Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    The different routes taken by the word noun in English and in Spanish closely mirrors its troubled
    philosophical history, marked by an intergenerational debate between bundle and substance ontologists. The
    word noun comes from the Latin meaning name. The English (and other European languages) apparently
    opted to call a noun anything you could name, which includes just about every word in the dictionary. The
    Spanish use the word sustantivo, which comes from the Latin meaning substantive. Initially, a substantive
    was meant to be more restrictive than the noun and designate only those things that are corporeal. Later this
    word evolved so that today it plays exactly the same role as the word noun of English: it encompasses any
    word that may serve as the subject of a sentence. However, the original name-substance dichotomy
    continued and today is at the root of disagreements in objecthood debates.   

    The problem in Science today and more specifically in Mathematical Physics is that theorists self-servingly
    mistake object for noun, thing with term. The mathematicians and philosophers take as a matter of fact that an
    object is anything that we can think of, talk about, or serve as the subject of a sentence:

    “ I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its
       Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its Interpretant,
       that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former (Peirce, A Letter to
       Lady Welby, SS 80-81, 1908)… By an object, I mean anything that we can think,
       i.e. anything we can talk about.” (Peirce in ‘Reflections on Real and Unreal Objects,’
       MS 966, undated) [1]

    “ Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have
       broken down as a result of recent experience in physical sciences, for this barrier does
       not exist.” (p.137)  [2]

    “ Object: A mathematical structure (e.g., a group, vector space, or differentiable manifold)
       in a category.”  [3]

    “ In its weakest sense, the word object is the most all-purpose of nouns, and can replace
       a noun in any sentence at all.”  [4]

    “ not only material bodies but also properties, relations, events, numbers, sets, and
       propositions are—if they are acknowledged as existing—to be accounted ‘things’.” [5]

    “ Properties are exemplified by objects and objects fall under concepts.”[6]

    “ Grammatically, the word 'nothing' is a noun, which suggests that it refers to
        something.” [7]

    [So even nothing is something. Great! I fear that we're gonna have a long debate here.]

    “ Whatever may be an object of thought, or may occur in any true or false proposition, or
       can be counted as one, I call a term. This, then, is the widest word in the philosophical
       vocabulary. I shall use as synonymous with it the words unit, individual and entity. The
       first two emphasize the fact that every term is one, while the third is derived from the fact
       that every term has being, i.e. is in some sense. A man, a moment, a number, a class, a
       relation, a chimera, or anything else that can be mentioned, is sure to be a term; and to
       deny that such and such a thing is a term must always be false.”  [8]

    These notions are easily shown to be unacceptable for the purposes of Science. We can conceive of an
    object such as a ball having motion. We cannot conceive of a concept such as love moving from location A to
    location B. Therefore, love may qualify as a term, a noun, or a subject in ordinary speech. It may not qualify as
    an object for the purposes of Physics. Indeed, the reason mathematical physicists are successful with their
    physical interpretations is that audiences have been conditioned to equate objects with nouns. If we were
    capable of restricting the meaning of the word object to corporeal entities, to things which intuitively or
    conceptually have structure or body, Mathematical Physics is exposed for what it is: a set of irrational
    explanations.

    It is axiomatic that equating objects with nouns, terms, or subjects would lead to quagmires in Science. Take
    for instance the words motion and incessant. In ordinary language the word motion is a noun and its modifier
    incessant, an adjective (e.g., 'The incessant motion of the Earth'). However, in Science, words such as
    incessant, constant, rectilinear, and perpetual may only be used in the context of an activity. They may never
    be used to qualify a physical object. It makes no sense in Science to say ‘incessant cube’ if we are alluding to
    architecture. For the purposes of Science, the word motion is a verb and its qualifier incessant is an adverb. In
    Science, the fundamental categories of ordinary grammar  -- noun, verb, adjective, and adverb --  are either
    more restrictive or altogether different.

    The bad habit of giving supernatural explanations in Mathematical Physics arose the day the mathematicians
    introduced metaphor and ordinary speech into strategic segments and closing arguments of their
    presentations. In ordinary speech, it is not only okay, but a sign of high intelligence for a poet to say that ‘love
    died’ or that a woman ‘sends her love.’ In Science, it is in reverse. In Science, it is absolutely ludicrous to say
    such things as:

    “ the center of mass of the system will move at a constant velocity”  [9]

    “ the hot metal is transfering energy to the water…heat involves some sort of energy
       transfer…ΔQ is heat energy transferred from the system”  [10]

    Whenever mass begins to move or energy starts walking during a scientific presentation, its ending is always
    the same. The men with the white jackets appear and drag the presenter away.

    In order for a genuine physicist to make his motion picture (i.e., give a physical interpretation to a pheno-
    menon), he will need to show a series of forms on the screen. He can’t do this with just any noun. He needs a
    specific type of noun, a noun that has some sort of architecture or body. A movie requires ‘substance,’
    something to look at. If the mathematician wants to make a movie strictly about energy or mass, he is
    guaranteed to exhibit no images on the big screen. Concepts such as love, freedom, energy, and mass
    presuppose the presence of other, undefined physical objects. We should keep this important conclusion in
    mind. It implies that objects precede concepts, meaning that the definition of the word object precedes the
    definition of the word concept.

    To summarize, the broader notion of the word object in use today (term, subject, noun) is extremely useful to
    the mathematical physicists. It allows them to move specifically the five key concepts of their religion: energy,
    mass, force, field, and time. However, if we restrict the definition of object to those things which have
    ‘substance,’ the religion of Mathematical Physics dies in an instant. The words energy, mass, force, field, and
    time belong to religion and not to Science. We don't need any of these words to explain any phenomenon of
    nature.


    Corollary

    In secondary school the mathematicians begin learning about real objects: how a
    car accelerates, how a spring stretches, how a string produces transverse waves,
    how a pulley transfers a box against gravity, how a ball rolls on an inclined plane.
    When they graduate from college they become experts at moving concepts: how
    a center of mass accelerates, how time stretches, how a wave-packet undulates,
    how a black hole transfers energy, how a point particle rolls around a gravity-well.
The ultimate subject matter of
a scientific dissertation must
be a physical object

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 02/25/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
If you think that it is
difficult to define the word
object, Bill, wait till we get
to the word term!