Ontology and science

On the classical Aristotelian metaphysics inherited by the medieval scholastics, every primary substance ... has a secondary substance-kind ... that pertains to it and without which it could not exist. ... (Thomas H. McCall, An Invitation to Analytic Christian Theology, 104)

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that seeks to deal with the nature of reality. Part of that is the nature of all reality, thus they deal with questions involving whether reality is actually real in a material sense or not. That level of metaphysics goes beyond scientific examination because it deals with the ultimate reality of things beyond that of science. However, there is another level of metaphysics which in the modern world has mostly gone obsolete, that of Aristotelian substances and accidents, where that level of metaphysics seek to discover the nature of things as they are present in real life. In the modern world, science in the fields of physics, chemistry, and biology have supplanted this level of metaphysics, and have provided answers to these questions that are far more practical and much better approximations to the truth. Nevertheless, a new level of interest in Aristotelianism has arisen recently. Perhaps such is due to the failure of modern philosophy to provide a unitary vision of the truth. Perhaps it is due to an interest in virtue ethics of which Aristotle has much to contribute. Or perhaps it is due to influence from certain fields of theology where Aristotelianism has laid dormant and are now uncritically accepted due to a unbiblical view of what theological retreival should mean for a Reformed Christian. Needless to say, this resurrection of Aristotelian metaphysics is deeply troubling. Part of that of course is that the notion of Aristotelian substance and accidents are just plain wrong; science has shown that to be the case. The same people who are resurrecting Aristotle, either Aristotle himself or Aristotle as mediated through Aquinas, are the same people who are benefitting from the applications of modern science, science that would not be possible if scientists stuck with Aristotelian metaphysics!

Reality can be described and explained in many ways. There is therefore nothing wrong with using Aristotelian categories if one understands them to be mere descriptions. However, the claim that these are true of reality is an ontic claim, and that is a problem because such claims are demonstrably false. For example, a dog as substance would possess the "substance-kind" dogness or caninity. But there is no such ontological thing as "dogness." A dog is an emergent substance formed by the expression of instructions found in the canine DNA of dog cells. "Dogness" is at best information encoded by DNA. That information in turn does not produce an ontological substance called "dog" but rather a bunch of phenotypes that we collectively called "dog." Platonism with its view of forms is more amenable to modern science here, since dog phenotypes can be called its "form." Even then, there is no "dog substance" that is combined with a "dog form," since the substance of DNA, proteins, and carbohydrates are common to all animals.

The substance of living things are the molecules that form the thing, or the particular permutation of molecules in various cellular structures. The substance of all living things are therefore the same, since all living things have DNA, proteins, carbohydrates and so on. There is no "dog substance," no "human substance" and so on. Dog cells and human cells, the fundamental living unit of dogs and humans respectively, are emergent substances that form as the "form" from the instructions on the DNA imprints unto the cells to form these different dog and human cells. Dogs are made of dog cells, tertiary substances that can only emerge from the imprint of dog DNA information unto them. There is no primary substance called "dog"‐ never has been and never will be.

With the resurrection of Aristotle, we can expect to see bad philosophy, bad science and bad theology. In philosophy, one can obviously find alternatives to Aristotelianism. That cannot be said to be true of much of classical Christian theology, which needs a good round of de-Aristotelianism to bring it out of captivity to this false philosophy.

Some questions regarding Jason Lisle's ASC model of light-speed

In his book The Physics of Einstein, scientist Jason Lisle describes the theories and implications of Special and, to a lesser extent, General Relativity. Towards the end of his book, he wrote about the issue of measuring the one-way speed of light, stating correctly that all measurements of the speed of light so far has been the two-way speed of light. The model Lisle is promoting is the anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC) whereby the speed of light is different in one direction than it is in its return trip. Specifically, light could be infinite in speed in one direction, while having half c when it returns. Besides changing the reference plane, the choice between the conventional view and Lisle's ASC cannot be decided based upon current empirical evidence. So which one of them is correct?

