StardustyPsyche wrote:

@
"How come things change ?"
--Newton provided a key insight that has been greatly developed since his day.  To paraphrase, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  In a very rough manner of speaking, everything keeps bouncing off of everything else.  A great variety of ways in which material interacts are described by modern physics.
 

Do you want us to do anything other than laugh?
​Newtonian mechanics describes physical motion quite accurately but it does not explain from whence motion came. Indeed, on a Newtonian physic (really only mechanics, because Newton doesn't tell us where or how motion originated), you would necessarily have an infinite regress for the efficient cause of motion because physical objects just don't start booting about for no reason: every local motion always either has some other motion, always reducible to some other local motion process, for its beginning or cause and the only other universal motion generator would be gravity but things have to be within reach for gravity to take hold (which presumes a local motion) one; and two, gravity would rather tend to unite objects and hold them together than leading to more movement in and of itself: gravity would as it were tend to consume local motion energy by acting against it or cancelling it out. It's quite rare, e.g., for orbits to manage to be so perfect that objects are not going to tend toward or away from each other - the Moon, for instance, is they say slowly (extremely slowly) drifting away from the earth. But gravity presupposes mass or massy objects and where these came from or how they came to be Newton does not pretend to know or tell us.

​The problem for the Newtonian principle of action and reaction is the original action. You need an original action to get things moving; but from whence this came or how it came there is no explanation. Newton gave us a mechanics more than an actual physics: it presumes and assumes that there just is motion and a sufficient cause of it (perfectly valid and obviously also necessary and true). Newtonian mechanics does not actually explain how change became possible or where physical objects came from or how they came to be. It takes the root cause of it for granted: even if there is or are endless motions possible in the universe, something had to get these motions started either by uniting the components (e.g. an electron uniting with an atom) or something moving something else by way or contact and local motion where energy is always retained.

​PERSISTENCE
​FSC is 100% correct: persistence implies time and time requires motion/change. Things are not and do not persist unless something is moving or changing; but how this is or came to be "physics" does not say or claim to know: it assumes an original state with an active potentiality already existing (e.g. a state of affairs that leads to the "big bang").

@RomanJoe
--You can refer back to #7 and #8 if you want, but a summary can be a good thing to get right to the core of the matter.

Aquinas said in the First Way:
*Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another*
A modern person reads that to mean that whatever is in motion now was accelerated by something else in the past, so the plain text of the First Way on the modern worldview is a sort of Kalam argument.

But Aquinas had an Aristotelian view, so what he meant was whatever is in motion now is being acted upon by something else to keep it in motion now.

Aquinas goes on:
*It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover*

If Aquinas was correct in thinking an object in uniform linear motion needs another object to act on it now to keep it in motion now then his argument would indeed be powerful.

But kinetic inertia, conservation of kinetic energy, means Aquinas was wrong, no "another" is necessary to account for uniform linear motion.  Therefore it is not necessary to arrive at a first mover.

The First Way is an argument for the *necessity* of a hierarchical first mover acting in the present moment.  But uniform linear motion is no change in the kinetic energy of the object in motion.  If we observe an object does not change in a particular respect then no changer is necessary to account for that observation of no change, much less a hierarchical regress of changers terminating in a first changer.

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 uniform linear motion.



 

@FSC

"What, you want me to go and quote Krauss, with a universe from nothing? I know you like him a lot for this, and I'm being ironic here"
--Krauss is at present a fallen rationalist, a formerly great public voice for reason now an embarrassment to materialists, who either drank the wrong Koolaid or just decided to cash in on the woo mongering business.  His book is one big fat equivocation and just a cheap attempt to redefine something as nothing in order to claim something from nothing that any person with the slightest comprehension recognizes as an argument of something from something.

Nobody has solved the great existential riddle, least of all Krauss.

"Persistence implies time."
--Indeed.  Forgive me for not responding to your detailed comments but your post and the agreement by Timocrates with it leads me to suspect there is a more fundamental disconnect going on here.

Feser, and other Thomists assert the First Way  is an argument for the necessity of a hierarchical first mover (changer) acting in the present moment to account for observed motion including uniform linear motion (and change generally).  Without this first mover, it is asserted, all motion (change) would necessarily cease.

Further, Thomists assert the Second Way is an argument for the necessity of a hierarchical first mover (changer) acting in the present moment to account for persistent existence, continued existence, the observation of existential inertia.  Without this first mover, it is asserted, all material would immediately blink out of existence, just vanish without a trace.

Are you aware that those are the claims of Feser and other Thomists?



" If I take your reasonning, to me, you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist by showing that there is a God that exists."
--No, there is no disproof available for an intrinsically non-falsifiable speculation.

You mention time with respect to change and persistence.  Indeed.  Time.  Change occurs over time.  Zero change occurs in zero time.  To speak of persistence over zero time would indeed be nonsensical.

