John Denker wrote:
"| You get the idea: You can't say that an object is
| "nothing more than the sum of its properties" until
| you know which properties are essential and which
| are superficial and accidental."
I fail to appreciate the superficial vs accidental properties distinction.
The Aristotelian notion is not that some properties are essential, but
that the essence (substance) of a thing exists, at least ontologically,
and is definable, apart from ANY properties.
If I know the behavior of the xtron (its properties) under any and all
possible circumstances, I know the xtron completely. There is no more to
learn. This means knowing its properties completely. Of course, until I
have this complete knowledge, I will not have a complete definition of the
xtron to offer, only a tentative definition of my present knowledge of the
xtron.
I hasten to add that the properties of the xtron cannot be defined in
isolation from its environment. (I don't believe a lone electron is
definable - certainly not operationally.) Knowing the xtron's properties
involves knowing how both it and its environment interact (via property
changes).