While versions of ASC exists that might be plausible, I think that Lisle's version with an infinite one-way speed is problematic. Let us start with the first problem with such a view of light:

c = fλ

where c is speed of light, f is frequency, and λ is wavelength

Now, the different waves of the electromagnetic spectrum follow this equation, as they travel at the speed of light. The different types of waves are distinguished by their wavelengths, where radio waves have long wavelengths while X-rays have very short wavelengths. The question for an infinite speed of light is simple: If light has infinite speed, how can the different types of radiation function? For speed to be infinite implies an infinite frequency, but if both speed and frequency are infinite, then the wavelength does not make any sense, does it?

The second problem with Lisle's ASC comes from this:

E = hf

where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is frequency

If light has infinite speed, then it must have infinite frequency. But if light has infinite frequency, then does it not have infinite energy? Given that in Lisle's model, the one-way speed of light from the stars to earth imply that everything we see in the night sky is actually happening now (since light speed is infinite one way), then shouldn't the light from these stars have infinite energy and destroy Earth by now? Now, Lisle could rescue his scenario by making Planck's constant variable (not a constant), or assert that the energy of a photon depends on the two-way speed despite its one-way speed, an assertion that makes no sense since the photon that reaches earth from the stars do not return to those stars but are absorbed (and maybe partially reflected) by the Earth.

Lastly, the question of direction is to be raised. What makes light move at innfinite speed in a certain direction? The reason why the speed of light is seen be to equal in both directons is that we have no reason to think otherise. Expansion of space does not help because that means that the one-way speed of light varies according to direction, whereas light coming to earth is from many different directions.

Due to these problems, I do not think Lisle's version of ASC is acceptable. Since the speed of light is fundamental to many different equations and the nature of reality, I think it takes more to postulate ASC than it is to hold to the conventional view. While ASC is not necesssarily wrong, the burden of proof is on those who hold to such theories to justify them as superior to the conventional view, not just as a possible alternate view.

On the issue of relative motion

For another thing, McGinn argues, there are difficulties with the thesis itself, never mind the argument for it First of all, on analysis it appears to be incoherent. Consider a universe with just two objects, A and B. Suppose that from A’s frame of reference, A is stationary and B is moving toward A, whereas from B’s frame of reference, B is stationary and A is moving toward B. According to the relationalist, there is no fact of the matter about which is really moving. Relative to A, B is moving and A is not, and relative to B, A is moving and B is not, and that is all that can be said. But remember that local motion is change with respect to place or location. For B to move, then, is for it to be at location L1 at one moment and at a different location L2 at the next. Now, since B is indeed moving from A’s frame of reference, the locations L1 and L2 that B is at at each movement must be different locations. But since B is not moving from B’s frame of reference, the locations L1 and L2 that B is at at each moment must not be different locations. So L1 and L2 are both identical and not identical. But that is absurd. (Edward Feser, Aristotle's Revenge, p. 213)

Second, McGinn argues that the relativity of motion becomes implausible once we factor in considerations other than motion. If we are only considering only their motion, we could say either that the sun is at rest and that the earth is moving relative to the earth, or that the earth is at rest and the sun is moving relative to the earth. However, when we factor in the different masses of the sun and the earth, this is no longer the case. … The motions considered in the abstract may be symmetrical, but the causal factors are not, so that there is a fact of the matter about which is really moving relative to which. (p. 214)

A major paradigmatic shift in science has been the shift from an absolute frame of reference to a relative frame of reference. This is especially evident when one considers the theories of relativity. Depending on the frame of reference, an object can be considered to be in motion, or be stationary. Superficially, we take the Earth to be stationary when calculating motion on Earth, although we understand the Earth to be in motion around the Sun. But relative frames of reference mean more than considering something to be a stationary point of reference. It means that the frame of reference can be swapped such that if one object X is seen as stationary, the other, Y, is seen as in motion. But if Y is seen as stationary, then X is seen to be in motion. Therefore, the very concept of "motion" is relative. It is this concept that Edward Feser, citing McGinn's argument, disputes.

McGinn's argument seems valid enough. If B is seen as moving, which is true from A's perspective, it moves from point L1 to point L2. However, if B is seen as stationary (B's perspective) and A is moving, then surely B is at point L1 and remains at point L1, never moving to point L2. Such an argument however misunderstands how relative frames of reference works. In relative frames of reference, there is no such thing as absolute points of space, and it is this error that McGinn commits.

