Metaphysics question.....?

That's a very idiosyncratic question, and very interesting. It definitely expands both imagination and realism

Well I just thought of this, but it sounds like a way to imagine it better.

Imagine that you divide the world into properties and substances.

You would see colors but not the source/cause of them. The result: the EM spectrum.

But how about shape? Result: You might see 2d outlines of invisible substance.

What else? OH! Man, what about motion? Dude how could you see it with out EM? Wo, that means basically there needs to be radiation (as a law) in order to observe motion.

Motion, shape, color. What else?

How about location? You obviously know where my avatar is, but is location caused by observation or caused by something else? How can you have motion without observation? I will have to ask this.

solidity, extension, motion, number and figure = Primary Qualities

color, taste, smell, and sound = Secondary qualities.

I have picture of consciousness as a white light capable of dividing into a spectrum, but wherein that white light does substance come in? Where is substance apart from property?

No color = can't see it.

No shape = wtf, maybe infinity.

No location = couldn't sense it.

Where the f-ck is the substance without property? IDJK! If you can't find the substance, the BUDDHITS ARE RIGHT! I guess that's why Hume was a bundle theorist.

I am looking at things and I no longer see substance.There is nothing there but damn properties. What the thing is is no more than the sum of its properties. What about its function? Function is a property, but definitely not substance. I would say this to your teacher:

Substance is that which has being as a result of the totality of the things properties and functions.

There is only grass in so far as it possess properties.

Wait, what if substance = atomic structure

Every one knows Gold is a substance, and that is because of its molecular nature.

What if we apply this question to the Atom.

I wouldn't be doing that tonight, but you may get in outcry in class if you ask this.

hi fractal, properly, only watching the be conscious, it somewhat is approximately what's "previous" physics. so because it somewhat is the 1st undertaking: is there this way of undertaking as "previous physics"? Many say there is not any longer, that there is not any data to propose that there is. yet differently of watching that question is to declare that there is not any longer something previous physics, yet that we would possibly no longer yet understand all of physics. If we don't yet have a unified thought, i do no longer understand how we ought to probably declare that physics is totally understood. on the different element of this, with out information all of physics, do we actually say what may be previous physics? As for the advantages or fee of metaphysical study... i might say it may help us open our minds, yet yet, it may additionally lead us down defective paths while it somewhat is presumptively taken as actuality. i assume I see it extra as an artwork type, which could motivate us to have interaction in what we ought to describe as inventive "non secular" strategies. back, as long because it is not given weight it hasn't earned, it somewhat is many times an relaxing undertaking which could motivate deep theory and awesome connections with others. the complication i've got got here upon is that maximum who get into it get incredibly over excited.