ficino wrote:

I tossed out the thought that in Thomism, accidental causal series are not "genuine" causal series, since all the work is done in hierarchical/essential causal series. Two people jumped in to tell me that I was wrong, that accidental causal series are "genuine."

Now a Thomist (you are one, Calhoun, no?) says that if there were only accidental causal series, nothing could "ever really 'cause'" anything. That's what I was musing over. 

So who is right? Does A-T admit "genuine" or "really causing" accidental causal series, or not? What work does the accidental series qua series do in A-T?


 

Do you understand primary versus secondary or derivative? Accidental causal series are there because of the essential causal series, but the two are distinguishable.

It's like God versus Creation. Everything exists because of God, but not everything is God or even godly. We talk God willing and permitting, but when we talk, it's not God talking.

Accidental causal series is a thing, but that thing has its framework, namely essential causal series. Both are genuine in their respective ways.

seigneur wrote:

 Accidental causal series are there because of the essential causal series,

Are where?

Accidental causal series is a thing,.

what kind of thing?

My hypothesis so far is that, on A-T terms, an accidental causal series is an artifact of people's analyses, not a description of realities grounded in nature. “Accidental causes have no ordo, unless perhaps notionally [secundum existimationem],” Aquinas, In V Meta. l. 3 n. 13. I don't want to quibble over the word, "genuine." 

I remain unconvinced that what I wrote differs in any significant way from what Calhoun wrote. We were both talking about the series, not the individual event. Calhoun said that if there were no hierarchical series, the accidental series would "not really cause" anything. I consider "genuine" and "really" to do the same work.  Seigneur, you have not stated what work you think accidental causal series do.

Anyway, this may be too far from the OP so I may start a thread on accidental causal series, and anyone who's interested can join in.
 

@ Calhoun,

This is getting more interesting. You are saying, "if there are no essential series, then accidental series do not really/genuinely cause anything. But there are essential series. Therefore, it is not the case that accidental series do not really/genuinely cause anything."

You are committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

It remains to be shown what causal work is done in A-T as the result of the accidental series (as opposed to the series' terminus, Y, causing X, which I think we all agree is a real relation in nature).

I'll start another thread and whoever is interested can participate.

--In your imagination.

"dealt with" to a Feserite means some folks threw out a few off point quips, mixed in some name calling, and walked away.  He attracts that sort of person to his blog and to his fanbase because his writing illustrates that's the kind of person he is.

"Threw out a few off point quips, mixed in some name calling, and walked away" add to that some pretty irrelevant claims and we got a perfect description of your own posts. 

Mass/energy are conserved meaning there is no change in mass/energy in existence.  If there is no change then it is not *necessary* for there to be any changer at all, much less a hierarchical first changer.

Nobody, not Feser, not you, and not anybody on this thread has done anything to demonstrate an error in that simple refutation of A-T.

Well I've dealt with this many times, I've explained to you that that point is utterly irrelevant to the particular premises in the argument. No premise in the argument requires that "mass/energy" should be constantly changing the quantity, and importantly, there is ambiguity in term "change" here, In context of a conservation law, its the particular "measurable property" that remains unchanged in the system but the system as a whole has to change, if there is no evolution of the system there is no "conservation" going on. What I mean is that what you claim here isn't sufficient to undermine the arguments, it hasn't been established that there is "no" change of the relevant kind. 

Going back to the earlier point, your claim would be just like suggesting that if "A" always remains at a constant temperature "X" , it would thereby make source of heat "unnecessary". 

kinetic energy supervenes on change
--Please cite a physics experiment, equation, or science link that demonstrates this pointless attempt at A-T jargon.

There is nothing particularly "ATish about the above claim, right now, its a pretty simple point, notion of kinetic energy is only helpful if something undergoes change.

Every real material causal *series* is accidental.  Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to 0, inside which no *series* of events can occur, because a *series* of events requires at least 2 time separated events and such time separation cannot be the case within the limit as t goes to 0.

First, once again, you should probably ban the use of the term "material" unless you explicate it first , your point is only pushed further into bafflement, specifically when you're talking about "Every real material causal series". Secondly, Your claim here is still a bit of a red-herring. the point is not about "series of events occurring" its about the substances in those events and their causal powers, Further your claims that "*series* of events requires at least 2 time separated events" is not always true, like in case of Spatio-temporally coincident entities like Statue and lump of clay, if you pick one up you pick up both, and the events of statue being picked up and lump of clay being picked up aren't separated in time. 

In other words, it is the present moment that connects cause and effect.  The present moment is the moment of simultaneity, and is not a causal *series*.

This is total gibberish, How is this the same point as before, in other words? And What do you mean by "present moment connects cause and effect", particularly given accidental series if causes are already discontinued then what is left there to "connect" with in the first place.?    

--No.  The unmoved mover in the present moment argument requires an "essential" hierarchical series, which is of course a false notion.

But this is sheer assertion which ignores what I explained before on this point.

Can you grasp that the word *persistence* implies change?
--No, time passes, or progresses.  Persistence of mass/energy is not a change in the respect of mass/energy and therefore no first changer is required to account for motion or existential inertia.

That it makes no sense to say that "X" persists but doesn't change?
--So, in your view to stay the same is to change.  How very odd.

Term "persistence" is taken as an act of "surviving" a change. When we say that clay persists through being a statue to being a block. we are clearly speaking about change in clay, it would be absurd of obscure to then say, "well, but there is no change in *respect* of clay" whatever on Earth you mean by that.

--No, it is called conservation of mass/energy and every scientific experiment performed confirms it.

No, they aren't the same thing, You won't find such term used anywhere in any treatise on that topic.
      

I admire everyone's attempt to help Stardusty understand the error of his ways, but be warned that you are likely wasting your time. Have fun if you want to engage him, but know what you are getting yourself into.

> He's convinced that he understands A-T better than most of you. Perhaps even Aquinas.
> He confuses physics and metaphysics.
> He denies the reality of Newton's 3rd law.
> He cannot grasp what an essentially ordered series is.
> He thinks deceased grandfathers contribute (causally) a certain amount to the motion of their grandchildren.
> He sticks to his claims even after you've explained why they are wrong.
> and much more

Don't take my word for it. Here are 3100+ comments that demonstrate exactly what I'm saying.

https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=16

Last edited by SteveK (12/12/2017 4:47 pm)