Substance and science

[Boyan]

Is there substance? According to the bundle theory there isn't. Bundle theory says all things are just bundles or sums of their properties. The objection to this view comes from the substrate theory which asks: If there is no substance what is it that holds these properties together? There must be some substance that has these properties is what they say.

We never reach the substance because whenever we talk about something we talk about its properties. The definition of substance makes it impossible. Substance would be something that has no properties, which is unthinkable.

Instead of going into the arguments for both theories here, I wanted to look at this from a perspective of basic science.

At the fundamental level all things are made out of subatomic particles, if I'm not mistaken. Namely, electrons, protons and neutrons. The number of protons in a nucleus determines an atom's chemical element, and chemical elements and their various combinations are what everything is made of (excluding dark energy and dark matter).

Protons, neutrons and electrons are all the same. Therefore the entire variety of things is made out of their combinations.

However there is an even more fundamental level. Leptons, quarks (particles that make up protons and neutrons) and gauge bosons (which are the carriers of fundamental forces) are regarded as fundamental particles because they have no substructure that we know of. If this is true then they are the particles from which everything else is made of, which makes them the closest we get to substance.

[brokenhead]

Why are you using the word substance and not the word matter?

[Boyan]

Because it's about the metaphysical concept called substance.

[Pincho Paxton]

Basic science suggests that all forces need an opposing force to keep them together. Electron is a negative force which requires a positive force to keep it in place. A bit like blow football. I'm not sure why a quark holds a proton in place being as it is supposed to be inside the proton. I don't beleive science anyway, but being as you wanted science, I gave you science.

[Boyan]

Are all proton's the same?

Here's my idea:

Say a substance theory supporter holds that properties of a graphite inhere in the substance it is made of. This substance would be carbon, but the properties of a graphite are not inherent in carbon, because we know of diamond whose properties are very different than those of graphite, and it is made out of the same substance. This shows that the properties like fragility and dark color of graphite or hardness of diamonds are not inherent to carbon.

Therefore if there is substance out of which an object is made, this substance does not need to have the properties of that object even though those properties are based on it. This weakens the bundle theory because it implies that there is some substance, because one chemical element gives rise to a variety of different objects with different properties.

[Boyan]

Basic science suggests that all forces need an opposing force to keep them together. Electron is a negative force which requires a positive force to keep it in place. A bit like blow football. I'm not sure why a quark holds a proton in place being as it is supposed to be inside the proton. I don't beleive science anyway, but being as you wanted science, I gave you science.

Quarks that make up the proton are held together by the strong nuclear force, I've read. There are positrons as an anti matter of electrons. And while electrons are in the atom they are balanced by positively charged protons.

[brokenhead]

Because it's about the metaphysical concept called substance.

How is it different? Not to discourage rational inquiry, but it seems like you are reinventing the wheel here. "How about instead of wheels being round, we could make them circular?"

[Boyan]

I'm not reinventing anything. It's a metaphysical concept 2500 years old. It doesn't even matter how you call it.

[Pincho Paxton]

Are all proton's the same?

Here's my idea:

Say a substance theory supporter holds that properties of a graphite inhere in the substance it is made of. This substance would be carbon, but the properties of a graphite are not inherent in carbon, because we know of diamond whose properties are very different than those of graphite, and it is made out of the same substance. This shows that the properties like fragility and dark color of graphite or hardness of diamonds are not inherent to carbon.

Therefore if there is substance out of which an object is made, this substance does not need to have the properties of that object even though those properties are based on it. This weakens the bundle theory because it implies that there is some substance, because one chemical element gives rise to a variety of different objects with different properties.

The bundle theory is just going to struggle at a Quantum Level, because things start to break down into single elements, and before them is a vague understanding of other dimensions. We can't peek into half of this stuff, and probably never will be able to.