Sunday, December 25, 2011

Wondering, can we see substantial change

in the same manner as we measure temperature, or experience radio waves or similar? With temperature, for instance we don't measure temperature, but measure the effect of temperature on some material body which is affected by it. Same with radio waves.

Since obviously, energy particles in a void is not what exists. Because energy only exists in a subject in the same manner as shape, or any other accident only exists in a subject, for example, the shape of a candles exists in the wax, that is exists in the wax as subject. So the question is :

What is it that we are actually seeing?

What is it that we are seeing as energy, (i.e. proton, neutron, quarks or what have you), actually signifying?

What I'm also wondering is :

How close are we to being able to see substantial change actually occur when we look at modern science's model?

What I mean by a model is that what modern science is doing is taking the empirical evidence and turning that evidence into a model which abstractly represents what is actually occurring.

Or look at it this way, the dots on your monitor can be a model of a sunset, or a bunny rabbit. The images abstractly represent a reality. Those dots in a certain order are a model of a real rabbit, or a real sunset. The atomic theory does the same, its an image, a 3d model that can be manipulated.

Is what we see as energy something akin to prime matter? I wonder if what we are seeing is prime matter as close as it can be seen to being in potency? Or what we are seeing is where substantial change occurs since it must occur at some level of size.

Matter doesn't reduce down infinitely, because to all things there is a limit, including a limit to the size matter can be physically divided. So that while substantial change occurs at some very small level, it wouldn't be at an infinitesimally small level. So I wonder, is it at the level we currently see with our machines? The desire to reduce down beyond sight is because mechanist theory requires because it needs matter be extremely fast or slippery somesuch. But we don't require it.

What we do know is that what's now commonly mistaken for indestructible parts, or energy, or somesuch, is at some level prime matter, which is in turn indestructible according to its nature.

Prime matter has the appearance of substance, especially to those who don't grant substantial change, which would in turn give the appearance of all change being accidental.

What exists is a creation that can be modeled mathematically, i.e. what is seen as energy, but which also exists more perfectly according to its nature, but according to its nature is not able to be modeled. With the more perfect being what we grasp as substance because what we grasp is the nature, albeit imperfectly.

And since the more perfect can't be modeled, then in principle it doesn't exist according to modern scientific method. Same as our intellectual soul can't be modeled, so likewise neither does it exist according to modern scientific method.

I wonder if the answers aren't more obvious than we think they are. Which of course doesn't explain the nature of the thing anymore than saying the rational soul causes certain capacities.

[Once again, I could not care less what modern physics has to say on the subject since their mechanistic principles are dead wrong, nice machinery, and nice modeling using that machinery, but technical skill is not the same as understanding.]

Most the material I've read recently appear to be attempting to explain Aristotle in light of modern physics, but turn it around and explain it the opposite way, i.e. this is how modern physics fits with Aristotle. After all the burden of proof is on the machine explanations to explain how their finding are in conformity with our better known self evident knowledge.

Also, most of the material I've read recently is almost despairing, where the considerations are not unlike the modernist theologians. Where modern theological method is to reconcile discrepancies by explaining away the Faith. Or at least explaining away the traditional understanding of it.

So I wonder, what are we seeing with our machines?

Where does a luminiferous aether fit into all this? Does the accident of energy signify a luminiferous aether as something akin to prime matter?


Further wonderings about the modernist explanation, versus the world God has created where we can know commonly with other men and with sufficient capacity. If matter is energy. and energy does not exist in a subject. Where does the energy exist since it would not by nature have a 3 dimensional existence but would be akin to euclidian points. Do euclidian points in real space have real breadth or width. If not, then not only is the void a void, then so likewise would the matter as modernly defined be a void.


  1. Those particles, quarks & c., are measurements made in regions of the space,

    but they are not bodies. The measurements are made in space, and ascribed as

    measurable properties of regions in space; but they don't describe bodies. This is true

    even of the awesome Millikan Oil Drop Experiment, by which he determined the charge on a single electron.
    I like very much your blog.


  2. What has been challanged is our understanding of nature, now expelled from the physical depths of the 'objects' or beings, who remain unitary to some degree, but according to another principle. The fact is, a scholastic inquiry should be able to come with models of these 'natures', albeit not quantitative ones.