StardustyPsyche wrote:

Mass/energy is conserved (an experimentally measured and confirmed scientific fact).

If it is being conserved (a verb), it is being maintained. If it is being maintained, there is something causing that to occur

 means mass/energy stays the same in the respect of its existence.

Everything measured is changing in one respect or another. What is the essential difference between "mass" and "energy" such that they are different?

That means mass/energy does not change in the respect of its existence.

 Cite one example of an existing mass that is not itself changing in some respect over time. 

Therefore no changer at all is necessary to account for existential inertia.

Therefore, if true, the First Way doesn't apply so why are you bringing it up? The changeless mass that I am not convinced exists doesn't cause any change and doesn't do anything. It is therefore irrelevant to any of 5 Ways. What's your point?

Mass/energy does change in its structure or arrangement.

So now you're saying it DOES change. All mass/energy has 'structure' (i.e. form), therefore all mass/energy is NOT unchanging with respect to its existence. You want to have it both ways, but you cannot.

Zero change occurs in zero time.

Besides the fact that zero time doesn't actually exist, this is irrelevant.
.

Therefore all change requires the passage of time.

Obvious.

Therefore to account for change a temporal, not a hierarchical, regress is necessary.

This is an obvious non-sequitur. You have not provided an argument for this. When will you?

Human beings employ a hierarchy of physics models.

So?

Those models are explanatory abstractions, not causes for existence or causes for change.

True. 

An object in uniform linear motion does not change in the respect of its motion.

This is an assertion. An equally valid assertion is that nothing is actually in uniform linear motion over time. The motion is changing over time when measured at some decimal place so far down the line of digits that it merely appears to be unchanging.

And object in uniform linear motion does not change in the respect of its particular kinetic energy.

Another assertion with an equally valid counter assertion.

Therefore no changer is necessary to account for persistence of uniform linear motion.

Therefore, if true, the First Way doesn't apply so why are you bringing it up?

Acceleration is a change in the kinetic energy of the objects undergoing acceleration.

True

To account for acceleration a temporal regress of mutual causation is employed, not a hierarchical regress.

This is an assertion. You have not provided an argument for this. When will you?

All sorts of real material change require motion, or local motion, or locomotion.

This is an assertion. You have not provided an argument for this. When will you?

Any hierarchical regress consideration can be satisfied by fundamental physics, perhaps strings, quantum fields, or whatever fundamental physics actually is.

This is an assertion. You have not provided an argument for this. When will you?

Therefore no first mover or first changer is necessary to account for any hierarchical regress consideration.

This is a non-sequitur. No argument has been provided, only a long list of assertions or irrelevant statements.

Please provide the post number where you think you have proved my arguments false.

What arguments?
 

You point out what you think is an essential element.
I show that is an accidental element.
You say I ignored you or
You say I am sneaking in accidentalness.

Every real material causal series is "accidental".  Every example you gave of an asserted "essential" element is actually "accidental".

But the problem is you simply never actually show your conclusions to be true , you simply ignore the particular things pointed out to you then assert that you have shown yourself to be right, this another post is simply another instance of that.  

How does the existence of particular objects show they are in an "essential" causal series?

Of course, it is incoherent to speak of non-existent things doing things.  Fine.  How does that demonstrate an "essential" causal series?

All the molecules in our galaxy exist right now at the same time.  So does that mean we can have an "essential" causal series that spans our galaxy?

Remember I am talking about the process of collision here, it is about that I was pointing that such "collision" would be discontinued if were molecules to be annihilated, similarly such current collision and molecules in turn depend on particular actualizations on part of atoms so once again, we have an essential dependence here. 

You feel that within this blog space you have shown that reductionism cannot be the case?  Where?  Can you provide the post number that contains your disproof of reductionism?

Either you have a very bad memory or you can't read, I have repeatedly shown you why some wholes can't be completely reduced to parts. You yourself were earlier engaging with those posts ,which since then you ceased so your asking of number is absurd.  

