tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post4510156693817241748..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: In Psearch of Psyche: Let's Get Moving!TheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-5682449733860030042018-02-26T01:59:08.692-05:002018-02-26T01:59:08.692-05:00Maybe soon. There's been a lot of stuff going ...Maybe soon. There's been a lot of stuff going down in Rath uaFloinn.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-24217241741121316292018-02-26T01:55:26.453-05:002018-02-26T01:55:26.453-05:00This has been a great series, thanks for putting i...This has been a great series, thanks for putting it together! Any chance we'll see the next installment soon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-70618238632138364312016-03-03T12:44:51.391-05:002016-03-03T12:44:51.391-05:00Gyan, 'dogma' is the right word. In fact c...Gyan, 'dogma' is the right word. In fact chemistry cannot be re-made *ab initio* - from scratch, as it were - from quantum mechanics. In the scheme TOF is using, QM is the appropriate matter upon which distinctly chemical forms are imposed. See numerous articles by Scerri, some available online. One notes how the Periodic Table cannot be recreated ab initio. Philosophy of chemistry is very much alive and kicking. C KirkChris Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17834018760516156556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-63427778087086513022016-03-02T05:12:19.396-05:002016-03-02T05:12:19.396-05:00"In principle".
In practice we're a..."In principle".<br /><br />In practice we're actually nowhere near that point yet (though part of that is that it's not practical to train chemists as quantum physicists or vice-versa, so none of the people studying the properties actually know all of them).Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-66772375651517143052016-03-01T23:28:52.202-05:002016-03-01T23:28:52.202-05:00According to the current dogma, all properties of ...According to the current dogma, all properties of NaCl are <br />calculable, in principle, from the properties of Na and Cl. <br />This is the reduction of chemistry to physics. Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-17376200253623118952016-03-01T19:36:53.230-05:002016-03-01T19:36:53.230-05:00Isn't the notion of "Final Cause" th...<i>Isn't the notion of "Final Cause" that crucially differentiates living vs nonliving forms?</i><br /><br />From what I understand of Aristotelian philosophy of nature, teleology is an inherent feature of the natural world from top to bottom -- from consciousness and abstract thought, all the way down to simple inorganic processes. As TOF stated, if A causes B "always or for the most part," then there must be something in A that "points toward" B. In other words, final causality is what makes efficient causality intelligible. Without the former, the latter will be composed of events that seem to us entirely "loose and separate" (to use Hume's words).<br /><br />On this view, what distinguishes living things from nonliving things is that living things exhibit a <i>certain kind</i> of teleology, in which causation "begins <i>with</i> the agent and terminates <i>in</i> the agent for the sake <i>of</i> the agent" (David Oderberg, <i>Real Essentialism</i>, p. 180). This is called "immanent causation" and is contrasted with "transient causation," in which the cause terminates in an effect outside the cause and not for the sake of the cause's good or perfection.jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-8858839657761027422016-03-01T13:39:14.518-05:002016-03-01T13:39:14.518-05:00That's a claim falsified though, no? The prope...That's a claim falsified though, no? The properties of sodium and chlorine are nothing like the properties of sodium ions and chloride ions; a pile of sodium sitting next to a cloud of chlorine gas bears little resemblance in properties to a salt crystal of equal mass. That those elements have the potential to form the compound cannot be actualized without something external (bringing them into contact); 'everything moves *ab alio*'.Chris Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17834018760516156556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-30139780186426685222016-03-01T08:12:27.879-05:002016-03-01T08:12:27.879-05:00Great job saving the Wallace diagrams. Additional...Great job saving the Wallace diagrams. Additionally, I find your re-draws easier to read than his. Nice series.Robhttp://ralspaugh.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-37499797664145417782016-03-01T07:23:34.987-05:002016-03-01T07:23:34.987-05:00As I understand it, there can be no motion in phys...As I understand it, there can be no motion in physics without an "attractor" of some sort, an "equilibrium manifold" toward which the system tends. In particular, A cannot cause B "always or for the most part" unless there is something in A that "points toward" B.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-89781292484637745502016-03-01T04:03:53.013-05:002016-03-01T04:03:53.013-05:00Isn't the notion of "Final Cause" th...Isn't the notion of "Final Cause" that crucially differentiates living vs nonliving forms?<br />Analysis of nonliving bodies can be done without invoking final causes. But it is no so with animate bodies. Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-36572963290097422572016-03-01T04:01:22.068-05:002016-03-01T04:01:22.068-05:00"How the parts act as an ensemble is very dif..."How the parts act as an ensemble is very different from how they act solo."<br /><br />Reductionists have no problem with your proposition. What they additionally claim is<br />that properties of parts acting in ensemble are obtainable, in principle, from properties of parts in solo. Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-4678494050348722302016-02-27T15:03:17.357-05:002016-02-27T15:03:17.357-05:00Why are the various powers described above seen as...Why are the various powers described above seen as properties of the form at each level rather than as properties of the form-matter composite (the synolon, to use your terminology)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-77728327489798102372016-02-27T12:53:07.858-05:002016-02-27T12:53:07.858-05:00Hey Mike, I might have missed it at some point, bu...Hey Mike, I might have missed it at some point, but do you have roundups of series posts like this one (even though it is not yet complete), or the one on the First Way, and the like? Thanks!ccmnxcnoreply@blogger.com