[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[Belacqua]

What argument do you use to demonstrate that this is true?

Hmmm.  Good question.  I'm not sure what to call it.

Maybe...
Argument from Pattern Recognition or
Argument from 'Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder' or
Argument from Reification Error or simply
Argument from Information Theory?

Anyway, if I'm understanding it correctly from video (I admit there's a high chance that I'm not), Aquinas seems to have correctly realised that the information patterns referred to as 'properties' can be identified both/similarly from things that do not exist (i.e. imaginary / virtual / fictional things) as from things that do exist (physically).

So, credit where it's due for that.  

But then there seems to be an attempt to associate ("bring together") these information patterns with the existing-things themselves rather than  associating the information patterns with the reader/interpreter of the existing-things.

Seems like a non sequitur.

Ah! They you go... Argument from Non Sequitur.

Sorry, apparently my question wasn't clear.

I'm wondering what it is that makes you say an essence isn't in the thing, but only in the reader. 

When you say "information patterns," you seem to be referring to both properties and essences. Is that what you mean? 

If something has the property of weighing two kilos, is this an information pattern? You could give information about the weight, but is the weight itself information?

An essence, I think, is the set of things that make something what it is and not another thing. So a platypus has a set of things -- characteristics, properties -- which make it a platypus and not some other thing. Are you saying that this set of things is a pattern of information? Are tails and beaks patterns of information, or they physical objects which are parts of an animal? 

I'm not clear yet on what you're saying.