ficino wrote:

Just saw this, though it's not a new post. Accuracy?"Unfortunately for St. Thomas, relativity means that motion is no longer a property of one thing. Motion is a property of at least two “things”, the observer and the object. There can be no “unmoved mover” since all motion is now known to be relative to the observer, and not to some unmoving reference......
 

In context, "...[Einsteinian] relativity means that...."

The problem with Einsteinian (theory of) relativity is that it's known to be not absolutely applicable to the physical world. It breaks down at quantum level, so I have heard. The physical world, in turn, is not absolute either. It does not explain biology (phenomena of life), psychology (phenomena of perception and consciousness), etc. So neither Einsteinian relativity or (theoretical) physics serve as a metaphysical framework to provide absolute orientation in macrocosm as well as in microcosm.
 

Last edited by seigneur (12/16/2017 12:02 pm)

SteveK wrote:> He thinks deceased grandfathers contribute (causally) a certain amount to the motion of their grandchildren.
 
kek

Suppose the 1 ball rolls and then hits the 2 ball.  The 2 ball rolls and then hits the 3 ball.  The 3 ball rolls and then hits the 4 ball.  The 4 ball rolls and then falls into the pocket.

Question, did the 1 ball contribute (causally) a certain amount to the motion of the 4 ball as it fell in the pocket?

@seigneur

The problem with Einsteinian (theory of) relativity is that it's known to be not absolutely applicable to the physical world. It breaks down at quantum level, so I have heard. The physical world, in turn, is not absolute either. It does not explain biology (phenomena of life), psychology (phenomena of perception and consciousness), etc. So neither Einsteinian relativity or (theoretical) physics serve as a metaphysical framework to provide absolute orientation in macrocosm as well as in microcosm.

How does incompleteness of present physics theories demonstrate the *necessity* of god?

Aquinas said

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another

Modern science says that mass/energy is conserved, thus their is no need for "another" to sustain motion because motion is not a change in the kinetic energy of the object in uniform linear motion.

Ficino brought up relativity and the subject of reference frames, which allows another perspective to see the falsehood of the potential/actualization notion of motion.  Choose the reference frame of the solar system and you are moving 66,000mph right now.  Choose and extragalactic reference frame and you are moving 483,000mph right now.  Yet you do not sense any change in yourself by virtue of these various and high speed motions. 

You are moving but you are not changing by virtue of the motion, even if such motion is many times faster than any rocket ship yet constructed by human beings.

Since uniform linear motion is not a change no changer is needed in the present moment to account for it. 

Acceleration is accounted for in a temporal regress analysis, not a hierarchical regress analysis.  Therefore no hierarchical first mover is *necessary* to account for acceleration

Aquinas said

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover,

Modern science proves the hierarchical first mover is not *necessary* and therefore on modern science the First Way fails.

There is no compatibility between modern science and the Five Ways of Aquinas because Aquinas asserts the *necessity* of the first mover and modern science shows the first mover is not necessary.




 

SP explain in detail how modern science proves there are no per se causal series? Also what do you think a per se causal series is and why it differs from a per accidens causal series? Also why do you think it's necessary that a per se causal series requires a first mover.

I'm just trying to get a sense of your understanding of these things.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

@nojoum

I'm not sure if I should intervene but that would be accidential causal series. I'm not sure though why it would be relevant to Aquinas's first and 2nd way which is about essential causal series. Besides the ball 1 itself does not actualize any potential in the 4th ball. I think it is important to make such distinction.

Making distinctions is indeed important

If the 1 ball does not contribute a causal influence to the 4 ball in what sense do you say this is an example of a causal series?  Kinetic energy was transferred from the 1 ball to the 2 ball, then the 3 ball, then to the 4 ball.  If the 1 ball had not rolled as it did then the whole series would not have occurred.

If you wish to call this series of events a causal series of any sort then it must be the case that the 1 ball had a causal influence on the 4 ball..

The relevance to the First Way is that upon closer examination we find that every real material causal series is an "accidental" series and there is no such thing as an "essential" causal series.  The notion of an "essential' causal series arises from several misconceptions I will discount below
1.There is no such thing as a rigid multibody system.
2.Causal influences propagate no faster than c, classically, and more typically at the speed of sound in a medium or at speeds that result from the mechanical characteristics of the system.
3.There is no such thing as simultaneity of cause and effect throughout the members of a multibody system.
4.The designations in a so-called "essential" real material causal series as "first", "instrument", "last" are arbitrary and invalidly narrow in scope.  To find the first member of any real material causal series we must employ a temporal regress extending back at least as far as the big bang, or perhaps to a past eternal universe.  In such a regress analysis the designations of "first" and "instrument" and "last" continually change as the regression is made.
5.The designation of "last" in any real material causal series is also arbitrary as time progresses and the object once designated as "last" becomes an "instrument" to the next "last" member, and on and on without bound into the future.
6.Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, inside which no time separated series of events can occur.  Thus, no real material causal series exhibits simultaneity among its members.  Simultaneity is at the present moment, not among a series of events.
7.Therefore, the A-T notion of an "essential" series is merely an artifact of incomplete analytical reasoning, being illusory, and thus A-T arguments that depend on the notion of an "essential" real material causal series fail.
 

To be honest with, you seem to have a geniune objection. (but I am not a good bar to pass, I myself have problems with Aquinas's philosophy and gave up on the whole thing) Aside from the issue of essentially ordered causes, I have other problems.if you consider the movement of earth and sun around their center of masses, even though the sun requires earth in order to be able to orbit around the center of mass and earth itself depends on sun to oribt around the center of mass, both of them can easily explain the change in each other. In the same way, the whole world can explain itself. So if by essential causal series they mean something like the movement of earth and sun, I'm not sure that my explanation leaves any gaps.