@Calhoun #100
"Take any example of quantitative change, say increase in size of the object, is the fact that it has different size from before is that identical to to any change of location it has gone through? clearly not,"
--Yes, a change in size necessitates locomotion.  If material object x changes to X material crossed the boundary of the old x and a new boundary is now defined for X.

What is the location of the object?  An extended object has an extended location, not a single point in space, so the full description of an object's location defines its 3 dimensional envelope.  It is possible to keep the center of mass at the same location, say with a water balloon, as you fill it perhaps one can keep the center of mass roughly in the same location.  Clearly, locomotion is required to fill the balloon, irrespective of its center of mass location.

So, you have still provided no valid counterexamples.

"Like Pastness, Presentness , being earlier than, later than. It makes no sense to say that change in any of them would require locomotion"
--There is no material alteration simply due to the passage of time, so this is not a valid counterexample.

"Your response is simply repeat of that without clearly engaging the point. "
--What point?  I said "material alteration all require locomotion".  You have provided no valid counterexamples to my statement.  If you have some other point fine, what is it?

"No, thats not necessarily the case , because even if regress is temporal the fact that members in it are instrumental renders it hierarchical not accidental."
--Every member in a temporal causal series is instrumental between its predecessor and its consequent.  Since the assignment of the label "first member" is arbitrary there is no limit the the number of steps to regress, except perhaps the beginning of time if there was one.

"This is your own assertion for which no reason is given, Further we have good reason for believing that not "every" cause is an accidental cause, because if that was the case then there would be no necessary connection between "any" cause at all. every member of any series would would become "independent"  , its hard to see how any intelligible notion of causation we would have left then if everything is so lose and separate. "
--Every causal *series* is accidental.  Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, inside which no two time separated events can occur.

The present moment is where cause and effect temporally co-locate.  That is where the connection is made so we don't have the disjointed situation you describe.

A typical A-T example of a supposed hierarchical and essential series is the hand, stick, rock system.  This is quickly shown to be an accidental sub-section of a much longer accidental causal series extending into the deep past, perhaps for a past eternity.  The hand is arbitrarily designated as the first member, propagation delays are ignored, and the rock is arbitrarily designated as the last member.  The stick is arbitrarily designated as the instrumental member.

In truth the hand is an instrument between the muscle and the stick, and back to the blood, heart, lung, air, plants, rain, formation of the earth, big bang with myriad steps in between.  The rock is an instrument between the stick and the dirt, and on and on and on into the future.

" if each member is instrument then then it means that no member has any independent causal power , so unless their is first cause that can impart causal power to them , nothing in such a series can cause anything. "
--Temporally you are correct.  Not in this present moment, rather, we find the cause for X in the past, and the cause for W temporally prior to X, and the cause for V temporally prior to that.

This leads to a genuine riddle, the deep past origin of motion and the origin of existence within which motions occur.  Nobody has solved that riddle.  The Kalam argument makes an attempt, but fails.  Science has not solved this riddle.

But that is not the assertion of A-T. Aquinas asserted a first mover in the present moment to solve 2 false problems.  In the First Way he assumed all motion requires a present mover.  In the Second Way he assumes all existent material requires a sustainer in the present moment.  Both ideas are unnecessary on modern science.

"Oh, and you keep using this word "material" can you explain what you mean by that, it certainly would be helpful."
--"Material" as in "materialist".  One could say mass/energy, but given the incomplete state of physics theory that could be an incomplete description.  Some scientists somewhat whimsically call it stuff.  Material is whatever is naturally existent stuff that we can scientifically detect and existent stuff that might exist even though it might be too far away or too small for us to directly detect or measure.

--Yes, a change in size necessitates locomotion.  If material object x changes to X material crossed the boundary of the old x and a new boundary is now defined for X.

Right , So if its the change of size itself that necessitates locomotion and not necessarily the other way around then there is no point trying to reduce former to later or to think of them as Identical, So any objection based on that would be irrelevant. 

--There is no material alteration simply due to the passage of time, so this is not a valid counterexample

This again simply restatement of your previous claims , You've given no good reason to believe this is not a counter example because You've given no explanation for what "material alteration" even means(in this context) in first place, It certainly isn't the case that I've invoked some properties that only immaterial things have, Secondly , even its not "material alteration" doesn't mean its not a counter-example to your claims, because its still a change and one that doesn't require locomotion and even presupposed by it, it makes no sense to speak of something changing its location if time stays still. You at least accept that this kind of change occurs , from the fact that this is not "material alteration" it only follows that not all change is material alteration, but its change nonetheless , so it would involve act/potency.

