Misplaced Aggression
I was thinking. . .
All the outpouring of rage and angst I have been subjected to at various points in my life concerning atomic theory, etc. etc., has been based on a grave misunderstanding both of nature and of physics. All of the objections that people have raised in the past are against some sort of Anaximanderian 'void-motion-hard-indivisible-stuff' theory of the universe. So, to prevent (...) any more confusion on the subject, let me lay down some postulates:
1) Act and potency are real. Aristotle was right. (you may want to copy this for future reference if I waffle)
2) Saint Thomas/Heidegger/Heisenberg are correct. Man (intellectual substance conjoined to matter/Dasein/physicist) affects the world - by being I.S.C.t.M./Dasein/physicist.
3) Einstein is correct. General relativity actually describes the large scale motions and interactions of things in the universe - both philosophically and mathematically.
4) Quantum mechanics speaks of particles analogously (self-admittedly). Quanta are analogous. A thing cannot both be a particle and a wave. (trust me, they know this)
I may think of more as they come to me. But, for now, I think that it is enough to keep these four in mind at all times when thinking about modern science and philosophy/theology. Hateful as it may seem, this is still part of the tradition. It remains to see how these four "postulates" combine to for a cohesive argument. Back to the original point, however, all these have to kept in mind when discussing atomism. This is not the atomism of Newton's Principia, or of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura.
But I've dropped enough names for one night....
I think, and I have said this many times, that STA's On Being and Essence is one of the most important points in the tradition concerning man and his role in the universe. When Thomas includes act of existing in the essence of man (if only to a small degree) the philosophical effects of this are staggering. This, I believe is the foundation on which Dasein rests, and also uncertainty in quantum mechanics. Truly inspired by Thomas, and frequently overlooked.
Argued by
beitiathustra |
6:57 PM
Okay, maybe I'm dense, but I have no idea what your definition of energy means. I'm working on a working definition, but that for the next post.
Argued by
beitiathustra |
7:34 PM
aside, I think your definition has too much of the classical physics in it... but my latest post is another thought on that subject.
Argued by
beitiathustra |
8:42 PM