@Calhoun
--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. "
--If no scientific works employ act/potency in their causal analysis then yes, manifestly act/potency is an obsolete method of analyzing real material causation.  It simply has no place in any modern scientific study of real material causation as evidenced by the fact that it is not employed, at all, by scientists.
--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" ."
--Yes, it would.  The notion of a non-simultaneous "essential" series is incoherent.

"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."
--If it is spread out over time it cannot be "essential".  A soon as we admit the members of the series are spread out over time the choice of a first member becomes arbitrary and the regression must continue temporally into the deep past and astronomical distances, clearly an accidental series.

"and secondly , you yourself admit of instrumentality between members of these temporal series"
--Only in a crude A-T manner of speaking.  I was only speaking in the vernacular for the sake of establishing some sort of communication.

My point was only that the notion of instrumentality is also pointless in this respect because in truth we would need to subdivide each "instrument" as well. 

My point was to show how arbitrary it is to designate the stick as instrumental while the hand is designated first and the rock is designated last.  If one makes those designations, first-instrument-last then by the same reasoning a vast number of prior members are also first-instrument-last in a temporal regress, which makes the whole manner of speaking of first-instrument-last very apparently arbitrary and meaningless except as a very crude stepwise sort of way to begin thinking of such things.

"so that would again, make it essential and need of a first cause. "
--In the deep past, unless the universe and motion are past eternal in which case there is no first cause.

"You haven't established the reduction of all change to locomotion"
--I did, you just have not been able or willing to hang on to that demonstration and the language I employed.  All real material alteration requires locomotion.  No observed change in the mass/energy or structure of a material object occurs without there having occurred associated locomotion.  This is true of changes in quantity, color, or any other observable physical trait.

"You haven't established falsity of simultaneous series"
--I have but you simply are not willing or able to hang on to that demonstration.  There is no such thing as a rigid multibody system.  Causal influences propagate, classically, no faster than c.  If you do not understand why these things are true all I can do is suggest you research the subjects.

"temporal but still essential series"
--That is oxymoronic, as I have clearly demonstrated.  If you do not understand how to do a temporal causal regression analysis I suggest you study that methodology.

"whatever goes from potency to actuality would at least be contingent so in need to explanation unless some thing is pure actuality"
--An object in uniform linear motion is already fully actualized in the respect of its motion, or alternatively in the respect of its particular kinetic energy, thus the First Way fails.

A existent object is already fully actualized in the respect of is its existence, thus the Second Way fails.


 

@ficino

What I mean is simply that those are only sufficient conditions for what a linear or hierarchical series involve. like in Five proofs for example he explicitly says that For the purposes of understanding what a hierarchical series is its "useful" to think of what happens at a single moment in time but its not essential to it.  

@SDP

--If no scientific works employ act/potency in their causal analysis then yes, manifestly act/potency is an obsolete method of analyzing real material causation.  It simply has no place in any modern scientific study of real material causation as evidenced by the fact that it is not employed, at all, by scientists.

Again First, that inference is blatantly question begging and fallacious. and Secondly, its simply not true that "no scientific works employ act/potency in their causal analysis" . Neo-Aristotelian philosophy of science is in fact very popular, the work on Powers and Dispositions for example is pradigmatically based on act/potency.  So this assertion by itself wouldn't show anything. 

--Yes, it would.  The notion of a non-simultaneous "essential" series is incoherent.

That is what you are supposed to show. 

My point was only that the notion of instrumentality is also pointless in this respect because in truth we would need to subdivide each "instrument" as well. 

My point was to show how arbitrary it is to designate the stick as instrumental while the hand is designated first and the rock is designated last.  If one makes those designations, first-instrument-last then by the same reasoning a vast number of prior members are also first-instrument-last in a temporal regress, which makes the whole manner of speaking of first-instrument-last very apparently arbitrary and meaningless except as a very crude stepwise sort of way to begin thinking of such things.

But this doesn't do anything to avoid First cause, The point isn't that we are arbitrarily designating some member as first but its instead that if the series is instrumental, then No other member except first can have much independent causal power, if first member doesn't impart causal power to subsequent members they can't instrumentally cause anything. so we logically require First Cause on pain of incoherence.   

--If it is spread out over time it cannot be "essential".  A soon as we admit the members of the series are spread out over time the choice of a first member becomes arbitrary and the regression must continue temporally into the deep past and astronomical distances, clearly an accidental series.

But simply saying this does nothing to make the claim that "every" causal series is accidental coherent, that is what I was saying in the passage you quote. 

--I did, you just have not been able or willing to hang on to that demonstration and the language I employed.  All real material alteration requires locomotion.  No observed change in the mass/energy or structure of a material object occurs without there having occurred associated locomotion.  This is true of changes in quantity, color, or any other observable physical trait.

But this is simply a restatement of your old claims that have been already criticized, offered counter-example etc. You've since ceased to engage this point further and now simply assert your original claims once again.  

--I have but you simply are not willing or able to hang on to that demonstration.  There is no such thing as a rigid multibody system.  Causal influences propagate, classically, no faster than c.

This is complete non-sequitor as it does nothing to show how simultaneous causation is impossible.

--That is oxymoronic, as I have clearly demonstrated.  If you do not understand how to do a temporal causal regression analysis I suggest you study that methodology.

No, it isn't , No good reason have been given to think its the case.

--An object in uniform linear motion is already fully actualized in the respect of its motion, or alternatively in the respect of its particular kinetic energy

A existent object is already fully actualized in the respect of is its existence, thus the Second Way fails.

But this is complete gibberish repeated yet again, what does it even mean to be "fully actualized in the respect of its motion, or alternatively in the respect of its particular kinetic energy"? or to be "fully actualized in the respect of is its existence" . Not to again even mention that this does nothing to refute act/potency once again. 

At this point it seems to me that you are simply inclined to repeat or restate your original claims over and over again. if this continues then I am not feeling liable to respond, if we we'll do is go around in circles.


 

Last edited by Calhoun (12/04/2017 12:32 am)

@grod
"If there is no change quite obviously no changer is necessary."
--At least you understand that much.  Since uniform linear motion is not a change in the kinetic energy of the object in motion no changer is necessary to account for observed uniform linear motion, thus the First Way fails.

Persistent existence of material is no change in the mass/energy of that material therefore the Second Way fails.

"only purports to show that if change, any change, is to happen, a first unchanged changer must sustain the whole hierarchical chain of changers"
--Acceleration is a temporal process that is accounted for in a temporal regress analysis, not a hierarchical analysis.

High school physics, grod, learn it.
 

Just a reminder that no series of causes -- whether essential or accidental -- can actually be infinite, because infinity is that to which nothing can be added to; as Duns Scotus observes, the infinite is "omnimoda simplicitas", without any quantitative parts. That being said, the series of changes we can observe here and now is not infinite, otherwise nothing could really be added to it. Whether or not the series is hierarchical or not, it cannot be infinite.

As to Feser's sentence with "typically" in it: 

If I say, "x is typically F, whereas y is G," one doesn't normally think that I mean the adverb "typically" to govern the proposition about G. If "typically" is meant to qualify both propositions, one would expect me to say, "typically, x is F, whereas y is G." But never mind. 

@stardusty: my copy of the ST is in Latin, so I don't know of an English translation to recommend. As I said, when I check things in English, I go to the dhspriory website.

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/

I am sorry, but I can't express an opinion now on your expansion of 2) in my breakdown of what I understood you to be arguing.