To perceive the nature of the error, let us place a marker at point L1 and a marker at point L2, and name them M1 and M2 respectively. In A's frame of reference, B is moving towards A and it moves from L1 to L2. Thus, B would have moved past M1 and M2, as M1 and M2 are both stationary in A's frame of reference. Consider however what would be the case in B's frame of reference. If B is considered stationary, then A is moving towards B. The markers M1 and M2 would also move towards B, since they are in the same situation as A. Since M1 and M2 supposedly mark L1 and L2 respectively, then it could be said that L1 and L2 move towards B. In other words, in B's point of reference, to the extent that points L1 and L2 are supposed to be points in space, they "move" towards B if B is taken to be the frame of reference. This is seen in the diagram below:

McGinn's error therefore is in assuming that L1 and L2 mean anything at all in relative frames of motion. The entire concept of frames of reference is precisely to assert that just as there is no such thing as a fixed frame to consider motion, so there is no fixed frame to consider location. L1 and L2 only make sense in A's frame of reference, not in B's.

Feser's next paragraph deals with gravitational rotation, which is the realm of the general theory of relativity. Unfortunately, I have not really learned the General Theory of Relativity, but from my limited understanding, it is false to assert that rotation of the earth around the sun disproves relative frames of motion. First of all, the earth does not technically revolves around the sun. Rather, it revolves around the center of gravity of the entire solar system. The sun "wobbles" so to speak since it makes up most but not all of the mass of the solar system. This shows that it is not the sun as an object that is considered stationary, but rather motion under the force of gravity follows the curvature of space-time. Since space-time curvature is asymmetrical in the case of the solar system, so we do say that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

Relative frames of motion are apparent however when the space-time curvature is symmetrical, as in the case of a binary star system with stars of equal masses. In this case, it is true that star C revolves around star D, and star D revolves around star C, and also that both stars revolve around their common center of gravity, as seen in the figure below:

As it can be seen, where space-time curvature is symmetrical, relative frames of motion are present. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the sun revolves around the earth, is due to the asymmetrical nature of the space-time curvature caused by the sun, and therefore this example is not a valid one in disproving relative frames of motion.

Having examined the arguments put forward by McGinn and repeated by Feser, it is evident that their arguments against relative frames of reference betrays an ignorance of the science involved. While one can legitimately ask whether an absolute point of reference with regards to space, motion, or even time is or should be present, it is fallacious to claim that relative frames of references make no sense and are self-contradictory. They are certainly counter-intuitive, but self-contradictory nonsense they are not. Feser would certainly benefit from some science education, as the arguments he has put forward here betray an ignorance of science as a subject.

How does color emerge?

The atomist maintains that when the banana goes from being green to being yellow, the only change that occurs in the banana itself is a change in the arrangement of atoms and their impact on the sense organs. Neither the greenness nor the yellowness we see is really there in the banana in the first place, but only in the conscious experience of the perceiver. … But in fact this neither reduces qualitative change to local motion nor eliminates it, but merely relocates it. For example, the qualitative change from green to yellow is now, in effect, located in the conscious perceiver himself rather than in the banana. It is a transition from the perceiver’s experiencing greenish qualia to his experiencing yellowish qualia. (Edward Feser, Aristotle's Revenge, p. 210)

Why do we see color? As explained by science, light waves of certain wavelength (in the visible light spectrum) have certain colors. In the object being seen, some light is absorbed by the surface of that object due to the photons with that energy level being absorbed by electrons in the atoms in the molecules on an area on the surface of the object. The light waves that are not absorbed are reflected from the object, and the wavelength of these light waves have a certain color. When we observe that object with our eyes, the light waves reflected from the object enter our eyes and our minds read the color of the object from the wavelength of light that has entered our eyes.

The reason why I have briefly gone through the science of optics here is to correct what seems to be confusion on the part of Edward Feser. Contrary to Feser, color changes are not changes in the perceiver only. In the case of a banana being ripened, the cells of the banana have ripened, and this ripening came about through a cascading set of chemical changes within the banana cell. Part of this ripening process is the changing of molecules on the surface of the banana, causing the electrons of the atoms in the molecules on the surface of the banana to start reflecting yellow light and not green light. Certainly, in the philosophy of mind, the question of how the color is translated into what we know as "green" and "yellow" is asked, but that is not the issue in question here.