Material changes in its arrangement, in its structure over time.  Arrangement does not persist for the objects we observe.  Everything is in motion, even things that seem to be stationary.  To ask for an account of the motion we observe we must use a temporal regress analysis that necessarily extends back at least as far as the big bang, prior to which the truth is that nobody knows how to account for the origin of existence, material, and motion, except to say that it occurred in the deep past or perhaps has always existed.

That is a legitimate riddle and topic for consideration.  Feser is an illegitimate hack selling disjointed woo nonsense in books and behind paywalls with no capacity to engage me on the merits.

Can you find the specific errors in this argument?
If a thing does not change in a particular respect then no changer is necessary to account for the observation of no change in that respect.
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. 
Therefore persistence of the amount of material of an object does not necessitate a changer at all.
Since no changer is necessitated by observed persistence of material, no hierarchical first changer acting in the present moment is necessitated.

First a comment, Those are either total non-sequitur or total gibberish, All the flaws in the above are repeatedly explained to you, That you simply keep asserting the same "over and over" again speaks a lot about you. 

once again lets look at of them. 

If a thing does not change in a particular respect then no changer is necessary to account for the observation of no change in that respect.

Right from the start we see extreme dubiousness and obscurity in your premises. What on Earth you mean even mean by "respect" in the first place, you need to state clearly how this is to be related to the argument. 
Suppose a fire eternally causes some object X to be at Y degree temperature, temperature always remains Y but still doesn't fire account for it? It does and Indeed necessary so, without actualization by fire no such particular temperature can be maintained.    

Existing material does not change its mass/energy merely by virtue of persisting in existence.

First of all, What do you even mean by term "material" , till date you've given no intelligible description, secondly, which premise do you think is refuted by the above , so in any case, your claim is irrelevant to the argument.

The amount of material of a material object does not change simply by continuing to exist.

Similarly, here what do you even mean by amount of "material". and again, completely irrelevant claim to the argument.

Therefore persistence of the amount of material of an object does not necessitate a changer at all.
Since no changer is necessitated by observed persistence of material, no hierarchical first changer acting in the present moment is necessitated.

But like I explained you claims don't even try to refute whats relevant to the argument , so the conclusion simply do not follow. 

And one of the most glaring error of yours is found here below:

In a temporal regress analysis causal events are separated in a time sequence process.
In a hierarchical regress analysis causal events are imagined as connected hierarchically in a particular moment.

Again, No as it has been explained to you already, Its the instrumental character of all members of hierarchical series. And importantly , Events are only derivatively or secondly causes, its merely how we speak about causes, causation for AT is primarily a feature of Substances or things . Not of events, So once again the key insight here is that none of the members of the series have all independent causal power.

Now lets look at another claim you repeatedly make. 

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,

First it should be pointed out that whether temporally or hierarchically (as you put it) , it has not been established that there is no actualization of potentiality in this scenario, So like I explained to you before your criticisms here fail on multiple fronts, First uniform motion as I've explained , supervenes on number of different types of changes,even the constituents underlying an object undergoing rectilinear motion, aren't themselves all in uniform linear motion, Suppose in the next instant all other forms of change are annihilated you won't find anything still undergoing uniform linear motion.  So again this way of arguing against Feser's argument fails.  

Secondly, once again, as these things undergo actualization of potential. So at least they are contingent, Now, this proof isn't similar to rationalist proof but it can still form the foundation of A-T modal epistemology and modal metaphysics. so this way the argument can simply circumvent having to argue through distinct causal series, they can argue that any kind would terminate in Unmoved mover. 

Finally , You like to assert that AT assert invisible mover, but you fail to give arguments against any principles through which they reach their conclusion, You don't refute act/potency , you don't refute essence/existence. Your arguments against hierarchical series have been shown to be fallacious, It has been shown to you that its incoherent to hold that "all" causal series are accidental  You simply assert that you are right, reassert your original claims again then proceed to throw in gratuitous insults. All this is simply evidence that you aren't interested in any rational discussion. 

StardustyPsyche wrote:

Krauss is at present a fallen rationalist, a formerly great public voice for reason now an embarrassment to materialists, who either drank the wrong Koolaid or just decided to cash in on the woo mongering business.  His book is one big fat equivocation and just a cheap attempt to redefine something as nothing in order to claim something from nothing that any person with the slightest comprehension recognizes as an argument of something from something.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

That is a legitimate riddle and topic for consideration.  Feser is an illegitimate hack selling disjointed woo nonsense in books and behind paywalls with no capacity to engage me on the merits.

Two remarks.

a) Refrain from belitteling people you don't like, engage them. On a pure objective standpoint, each scientist and philosopher is trying to advance towards the truth. Even the one who's trying to confuse everyone is helping things, because he's causing other people to think about it.
b) I disagree with Krauss and I agree with Feser. Again, as I told you earlier, it might make me an idiot in your eyes, but I honestly don't care. I'm trying to follow your points until we "disconnect". Don't sidetrack.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

Nobody has solved the great existential riddle, least of all Krauss.

Which riddle? What does it have to be here? No need for pathos.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

"Persistence implies time."
--Indeed.  Forgive me for not responding to your detailed comments but your post and the agreement by Timocrates with it leads me to suspect there is a more fundamental disconnect going on here.

