A Map of the Universe - A new paper that proposes a unified model of the Universe and addresses metaphysical questions.

[Sunday66]

That’s not so important to me: I don’t want to discuss here the finest details of Aristotle’s philosophy. What is important to me is that he, in my understanding of his philosophy, tried to determine a system to interpret things in a way that solves the problem of unreliabiltiy of human senses. The system he found is based on rationality. This is his metaphysics, and it is an attempt to reach something objective: we can make mistakes about the shape or the form of objects, but we cannot be wrong in thinking that they, anyway, have matter and form. The fact that they have matter and form looks to Aristotle as something independent of our human limits: it is their objective reality.

Okay.

[luciusverusfan]

That’s not so important to me: I don’t want to discuss here the finest details of Aristotle’s philosophy. What is important to me is that he, in my understanding of his philosophy, tried to determine a system to interpret things in a way that solves the problem of unreliabiltiy of human senses. The system he found is based on rationality. This is his metaphysics, and it is an attempt to reach something objective: we can make mistakes about the shape or the form of objects, but we cannot be wrong in thinking that they, anyway, have matter and form. The fact that they have matter and form looks to Aristotle as something independent of our human limits: it is their objective reality.

Correct! The goal of the paper is not to present objective truths about the Universe (which we of course concede is impossible). Instead, the goal is to create a set of axioms that allows us to make propositions about the Universe, and within that set of axioms we make a consistent and unified model of the Universe. The axioms may be incorrect, but it is necessary to create these axioms in order to say anything about the Universe at all.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is Aristotle’s metaphysics, and it is an attempt to reach something objective: we can make mistakes about the shape or the form of objects, but we cannot be wrong in thinking that they, anyway, have matter and form. The fact that they have matter and form looks to Aristotle as something independent of our human limits: it is their objective reality.

And if their apparent shape or form is not what is?

[Sunday66]

This is Aristotle’s metaphysics, and it is an attempt to reach something objective: we can make mistakes about the shape or the form of objects, but we cannot be wrong in thinking that they, anyway, have matter and form. The fact that they have matter and form looks to Aristotle as something independent of our human limits: it is their objective reality.

And if their apparent shape or form is not what is?

This person said he does not want to discuss Aristotle.
To be clear, Aristotle does not talk about objects existing independent of the mind. This is a modern concept.

[Angelo Cannata]

Yes, obviously it is me applying to Aristotle a way of interpreting metaphysics that I think fruitful. My intention is not to make a history of philosophy: there are already a lot of them. My intention is to explore hermenutics that can reveal fruitful in interpreting philosophers, the world, existence.

And if their apparent shape or form is not what is?

What we see can deceive us, but, according to Aristotle, you cannot be deceive about the fact that, anyway, what you are seeing is something made of matter and form. This seems to me the achievement, the strong point, that Aristotle thought he was able to reach.

About the paper on the Universe, what keep me doubtful is the word “Universe”, that tells me that there is an intention to build something like a unified theory, a unified system to finally interpret the Universe. This seems to me just an intention to build a metaphysics, that is exposed to the criticism coming from our immersion in time, becoming, death, subjectivity, humanity.