Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999
Metaphysical fundamentality
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
>From: Phil Oliver
>
>Metaphysical fundamentality boils down to: The stuff
>whose identity does not change but is rearranged into
>other stuff that can change. Or maybe conceptually:
>Fundamental physical identity vs. geometric physical
>identity (i.e. fundamental particles change location
>but not identity.)
Not to spite Aristotle, but he once thought the stars had the
immutable quality Phil is ascribing to the elementary particles
-- both are wrong, and for the same reason.
Aristotle's conception of causality went a long ways in
correcting this mistake, he just didn't apply it consistently to
the stars (in this regard, he was a bit too much of an empiricist).
There seems to be a need in some people's thinking for there to
be an immutable physical thing in existence they can mentally
rest upon, or their idea of existence is blown to smithereens.
This actually occurred to some physicists who thought the
elementary particles were immutable. When it was discovered that
each of the elementary particles (electrons, protons, etc.)
could be created and destroyed in certain nuclear reactions,
their entire world view collapsed. They spent the rest of their
lives denying the reality of the experiments as if their life
depended upon it.
Change is a fundamental aspect of existence, and this holds true
for every aspect of existence. There are no immutable things in
existence -- not anywhere, whether we talk about the macro-level
or the micro-level.
The law of identity does not imply that there is something which
is immutable, the existence and action of which explains all
types of change. What it does say is that an entity can only
change insofar as it is that something. In other words, when
paper burns, it does not change its identity, but rather paper
burns because of its identity. This is the crucial point that
needs to be grasped to alleviate the Heraclitus flux, rather
than searching for an immutable "basic stuff" that never changes.
I would argue that the law of identity and its corollary, the
law of causality, forbids the immutable. If an entity was
immutable, it would not be able to act according to its nature,
thus violating the law of causality. To say that it can act, but
only via local motion, is to say it is immune from the law of
causality.
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 04:47:18 -0500 (EST)
Metaphysical fundamentality
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
>From: Stephen Speicher
>I fail to see how this supports an argument against anything
>being immutable. Do you think that particles are literally
>'created' out of nothing, and when 'destroyed' they return to a
>state of nothingness (whatever that may mean)?
This is a gross non sequitur from my statement. As I understand
it, certain nuclear reactions lead to the destruction of
"elementary particles" (electrons, protons, etc.) and give rise
to gamma rays, muons, and other things. No one has yet -- as far
as I know -- concluded that these elementary particles are
composed of gamma rays, muons, and whatnot; but I'm not sure why
they haven't.
>The Law of Identity does not imply any _particular_ something
>_must_ be immutable, but it does imply, since there is no
>infinite regress of causality, that there _must_ exist a
>_something_ which is immutable.
Not necessarily. Nuclear reactions, especially of the type in
atom bombs, shows that the particles (plutonium or uranium) are
converted into gamma rays and high energy particles. This
implies the possibility that on the quantum level (or further
down), there can be a sort of cycling from particle to gamma ray
(and back again in other types of nuclear reactions). The exact
details of how this works is still unclear.