When it comes to secondary qualities like color, the term "secondary" is not synonymous with "imaginary" or "false" or "not real." Rather, the term "secondary" means that these qualities are derived qualities that come into being due to the interaction of objects with subjects. It is subjective in that sense. For imagine if an alien organism has the ability to see infrared radiation as well, the banana would not appear to that organism purely "green" or purely "yellow," but probably tinted with shades of red. Since for that alien organism the banana does not appear "green" or "yellow," does it mean that the banana suddenly lose its "attribute" of being "green" or "yellow"? The asking of this question should manifest to us why color is said to be a secondary quality not a primary quality. Or take another example in a spaceship that is travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. All incoming light at the front of the spaceship would be blue-shifted. At a certain speed, anyone looking out of the front of that spaceship would see infrared radiation as visible light. Do these celestial bodies in front of the spaceship change their color "attribute" at all? Again, the question itself make no sense since it ignores how color is perceived in subjects.

In science therefore, to state something is a secondary quality is not to say these things do not truly exist except in the mind. All secondary qualities do exist, but they are emergent qualities not fundamental qualities. Feser should really brush up on his science, because not understanding science is undermining his case.

The modern versus the Neo-Aristotelian conception of scientific laws

The standard view of laws of nature regards them as universal regularities, ordered in something like a pyramidal structure, and where at least the laws at the apex of the pyramid are ontologically fundamental in the sense that they don’t presuppose anything else (except God, for proponents of the standard view who are theists). They are universal in the sense that they hold everywhere and always. … When we reach the laws at the top of the pyramid, we have (if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor) reached metaphysical bedrock. (For the atheist, anyway. Again, the theist who is committed to this picture of laws would say that God is the cause of the laws. Even for such theists, though, there is nothing in the natural world that is more basic than the laws.) (Edward Feser, Aristotle's Revenge, p. 177)

There is another way to understand laws of nature, however, which is most famously associated with Nancy Cartwright and first set out in the essay collected in her influential book How the Laws of Physics Lie (1983). On Cartwright’s view, each of the tenets of the standard view is false. First, laws are not universal regularities. Or to be more precise, if interpreted as universal regularities, laws turn out not to be strictly true; whereas if they are interpreted in a way that makes them come out true, they are no longer strictly universal. … Laws are true only ceteris paribus, only when certain conditions obtain. In that case though, they correctly describe the behavior of the entities they govern only under those particular conditions, and are not true of the entities universally. (p. 178)

A second way Cartwright departs from the standard view is by denying that laws are ontologically fundamental. What are fundamental to the entities studied by physics and the other sciences are rather their natures and capacities (Cartwright 1999, pp. 59-73, 78-90). By virtue of these natures and capacities, entities “try” or “tent” to behave in certain distinctive ways (1999, pp. 28-29), and the tendencies of one entity can combine with those of another to produce a joint effect. (p. 178)

Such an arrangement constitutes what Cartwright calls a “nomological machine” (1999, chapter 3). Laws are essentially descriptions of the regularities characteristic of a certain kind of nomological machine. … (p. 179)

The third way Cartwright’s position differs from the standard view is that she takes laws to form a “patchwork” rather than a pyramid (1999, chapter 1). There are the laws describing the behavior of this nomological machine and the laws describing the behavior of that one, but we have no reason to believe that anything unites them all. In particular, we have no reason to believe that laws are arranged in a hierarchy or that there is some one most basic law or set of laws from which all the others follow. (p. 179)

… there is nothing in the actual findings of modern science that favors the standard view over hers. Empirically speaking, the rival views are evenly matched at best, with the choice between them essentially philosophical rather than scientific. (p. 179)

As an alternative to the "mechanical" view of science and the world, Edward Feser sets forth an alternative vision whereby science is merely descriptive of systems not of things. Things rather are as Aristotle sees them, as things with their own natures and capacities, borrowing from Nancy Cartwright's view, and thus things rather than laws are fundamental. Lastly, laws are disparate not connected together, since they are not fundamental for reality but merely descriptive of systems. Feser further asserts that the difference between these two models of reality are empirically indistinguishable, and therefore science does not and cannot disprove his alternate ontology.

