Is a Grand Unified Theory Really Necessary for Understanding Our Universe?

[arivero]

As far as I know, Aquinas' arguments on the topic come from his Summa Theologica.

(BTW, glad to see you have both a sense of humor and broad range of intellectual interests.)

No, actually I haven't got a sense of humor and my intellectual interests are incredibly narrow . It is a sort of paradox that most people understand the contrary, at least as for the second point it refers.

Now, here is a more complete answer:
http://yedda.com/questions/8621841671611/
http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/articles/angels.html
http://www.baronyofvatavia.org/articles/medcul/pangel112002as37.php

the interesting point is that the concept seems to be transmited orally well before D'Israeli, and that someone brings it to the attention of Leibnitz:

in acus cuspide innumerabiles posse esse animulas, nullam inter se extensionem facientes.

‘there can be innumerable little souls on the point of a needle without their generating any space among themselves’

Of course this concrete answer is wrong. They do not contain space, but generate space between them

EDIT: it seems that the concept of "dancing" is introduced by Joseph Glanville, FRS, in 1661

 

[Lelan Thara]

selfadjoint, marcus - you are right, I guess I did latch onto that one statement by DaveC. Thank you for explaining that background dependence in QM is very different than saying QM is dependent on a quantized space.

arivero - I observed empirically that you were able to shift effortlessly from a discussion of GUTs to a discussion of angels on pinheads - and so, this observer created a reality in which you have a sense of humor.

And, of course, since we can't say that your reference frame is privileged in any way compared to mine - I'm afraid you are stuck with it. In my particular little corner of SpaceTime - you have a sense of humor.

There are worse things, you know.