--Every member in a temporal causal series is instrumental between its predecessor and its consequent.  Since the assignment of the label "first member" is arbitrary there is no limit the the number of steps to regress, except perhaps the beginning of time if there was one.

But the point I am making is that Every member in a temporal causal series is instrumental then such a regress is hierarchical not accidental. 

--Every causal *series* is accidental.  Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, inside which no two time separated events can occur.

The present moment is where cause and effect temporally co-locate.  That is where the connection is made so we don't have the disjointed situation you describe.

Thats the problem if "every" causal series is accidental, then we can never have any necessary connection even if cause and effect temporally co-locate that would require hierarchical series.  

A typical A-T example of a supposed hierarchical and essential series is the hand, stick, rock system.  This is quickly shown to be an accidental sub-section of a much longer accidental causal series extending into the deep past, perhaps for a past eternity.  The hand is arbitrarily designated as the first member, propagation delays are ignored, and the rock is arbitrarily designated as the last member.  The stick is arbitrarily designated as the instrumental member.

In truth the hand is an instrument between the muscle and the stick, and back to the blood, heart, lung, air, plants, rain, formation of the earth, big bang with myriad steps in between.  The rock is an instrument between the stick and the dirt, and on and on and on into the future.

Here Again the problem is if you're inclined to think of "every" member within the series as instrumental then that makes every series essential even temporal ones thus making First cause unavoidable. 

--Temporally you are correct.  Not in this present moment, rather, we find the cause for X in the past, and the cause for W temporally prior to X, and the cause for V temporally prior to that.

If all of these members are merely instrumental then none of them would have any independent causal power , they would all be derivative causes, So this scenario would necessitate the first cause. 

--"Material" as in "materialist".  One could say mass/energy, but given the incomplete state of physics theory that could be an incomplete description.  Some scientists somewhat whimsically call it stuff.  Material is whatever is naturally existent stuff that we can scientifically detect and existent stuff that might exist even though it might be too far away or too small for us to directly detect or measure.

But then "Stuff" isn't intelligible description of anything, You need to be more precise , otherwise that would make this whole notion of "material" you so often allude to very obscure and unintelligible.  

#103
" You've given no explanation for what "material alteration" even means(in this context) in first place, "
--A material object is composed of constituent objects that are arranged in a structure, which in fact is a dynamic system in continuous motion. Changes in mass, energy, and arrangement are material alterations,

"It certainly isn't the case that I've invoked some properties that only immaterial things have,"
--No immaterial things have been shown to exist, much less have properties.

"its still a change and one that doesn't require locomotion"
--Time passes, yes, but that by itself does not alter the mass, energy, or arrangement of a material object.

" but its change nonetheless , so it would involve act/potency."
--act/potency is a crude, ancient, and obsolete method of analysis.  There is no reason in modern science to describe things in those terms.

"But the point I am making is that Every member in a temporal causal series is instrumental then such a regress is hierarchical not accidental. "
--Not when one realizes every causal series has propagation delay and there is no such thing as a rigid multibody system.

Feser contradicts himself on this point.  In some of his writings he asserts simultaneity, in others he allows for propagation delay.  You can't have both.  Propagation delay is what is real, simultaneity is an abstraction with no material realization.

"Thats the problem if "every" causal series is accidental, then we can never have any necessary connection even if cause and effect temporally co-locate that would require hierarchical series.  "
--Have you had the opportunity to study limits in mathematics?  If not I invite you to look it up and consider it. 

A temporal series, or a hierarchical series, has multiple points or events that are separated in time, or such that some members are causally prior to other members.

Real causation occurs in the present moment, at a single point, within the limit as t goes to zero.  Newton called this a fluxion, others have called it the infinitesimal, but there were great philosophical debates about these concepts and they have been very harshly criticized over the centuries, by Bertrand Russel, for example, and many others.  For Russel calculus is properly defined in terms of the limit function, not the infinitesimal.

There is no such thing as a real material hierarchical causal series because every real material causal series has members separated in time due to propagation delay, since there is no such thing as a rigid multibody system.

"Here Again the problem is if you're inclined to think of "every" member within the series as instrumental then that makes every series essential even temporal ones thus making First cause unavoidable."
--But not at the same time, thus every real material causal series is accidental.

Each member is instrumental, but at a different time due to propagation delay.  The members are not instrumental simultaneously.

The tendon is instrumental between the muscle and the hand.  Then later the hand is instrumental between the tendon and the stick.  Then later the stick is instrumental between the hand and the rock.  Then later the rock is instrumental between the stick and the dirt.

Prior in time to the muscle was the blood, prior again was the heart, prior again was the lung, prior again was the air in the lung, prior again was the air outside, prior again was the air further from the lung, prior again was the plant that produced the oxygen, prior again was the rain, the dirt, the rocks, the formation of the Earth, the formation of the Galaxy, the big bang, the unknown.