Ok, let's consider two bodies in motion, say 2 electrons one moving toward a stationary one. 
Time passes, the electrons get closer.
Both being negatively charged they repel each other.
Time passes the stationary electron is positively accelerated while the moving electron is negatively accelerated.
Time passes as a temporal process of kinetic energy transfer continues.
More time passes as the electrons get closer and closer as more and more kinetic energy is transfered.
Scotty on the Starship Enterprise beams the faster moving electron out.
The previously stationary electron continues to move in uniform linear motion.
The transfer of kinetic energy is not undone.

Here too essential dependence can easily be seen, And the point in passage you quoted is proved, The current particular movement and structure of molecules those electron are parts of is only maintained insofar as those electron act certain way, You annihilate those electrons or change them you change the whole system. 

There is no single cause and effect.  There is a temporal process, a continual sequence of causes and effect making the overall process "accidental".

There was no single event of "movement" that occurred "essentially", rather, there was a process over time of energy transfer.  When 1 electron was removed the other electron simply kept moving retaining the energy that had been transferred.

But as I show, there is always an essential series of such processes, So the over all process isn't accidental or at least it have identifiable essential elements which undergird accidental ones  It only appears accidental to you because you simply focus on accidental elements. Like current overall movement and structure of atom is depends on current particular movements of its sub-atomic particles. And also Physics of your example is a little odd, Electrons being sub atomic particles don't strictly obey Newtonian laws of motion, And also talk of removing one electron is odd, if you remove 1 electron from an atom the behavior of atom might change entirely. electrons don't strictly behave like billiard balls. 

  One system proceeds one way, another system proceeds another way.  If you change from one system to another system then you change how things progress. 

How does that somehow necessitate a hierarchical regress?

Indeed, by showing how how certain effect or process was essentially dependent on certain members, How system's certain progression is essentially dependent on certain members and their certain behavior.

First we have moving air.
Then we take away the air.
Now there is no moving air.
What do you suppose that demonstrates?

Exactly that such "movement" is dependent upon  elements that keep the air in existence as the movement is occurring.  

If you change things then different things happen.  How does that call for a hierarchical regress?

Again by showing that continuation of previous system was dependent on certain elements which have changed. 

First we have air with a propagating density wave. 
Change things by removing the air.
Now there is no propagating density wave.
Ok, yes, that's true, how does that somehow call for a hierarchical regress?

Once again by showing that such propagation is essentially dependent up such element And there is no mere tautology here, "movement" in air is not *same* term as *the air*. particular disturbance which comprises the sound isn't same thing as the air. The point once again is actually the same as the one in particles example we're discussing. 

An essential dependence between production of the sound and person, and its continuity has been identified here too.

What do you mean by "exercising on part of 1"?

exercising of particular causal power.

In a series of bodies colliding the first body is analogous to the grandfather, then subsequent body is analogous to the grandson, which is why every series of colliding bodies is an "accidental" series.

The 1 ball rolls
Time passes
The 1 ball hits the 2 ball
The 2 ball rolls
Time passes
The 2 ball hits the 3 ball
The 3 ball rolls
Time passes
The 3 ball falls in the pocket

The 1 ball is like the grandfather.  After it hits the 2 ball the 1 ball could disappear from existence or not, it doesn't matter as far as the 3 ball is concerned.  Every series of colliding objects is like that, an "accidental" series.

The Point again remains, The continuation of some particular influence inside 2 when that happens isn't derived and dependent on any current action and exercise of causal power on part of 1. when Ball 2 is rolling that action need not derive from 1 when that is happening. So that series is accidental, but the way this particular movement depends on surface keeping it up and forces holding it together is different from that. Similarly once again right now there no action of grandson is being derived from deceased grandfather,

Education does affect how one makes points.  I do not have an education as a medical doctor so I am open to being corrected on medical subjects by someone who does.  But if I say my temperature is 101F that is not a false statement just because I am not a medical doctor.  Nor is the statement of a medical doctor necessarily correct simply because the individual is educated in that field.

And here now , the most absurd section of your post, And once again its very much worth mentioning that none of what you mentioned engages with any of the point and particular arguments like I said it only serves to make your post a little bit more substantial. 

You said

Like seen above there isn't there isn't any spinning, vibrating and oscillating in shape of protons and no objects that depend on that would exist.

