther!" After that, it's faith and turtles all the way down, I suppose.
Now the other.
2. ...It's the other.
The problem of the sensibles. Things enter our mind through our senses. The external senses are things like sight, hearing, etc. The inner senses are things like the common sense (which integrates all the sense impressions into a single, not necessarily visual image), memory (which stores the image) and imagination (which manipulates the image). (The intellect then reflects on these perceptions and abstracts concepts from them, and so on.)
Aristotle's terms → Galileo's terms → Descartes terms
Common sensibles → “primary qualities” → “objective” qualities.Proper sensibles → “secondary qualities” → “subjective” qualities
- a thing in the world and
- the subjective/personal dispositions of the one sensing.
|Keine Problem, Werner!|
|Hey, glad to meet you, Ari!|
- We can say that there’s a difference btw the subjective and objective elements of sensation,
- We cannot say what the difference between these two elements is.
The apple really is red!
Physicist Wolfgang Smith has written about this in his book, The Quantum Enigma. He claims that by properly understanding the distinction between the "corporeal apple" and the "physical apple" -- that is between the apple of the senses and the apple of physics -- and understand how these two planes of existence map to each other, we can resolve the quantum paradoxes. Aquinas to the rescue, once again.