[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[DLJ]

...
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.

Pretty much.

A platypus is a platypus. It has component parts. Some of these components (beaks and tails) are in common with other non-platypus things.

A particular combination of things get the label 'platypus' - a label given to it by an observer (an external pattern reader).

So there's the whole, the components and the labels for the whole and the components.

Neither the platypus nor the component parts of the platypus have essence. The essence (properties) are in the reading not in the thing being read.

Think of an imaginary platypus. It also has these properties... in your imagination.

In Management speak we would define a thing (an asset or a Configuration Item) using SCAR - Scope, CI level, Attributes and Relationships. Describing the properties (SCAR) doesn't give the thing anything extra. The properties (SCAR) exist as data / information / patterns of information.

What do you think about the other flavour of essence, whereby we project something akin to 'soul' or 'spirit' onto things? What's the process there, do you think? I think it relates to valuing (assetising) things (and even people).