That is a false statement.
Proton Spin Mystery Gains a New Clue
Physicists long assumed a proton’s spin came from its three constituent quarks. New measurements suggest particles called gluons make a significant contribution
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proton-spin-mystery-gains-a-new-clue1/

Nobody with an education in physics would make such a statement.  I provided you with several links that show how wrong your statement is.  It is unfortunate you choose to go into denial on this subject.  There are lots of subjects I do not have an education in.  One cannot major in everything.  This need not be a matter of denial or disparagement.  It doesn't mean you can't reason about physical scenarios, it just means that communication with you is difficult in some respects because you do not understand some of the facts of modern physics.

Out of all the particular Strawmen you've made, this is "the most" ridiculous one. And If this isn't straw man it is either complete incompetence or cluelessness on your part. Why On Earth would you think I am asserting that that "Protons don't spin" When I am clearly describing a series in which some elements depend on just such a spin? Its even more clear from the fact that I wrote "would exist" , Why on Earth would I use "would" If you think I believe Protons "do" not spin? And even more clearer is the fact that I was clearly pointing towards above at my post #426 where I wrote the point even more clearly and explicitly, even if not adding if and then here was particular mistake on my part, there is no way you can utterly butcher that the way you do. And This isn't even the first time you attempted this. And I really do see why those already familiar with you Like grod don't like to engage you at all.

Now That I have already written response to those other points of yours I would post them But writing this here I really think its a mistake, communication with you is simply a mistake on such communicator's part. I don't really see the point in engaging you on This particular series point further, its clear you don't really grasp the issue here And I take your ceasing to engage with those particular points on conservation laws and all that for soundness of my criticisms of your claims, I've already mentioned how this series stuff can be circumvented And I am only expecting strawmen and repetition from You. So like Most other users here , I am done and I'll advise you should be too because no one here takes your claims much seriously so it won't be much fruitful for you to simply waste your time here.  

Last edited by Calhoun (12/26/2017 4:51 pm)

StardustyPsyche wrote:

You just agreed that
"Acceleration is a change in the kinetic energy of the objects undergoing acceleration."
"All change requires the passage of time"
Yet you call for an argument that to account for acceleration we must use a temporal regress analysis, not a hierarchical regress analysis. 

We use a temporal regress analysis to account for temporal changes.  Pretty simple.

Uh, no. What I call for is an argument that has an essential series of existing elements because that is what's required for the change to occur.

What we don't do is we don't refer to deceased grandfathers to account for the change in the kinetic energy of their grandchildren undergoing acceleration. They aren't required because they are non-essential. You assert that the deceased grandfather plays a causal role in the acceleration. You assert it repeatedly by mumbling the magic words "muh temporal regress" like a zombie without the slightest hint of an argument. 

By contrast A-T provides a lengthy counter argument to your wild assertion that includes discussions centered around essence, existence, the law of proportionate causality, universals, particulars, inherent potential, form, substance, etc. etc.

They are equivalent as expressed in E=mc^2

This doesn't answer my question. How are E and m different? Spell it out.
 
Things that you failed to address:
- Cite one example of an existing mass that is not itself changing in some respect over time. 
- The changeless mass that I am not convinced exists doesn't cause any change and doesn't do anything. It is therefore irrelevant to any of 5 Ways. What's your point?
- So now you're saying it DOES change. All mass/energy has 'structure' (i.e. form), therefore all mass/energy is NOT unchanging with respect to its existence. You want to have it both ways, but you cannot.
 

StardustyPsyche wrote:

@ficino

The following passage seems relevant to this thread:
" ... if a sphere, that is, a ball, rebounds from a wall, it is moved by the wall per accidens and not per se. It is moved per se by the initial thrower. For the wall did not give it any impetus toward motion, but the thrower did. It is per accidens because, when the ball was impeded by the wall, it did not receive a second impetus. Rather because of the same remaining impetus it rebounded with an opposite motion." Aquinas, Comm. on Aristotle's Physics VIII l. 8 C 1035.

Aquinas seems to think that the thrower's causal primacy covers whatever work is done by the wall. There is a time elapsed here, too, with the series still called per se by him.