Every real material causal series is properly analyzed with a causal regress that goes back in time to the big bang and the unknown.

"But then "Stuff" isn't intelligible description of anything, You need to be more precise , otherwise that would make this whole notion of "material" you so often allude to very obscure and unintelligible. "
--Science is provisional.  Right now our best descriptions of "stuff" are the standard model, quantum mechanics, general relativity, and a number of associated descriptions of matter, energy, fields, and spacetime.

Probably everyone here has already noticed the link on Ed Feser's blog to a podcast of his discussion with Arif Ahmed

http://unbelievable.podbean.com/e/5-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god-%E2%80%93-ed-feser-vs-arif-ahmed/

Starting at 1:06, Edward Feser repeats two things about a hierarchical causal series that he says often: 1) the secondary causes are by themselves causally inert and must "borrow" their causal power from something that has it inherently, ie. that can actualize w/o itself being actualized; 2) at around 1:09:40, he says that hierarchical series have to do "with simultaneous causation," but an accidental series is spread out over time.

Last edited by ficino (12/03/2017 3:41 pm)

@ ficino

Probably everyone here has already noticed the link on Ed Feser's blog to a podcast of his discussion with Arif Ahmed

http://unbelievable.podbean.com/e/5-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god-%E2%80%93-ed-feser-vs-arif-ahmed/

Starting at 1:06, Edward Feser repeats two things about a hierarchical causal series that he says often: 1) the secondary causes are by themselves causally inert and must "borrow" their causal power from something that has it inherently, ie. that can actualize w/o itself being actualized; 2) at around 1:09:40, he says that hierarchical series have to do "with simultaneous causation," but an accidental series is spread out over time.

His use of the word "typically" is crucial here, as it denotes merely sufficient condition and not necessary ones. 

@StardustyPsyche

--Hardly, I have studied scientific subjects for many years and never once encountered the use of act/potency in any scientific work.  Act/potency is only studied in the history of science as the language that used to be used and has since be discarded by scientists.

If you are not aware of this I must wonder how much science you have studied.  Perhaps you have not had that opportunity.

But this still is a red herring , Nowhere does it follow from this that "--act/potency is a crude, ancient, and obsolete method of analysis." as you've asserted. 

--It seems that way to you because you have not yet recognized the connection.

The First Way is said to prove the necessity for a hierarchical first mover acting in the present moment to account for motion, or more generally change, that is manifest and evident to our senses.  If it were true that an object in uniform linear motion required "another" to continuously act upon it to maintain its motion then the First Way would contain a sound argument, as I describe in post #7 on this thread.

One common example employed by A-T advocates, such as Feser, to demonstrate a so-called "essential" series, is the hand moving a stick that pushes a rock.  This turns out to be a false example that in truth only demonstrates how arbitrary and unrealistic A-T is .

Feser previously asserted simultaneity in an "essential" series.  Presumably he became aware that is false so he switched to a rather vague claim of "instrumentality", while allowing for both propagation delay and the fact that the hand is not really first in his asserted series.

But we were discussing if the claim that "every" causal series is accidental is coherent. I argued thats it isn't from that it logically follows that even if there is delay there has to be essential causal series. 
And not to even mention that you haven't provided any good argument against simultaneous series in the first place. Your only rebuttal against hand moving a stick that pushes a rock is that it further contains constituents which are accidental, but that doesn't really undermine the example because it is not "identical" with its constituents. its something over and above them.     

Honestly, his argumentation is so shallow, disjointed, and absurd it is hard to believe anybody finds any value in it at all.  But very obviously, woo sells.

You would have only yourself to blame if you ended up getting banned again. So stop making assertions before having established your conclusions. 

--Temporally, not hierarchically.

If we allow that a member of a real material causal series may have acted in the past then a causal regression analysis is a temporal regress, not a hierarchical regress.

But the mere fact that regress is temporal wouldn't by itself render it "accidental" . since first as I've argued not "every" series can be accidental, so we need to admit essential series even if they have to spread across time. and secondly , you yourself admit of instrumentality between members of these temporal series so that would again, make it essential and need of a first cause. 

It seems to me that your criticism fails from multiple fronts, You haven't established the reduction of all change to locomotion, so that won't falsify act/potency. You haven't established falsity of simultaneous series or of those temporal but still essential series. so that won't undermine first or second way either. and further if act/potency isn't undermined the defender of the argument might even circumvent process of arguing through different series and any problem it might face by simply noting that whatever goes from potency to actuality would at least be contingent so in need to explanation unless some thing is pure actuality. and even further it seems the path to Hylemorphism is still open so Third is is still available.