That's a pity, because I *want* you to engage these details, because they're exactly where you and us disagree on. Especially :

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

b) Which brings us to my second point. My car is an artifact. If I'm going to have it repaired, I fully expect my car to change overnight. Let's say I have broken brakes : I hope I'll have my car repaired. It'll be a change, but it'll still be my car. How do you account for this?

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

What's what you call "material"? Atoms? Waves? Particles? Fields?

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

C.f. last point : that "very rough manner of speaking" is what is key here. Are you saying matter and energy can bounce off each other? Just matter and matter ? Just energy and energy ? What's matter and energy? What do you put behind these words? If matter is energy, why are there two words? Heard of energy/matter conversion? What is conversion if not change?

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

Feser, and other Thomists assert the First Way  is an argument for the necessity of a hierarchical first mover (changer) acting in the present moment to account for observed motion including uniform linear motion (and change generally).  Without this first mover, it is asserted, all motion (change) would necessarily cease.

That's the point of contention. You're seeing linear motion as a special case. I didn't bring it in our discussion, I'm simply trying to get you to the point where material things change (if they change), move, and all that. Either linear motion has to do with change, either it doesn't. If it has nothing to do with change, then we're all fine, since the First Way relies on change. If it has something to do with change, then we have to find whether there is (as you would affirm) or if there isn't a problem with it (as Feser and us would affirm).

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

Further, Thomists assert the Second Way is an argument for the necessity of a hierarchical first mover (changer) acting in the present moment to account for persistent existence, continued existence, the observation of existential inertia.  Without this first mover, it is asserted, all material would immediately blink out of existence, just vanish without a trace.

Note that this is a per impossible : if God would stop animating creation, then all creation would vanish. As a secular equivalent, if you remove gravity, you can expect planets and bodies to explode in a chaotic arrangement of particles. Would you dispute it?

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

Are you aware that those are the claims of Feser and other Thomists?

Not quite. You're mixing a few things which is why I disagree with you on that.

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

No, there is no disproof available for an intrinsically non-falsifiable speculation

You mean that if I find a way to show that "X exist" is false, then it doesn't follow that "X doesn't exist" is true? Like, if I take something which would do God's works and name it "Y", even by considering "the universe itself", I haven't produced a greater object than "the universe needing God to operate it", if I go using your vocable? Haven't I produced a primer ontological model?

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

You mention time with respect to change and persistence.  Indeed.  Time.  Change occurs over time.  Zero change occurs in zero time.  To speak of persistence over zero time would indeed be nonsensical.

Because time is the measure of change. You can't have time without change, neither you can't have persistance without change. "Zero change occurs in zero time" is a grammatically valid sentence, but has no meaning.

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

Material changes in its arrangement, in its structure over time.  Arrangement does not persist for the objects we observe.  Everything is in motion, even things that seem to be stationary.  To ask for an account of the motion we observe we must use a temporal regress analysis that necessarily extends back at least as far as the big bang, prior to which the truth is that nobody knows how to account for the origin of existence, material, and motion, except to say that it occurred in the deep past or perhaps has always existed.

You're getting (somewhat) on the tracks I'm setting for you there. Remember that you said

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

Really? You do not observe things persisting?  What, is stuff just popping out of and into existence in your observations?  When you park a car in your garage at night don't you fully expect it to still be there in the morning?  What an absurd request.

Now, you seem to offer the exact opposite. That's why I'm asking you to respond to the details as deep as you can, and you'll perhaps see why we think that A-T is true. It avoids vagueness on saying that "structure changes", "arrangements don't persist", or "stuff popping out of [existence]".

And as a last word before you reply, remember that

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

prior to which the truth is that nobody knows how to account

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

we must use a temporal regress analysis

are two positive claims that I'm going to ask you how you can justify them. You're free to drop them if you feel you can't justify them.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

*First they laugh at you, then they get angry at you, then you are proved right* (paraphrasing)

You forgot the first part : when you tell the truth.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

On a past infinite universe with past infinite causation both the universe and motion in it have always existed.  Else one can make a Kalam sort of argument, a something from nothing sort of argument, or simply tell the truth that nobody knows the answer to this ancient and profound riddle.

Careful. Another justification to make here. You're forgetting the case where an infinite past universe would require a mover (and I suspect that's because you're not seeing "mover" correctly).

StardustyPsyche wrote:

But we do know the answer is in consideration of the deep past, at least as far back as the big bang.

Fake dilemna. That's only if you're a strict causal determinist. Democritus would agree, Epicurus wouldn't.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

Motion is correctly analyzed with a temporal  regress causal series leading us back in time at least as far as the big bang.

That's something which need proof.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

I am not here to tell you I am the first human being to answer the great existential riddle.  I am here to tell you that no human being has ever published such an answer into general circulation, and to tell you where Aquinas got it wrong and Feser continues to get it wrong. 

Conflict with your last quote.

Last edited by FrenchySkepticalCatholic (12/09/2017 12:35 pm)