Thank you very much for that post.  RomanJoe had some interesting insights in the difficulties of communicating across worldviews.  I think your post might have triggered in me a bit of a breakthrough.

As we can see from the posts of SteveK and Calhoun in the mind of the Thomist a great importance is placed on the simultaneous existence of an organized object that imparted change in the past, as opposed to the object that imparted change in the past having been since disassembled.

Apparently, their reasoning goes something like this.
The thrower exists throughout the process of imparting impetus to the ball.
Therefore something else exists that is imparting impetus to the thrower.
This cannot go on to infinity.
Therefore we must arrive at a first mover.

I think a key insight that was missing in A-T times is Newton's Third Law.

 When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

 
Thus, the answer to the origin of impetus is not a hierarchical series extending down, as it were, to a foundational first mover, rather, it is objects pushing off from each other in space.

Consider a rocket in space
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/rocket/newton3r.html
How do we account for the acceleration of the rocket ?  For the Thomist the rocket is being pushed, so there must be a pusher, but that pusher requires a pusher, and another again, and back and back and back in a hierarchical regress of pushers.  But this cannot go on to infinity, so the divine first mover must be the foundational pusher.

In science the first pusher is not necessary.

The rocket is like 2 roller skaters facing each other, they push off from each other.  In the case of the rocket the exhaust gas pushes off from the rocket motor.  The kinetic energy of the gas is equal to the kinetic energy of the rocket ship.

But where did that kinetic energy come from?  Immediately, fundamental physics, say, quantum fields, if that is what is truly fundamental.  No real causal regress is necessary.  Everything we see on our level is simply a perceived aggregate of what is going on at the fundamental level.  There is no causal series from the fundamental level to our level.  Everything simply is the fundamental level.

However, human beings cannot cope with such complexity and such tiny scales.  Thus, we employ a hierarchy of abstractions we call physics models.  We use these physics models to analyze real material processes.

We explain the bulk gas in terms of molecules.
Which are explained in terms of atoms.
Which are explained in terms of subatomic particles.
Which are explained in terms of the standard model.
Which are explained in terms of quantum fields (still a work in progress).

There is no material causal series from quantum fields to bulk gases.  The bulk gases simply are quantum fields.

To consider the succession of models, which are abstraction, as though they constituted a material causal series is to commit the fallacy of reification.

To employ our models in succession we say the kinetic energy of the bulk gas comes from energy released when bonds form.  The model is of separated atoms that constitute a higher energy system, and bonded atoms that constitute a lower energy system.  That difference in energy is transferred to molecular kinetic energy which in the aggregate accounts for bulk gas kinetic energy.

This is a continual temporal process wherein individual molecules of fuel and oxidizer form bonds, each releasing a tiny amount of energy.

Thus, no hierarchical changer is required at all, so no divine first mover is necessary to account for acceleration of the rocket ship.

Back to the thrower of the ball.  The impetus imparted is traced back to another chemical process, oxidation of fuel, the forming of chemical bonds, just like the rocket ship employs, but the fuel is food and the oxidizer is atmospheric oxygen. 

Through a complex temporal series of causes and effects this chemical energy leads to the contraction of muscles and the acceleration of the ball in one direction and the acceleration of the Earth upon which the thrower stands in the opposite direction.

Again, no hierarchical regression is needed at all.  The Earth, the thrower, and the ball all simply are quantum fields.  Newton's third law holds.  All objects exist in space.  Acceleration is accounted form by mutual pushing off from each other of objects in space.



 

Doubling the number of pushers doesn't change anything, SDP. Each pusher still needs an initial push deriving from within themselves some source of energy.

Regardless, I'm not sure why Newton's third law would even apply in free space. The reason for the push-back (reaction) is resistance but there is nothing to resist an object in motion in free space, as the object itself is weightless also: there is literally nothing holding the movable object in place in the first place. Flap your arms up and down outside and you barely budge; do it in water and you will rise up to the surface. This is part of the reason why Aristotle thought motion in an absolute void to be impossible.

Last edited by Timocrates (12/27/2017 11:05 am)

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Okay, I've had further complaints.

God bless you JT. Thank you for keeping this forum together.