Miguel#116
"It's that Feser makes sure to insist on multiple books that the main characteristic of an e-ordered series (or a hierarchical series)"
--Feser insists upon a variety of errors.

"is that the secondary causes are only instrumental"
--Let's just suppose for a moment that the word "instrumental" might have some scientific analytical value.

Feser in some cases allows not only for propagation delay, but recognizes the fact that the designation of "first" in a supposed "essential" series is arbitrary.

Thus, on the allowance of propagation delay, members of an "essential" causal series are allowed to have imparted their causal influence in the past.  That immediately destroys the very notion of an "essential" series.  If a member of a causal series is allowed to impart its causal influence in the past, and have its causal influence propagate over time, then that "first" member could crumble to dust before its causal influence propagates to the "last" member, just like the grandfather who dies in the classic A-T example of an "accidental" series. 

Thus, on the allowance of propagation delay every supposed "essential" series is actually an "accidental" series.

But returning to this imagined designation of "instrumental".  If one allows that the designation of "first" in a linear real material causal series is actually arbitrary then the word "instrumental" becomes pointless, which of course, it is.  If the hand is considered "first" at one time, then it is "instrumental" at another time. And back to the tendon, the muscle, the blood, the heart, the lung, the air, the plants, the dirt, rain, rocks formation of the Earth, big bang, the unknown, and everything in between. Clearly an "accidental" series.

The very notion of an "essential" series or an "instrument" or a "first" member or a "last" member all become meaningless if one allows for propagation delay and the realization that the "first" is not really first at all.


". Simultaneity is often the case and is a good illustration,"
--Simultaneity is never the case and is thus never a good illustration.  The fact that a PhD and teacher and author persists in such nonsense shows that he is either incredibly weak minded despite his education or simply dishonest.

There is no such thing as a real material rigid multibody system.  Causal influences propagate, classically, no faster than c, and more commonly at the speed of sound in the material. It is never the case, classically, that a causal influence is imparted at location X and simultaneously its effect is received at location Y. 

"but one shouldn't get caught up in the illustration and ignore the concept that is symbolized in the illustration."
--Every example ever given by A-T proponents of a supposed "essential" series always fails upon closer examination.

 

grod #122SP "Simultaneity is never the case and is thus never a good illustration."

"Really?"
--Yes, do try to follow along a bit more closely, OK?

The subject under discussion is a real material causal series, and the false assertion that a real material "essential" causal series can exhibit simultaneity of cause and effect throughout its members.

"So let us consider the case of two electrons exchanging a photon. Gotcha question for the moron in the room: when the photon is absorbed by the electron, how much time does it take for the causal influence to propagate?"
--Causal influences propagate, classically, no faster than c

Simultaneity does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, inside which no two time separated events can occur.

... Feynman diagrams..., "interactions are the vertices of such diagram, lines represent fermions and wiggly lines represent bosons or the field carriers. *All* interactions are vertices in the appropriate diagrams. Gotcha question for the moron in the room: how much time does the interaction take?"
--As stated above, the moment of simultaneity of cause and effect is within the limit as t goes to zero.

However, particles are modeled as exhibiting fields that extend over a distance.  For example, say, 2 electrons are moving and headed for a collision.  The interaction in that case is a temporal process, given that the electrons both have a negative electric charge their field interaction is modeled as repulsive. The closer they get the stronger the repulsive force.  With expressions for the mass, velocity, kinetic energy, and electric field characteristics one can set up an integral to model the interaction with respect to time.

Integral calculus depends on a definition based on the limit function.  Newton used the notion of a fluxion, others have used the idea of the infinitesimal, but there have been strong philosophical objections raised to the notion of the infinitesimal over the centuries and calculus is now defined in terms of the limit function.

If we are integrating with respect to time this limit function defines that somewhat inscrutable point that seems to be infinitely small, in some very crude manner of speaking.  That moment in time, sometimes written as dt, is the moment of simultaneity of cause and effect.  No series of time separated events can exist within that limit.

There is no such thing as a real material "essential" causal series wherein multiple members of the series are locked in simultaneity such that the "first" member imparts a cause and the associated effect is induced in the "last" member simultaneously.  That is because there is no such thing as a rigid multibody system and causal influences propagate, classically, no faster than c, and in real materials typically no faster than the speed of sound in that material.

This is all related to the failure of the first and second ways, as I described in #7 and #8 and in a number of subsequent posts you have provided no rational, logical, disproofs of.

Uniform linear motion does not require "another" to act upon the object in motion to keep it moving right now.  Uniform linear motion is not a change in motion and it is not a change in kinetic energy, and as you have already acknowledged, very obviously, if there is no change then no changer is necessary at all.

Acceleration is a change that calls for a changer.  That changer is accounted for in mutually causal temporal processes, say the burning of rocket fuel to accelerate a rocket ship.  Such a process is analyzed with a temporal regress analysis, not a hierarchical analysis.

Thus, the First Way fails as an argument for the necessity of a hierarchical first mover acting in the present moment to account for observed motion that is manifest and evident to our senses.

Existing material does not change its mass/energy merely by virtue of persisting in existence.  The amount of material of a material object does not change simply by continuing to exist.  Thus, again, no change requires no changer.

A material object can change in mass/energy associated with that object.  All such changes are temporal and accounted for with a temporal regress analysis, not a hierarchical analysis.

Thus, the Second Way fails as an argument for the necessity of a hierarchical first mover acting in the present moment to account for observed persistence of existing material that is manifest and evident to our senses.

  

Field forces, Stardusty. Field forces do not admit of propagation delay when they are actual and present. They become immediately potentially causal wherever they are present. It was an error of Hume to disjoin cause and effect and make them temporally separate when there are any number of obvious causal relations that are immediate and dependent between cause and effect. It makes causality hopelessly mysterious because you cannot rejoin event A at t1 to event B at t2: they are as it were divorced from each other and even the very language employed begs the question as presumably an event is something itself caused as would be any (especially physical) given "state of affairs." A chemical bond is the immediate actualization of a potentiality that is explanatory and necessary for explaining the properties or behavior of a substance in chemistry or physics: subtract the actualization and immediately a different physical state of affairs necessarily holds.
 

Good grief Dusty once a field is present what even matters about its propagation? This is just sad. The field will immediately take its effect upon anything susceptible to it within the field. And no: an actual chemical bond does not "take time" otherwise you could never have an actual chemical bond.

@Stardusty Psyche:

"Zero as an expression of time during which a real change occurs is an abstraction, a mathematical approximation of convenience, and merely a statement reflecting the corners of remaining ignorance in modern physics."

So when I mention actual, real physics -- you know the one you are completely ignorant of, being an illiterate, ignorant buffoon -- it is suddenly "merely a statement reflecting the corners of remaining ignorance in modern physics"? Nice double standard you have there, science-denier.

"You cannot, and have not identified any error in my clear refutations of the first and second ways."

"cannot"? You are just pathetic.

Your "specific errors" do not even amount to a coherent objection and have all been responded, numerous times by numerous people. The fact that you cannot recognize them is a fact about yourself, not about the arguments.

And *now* I am really done here, no point in humiliating you even more. You have the last word.