On a surface level, the two models seem indistinguishable. However, I would assert that it can be proven that Feser's alternate model is unable to justify science and the workings of science, and I would do so by looking at each of the three Cartwright tenets that Feser embraces.

The first tenet is a rejection of the universality of scientific laws. Feser asserts universality to be false because things in real life do not follow scientific laws, as the laws only apply in ideal situations which are not found in this life. In a sense, it is true that there the real is different from the ideal, but it is a leap of logic to assert that therefore laws are not universal. The fact of the matter is that under certain situations, we can approximate the ideal. For example, under high temperature and low pressure situations, all gases approximate the Ideal Gas Law, regardless of whether it is chlorine, argon, or carbon dioxide gas. In chemistry, the stochiometric ratio of the reaction of sulfuric acid with sodium hydroxide is always 1:2, and this applies to the reaction of any diprotic base with a monoacidic base. Newton's First Law can be easily proved in space where friction is negligible if not absent. In other words, the distinction between the real and the ideal does not in any way invalidate the application of scientific laws.

But, Feser will object, that only proves that the laws work only under certain conditions, does it not? No, for the beauty of science is that in non-ideal scenarios, the other variables can be factored into the equation and applied then. For example, the Van der Waal equation with variables a and b work for real gases. In mechanics, the force of friction can be measured and taken into account. In chemistry, impurities in chemicals can be ascertained and factored into chemical reactions. In other words, scientific laws do not apply only under "certain conditions." The simple form of the law can be seen only under ideal conditions, but the laws do apply under all conditions.

Compounding the problem with Cartwright's first tenet, a rejection of the universality of laws breaks the practice of science. If laws are not universal but particular, then science and technology would grind to a halt. Why should anyone think that the application of a certain temperature in an industrial plant would result in fractional distillation of petroleum? Rather, if universality is rejected, each industrial application must be investigated anew since what works for one "substance" (e.g. alcohol and water) may not work for another "substance" (i.e. petroleum). We cannot assume that gravity on other planets would necessarily follow either Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction or Einstein's General Theory of Relativity either. Therefore, while Cartwright's first tenet cannot be disproved empirically, it vitiates the practice of science altogether. For science to be science, laws must be both universal and true.

Cartwright's second tenet places things as being fundamental not laws. The problem with this new take on Aristotle is that it can be proven that laws are more fundamental than things. The ability to transform one element to another through radioactive decay, through bombarding things with energetic particles (e.g neutrons, alpha particles, other atomic nuclei), or through nuclear fission and fusion, have proven that atoms are in fact real and fundamental and that Aristotelian "substances" are at best an emergent quality. The creation of anti-matter, and the ability to destroy matter by combining that matter with anti-matter to form pure energy, are not hypotheses but actual experimental science. On this second tenet therefore, science has indeed disproved Cartwright's new take on Aristotle.

On Cartwright's third tenet, that is debatable. Scientists have not yet discovered a unifying theory of everything, and it is uncertain if they ever will. However, the problem with the third tenet is not that there are certain disparate sets of laws, but rather Cartwright's denial of all hierarchy goes against our understanding of how the various scientific disciplines connect to each other.

The convergence of scientific disciplines (and here I focus only on the natural sciences) is seen in for example biochemistry, whereby biology and chemistry are integrated. The biochemical pathway of glycolysis for example show how chemistry underlies biological nutrition, and thus chemistry is more fundamental than biology. When one looks into molecular structure in bond length, angles of chemical bonds, valence electrons and dipole movement, it can be seen that physics is more fundamental than chemistry. All of these prove that there is some hierarchy among scientific disciplines and scientific laws. Along with the rejection of second tenet, the scientific picture of atoms and laws of nature appears more credible than the Neo-Aristotelian version of substances being fundamental. A deeper understanding of science here thus falsifies Cartwright's third tenet.

As it can be seen, on the surface, it seems that Cartwright's and Feser's model of ontology and science is empirically indistinguishable from the modern ("mechanist") model. But a deeper understanding of science falsifies that model. One can reinterpret certain scientific laws in line with this Neo-Aristotelian model, but the model cannot and does not work for actual scientific practice and understanding. Cartwright's and Feser's model of science and scientific laws are therefore to be rejected as contrary to how science actually works.