Matterless particles. Of matter.

-Matterless particles make as much sense as light without ether.

-Take the ether out of light and you are left with a purely geometrical wave. So why not have purely geometrical points? response: a geometrical point could not be used to build up extension. Sed Contra but a purely mathematical particle would be no better than a point at making a physical body! One can’t multiply any Euclidean reality into a real body.

-Photons. Ether particles.

-Speaking experimentally, whether there are particles or a vacuum depends on whether the observer is moving accelerating.


  1. August 27, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    Regarding the last comment (“whether there are particles or a vacuum depends on whether the observer is moving”):

    Is it ever possible for the observer not to move? While, perhaps, hypothetically possible, it does not appear to be actually possible. I stand on a planet that rotates on its axis and revolves around a star, which is part of an ever expanding universe (to put things simply). Where/when is anything ever truly at rest to the point where it could be unmoving?

    (Incidentally, I have not had time to read the full article you linked to, so perhaps my question is answered by important qualifications there.)

  2. Curio said,

    August 29, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    From the article:

    “What is the reason that we can know only the relations among things and not the things themselves? The straightforward answer is that relations are all there is. This leap makes structural realism a more radical proposition, called ontic structural realism.” (p.4)

    How do you respond to this assertion? Up until this point the article seemed to jibe with De Koninck’s philosophy of science…

    • August 29, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      Well, on the one hand, on the Thomistic account of the Trinity, God is a subsistent relation (the Father is Paternity, the son his filiation, the Spirit is common spiration from the Father and Son). And so there is something very attractive in the idea that all creation is just relation; or perhaps that man is the image of God since, by him, there is one cosmos that is the subsistent relation of man/object or Dasein/world or Logos (in mind)/logos (in things), i.e. Though there is one cosmos including man, all the same the cosmos is the term of a relation to the subject and the subject a term of relation to world. The one cosmos is thus an image of the Trinitarian processions.

      On the other hand, there would be problems with denying an innercosmic absolute to innercosmic relativity.

%d bloggers like this: