Not any new material, no.  You did not create any new mass/energy.  When you take it apart the material persists, the mass/energy is conserved, no mass/energy blinked out of existence.

This is also called existential inertia.  You can call it conservation of mass/energy, persistence of material in existence, existential inertia, the amount of mass/energy does not change, or whatever you wish.  This is an observed, experimentally confirmed fact of science.

But I did create a new concrete being, mass/energy simply supervenes on this process , so first clearly new material is actualized and conservation of mass/energy is simply dependent on such chain of cause and effect so once again mass/energy turns out to be completely harmless to the argument. And secondly, once again these laws are hardly considered exception-less in science both mass and energy are not conserved in many cases as pointed out to you. 

You are treating a verb as a noun.

A noun is material.  A verb is an action of that material.

Verbs do not exist independent of nouns, they describe what nouns do or how nouns relate to other nouns.

The ball rolls.
The ball bounces.
The ball spins.
Ten balls are in a line.
Eight balls are in an octagon.

The ball is conserved (ideally) through all the rolling, bouncing, spinning, lining up, and forming up, the ball stays the ball.  The ball has existential inertia.  No ball was created or destroyed through these various motions.  The material ball does not change in its existential respect,  In the respect of the ball's motion the material ball does change, temporally, due to the temporal interactions with other objects resulting in various accelerations.

But this is false, I am not doing that, What I am trying to show is that organizations,forms,arrangement and composite wholes are real independently. otherwise you face incoherence.and the above example doesn't really challenge that. Like I said If wholes do not exist and are mere abstractions then what about human persons themselves which have to do the abstracting in the first place? They are themselves wholes. And again If form,arrangement etc are only thing that changes but they do not exist then how does change exist exist in the first place?

Yes, the combined facts of being constituted by other elements, the motions of those elements, the propagation times of those elements means that the water-cup-table-Earth system is not a 4 body problem in a single "essential" series, rather they are composed of a vast number of temporal causal series, each one of which is "accidental"  with no identifiable first member, rather with causal predecessors going back at least as fair as the big bang, which is clearly an "accidental" series, of which the presently observed members are just a small part.

But this is not really true either, because first its not "identical" to those constituents and secondly, its obvious that such a series would be essential. because they all have to be actualized in particular way here and now to contribute the overall effect of the system. so once again there temporal interaction hardly makes this series "accidental" , the cup is held up by table the table by earth and so on , their constituents are interacting in this particular way then that one , so such series is essential. 

You can speculate that an invisible being is changing all the things in the universe in just the right way so that  and existential inertia, which are aspects of existence that do not change, are provided to us as illusions of no change in those respects.

But there is no speculation at all, because first of all you've failed to demonstrate any "existential inertia" exists or any such thing would be of any explanatory value in the first place.secondly regarding inertia of motion its hardly true that its the aspect of existence that does not change. because it itself is an actualization of potentiality, consider that the constituents that contribute to some body in uniform linear motion are hardly themselves in such motion, and again it already presupposed the qualitative change, quantitative change and temporal becoming , if they don't happen then neither does that. And Finally, You're the once who is wrongly concretizing the abstract, because laws of motion or conservation laws are just that, laws,regularities and abstractions. They merely mathematically describe ,not explain, SO such laws depend on causal facts about real substances in the first place. So once again They simply do not effect the argument, Nothing here leads to any "existential inertia" .

A lack of formal contradiction does not equal *necessity*.

Actually here it does because this simply blocks your criticisms of particular premise in the argument argument.

Last edited by Calhoun (12/24/2017 5:10 am)

Calhoun wrote:

How are "brains" able to do that if they do not really exist in the first place? 

Or, to repeat my earlier question, SP, are us being the type of beings capable of imposing models onto the constant flux of atoms something that is imposed onto the constant flux of atoms? If so, who does the imposing?

StardustyPsyche wrote:

@RomanJoe
Calhoun wrote:How are "brains" able to do that if they do not really exist in the first place? 

As I described to FSC, it would be a mistake to deny the reality of physical objects altogether.  We can make valid models, models that converge on reality, that's what science does.

Or, to repeat my earlier question, SP, are us being the type of beings capable of imposing models onto the constant flux of atoms something that is imposed onto the constant flux of atoms? If so, who does the imposing?

The concepts of self, our self perceptions, can also be determined to be inaccurate in various ways, but that is not to deny the reality that we do think.  Even a mouse can remember a maze.  The horse knows the way to carry the sleigh.  This is not so mysterious.  That's what the brain does, form representations in memory of objects in the outside world. 

And your point with all that is? The moment you've conceded the "reality" of what were talking about here ,you've conceded everything on your part. You've conceded that brains really does exist ,that irreducible wholes are real and concrete ,therefor in your terminology "material" .  Therefor wherever we have above discussed hierarchy, we have real essential causal series.  

And again if you deny that then we have our models "converging" onto nothing real at all, which you accept here and anyway denial of that would be incoherent.

And most importantly , how is such reductionism supposed be justified by "science"? , I've never heard of some scientific experiment conducted to prove that? That "everything" must  ultimately be completely reducible to parts. 
 

Last edited by Calhoun (12/24/2017 1:10 pm)

@Calhoun

new material is actualized and conservation of mass/energy is simply dependent on such chain of cause and effect so once again mass/energy turns out to be completely harmless to the argument.

No, existing material is re-arranged temporally.
The same amount of mass/energy is in existence before, during, and after the car is assembled/disassembled.  So no changer at all is *necessary* to account for existential inertia.
Existing mass/energy is re-arranged temporally in your car example, not hierarchically. So no hierarchical changer is *necessary* in your car example.  Thus the First and Second Ways fail as arguments for the *necessity* of a hierarchical first mover.

And secondly, once again these laws are hardly considered exception-less in science both mass and energy are not conserved in many cases as pointed out to you.

No, mass/energy conservation is an experimental scientific fact.  No experiment ever performed has ever resulted in a measurement of a violation of conservation of mass/energy. 

Energy is not conserved for a particular object.  Objects increase or decrease in energy over time.  Those are temporal changes, not hierarchical changes.  Further, in those changes no net change in the existence of mass/energy has ever been measured.

What I am trying to show is that organizations,forms,arrangement and composite wholes are real independently.

You failed.  There is no evidence of a Platonic world of forms.  That is an ancient notion that confuses an abstraction with an outside realized object.

And again If form,arrangement etc are only thing that changes but they do not exist then how does change exist exist in the first place?

That leads to a cosmological argument, not a hierarchical argument.  The cosmological riddle is unsolved, but we do know the answer lies at least as far back as the big bang, clearly an "accidental" causal series as every real material causal series is "accidental".

its obvious that such a series would be essential.

It is also obvious that the sun rises in the East, arcs across the sky, and set in the West, while Earth remains stationary.  Just go sit on a big rock and you can see it and feel it for yourself.  Obvious indeed.

the cup is held up by table the table by earth and so on , their constituents are interacting in this particular way then that one , so such series is essential.

No, their constituents are a multitude of temporal, "accidental" processes that regress into deep past time.  You are employing simple naked eye observations and attempting to deduce god.  That breaks down under closer examination.  As you develop your ability to think scientifically you will begin to see why your naked eye analysis is simplistic and erroneous.

you've failed to demonstrate any "existential inertia" exists

I have demonstrated this often, it is no change. Existential inertia means that material stays the same in the respect of its existence.  It is not necessary to identify a changer to account for no change. 

Existential inertia has the truth of a tautology by synonym.
When things stay the same things don't change.
The Thomist demands an explanation for this tautology.
The Thomistic explanation is that there is an invisible being that is continuously changing everything in the universe in just the right way so as to provide us with the illusion of existential inertia.

the constituents that contribute to some body in uniform linear motion are hardly themselves in such motion,

Yes, of course they are.  Atoms, grains, rocks, whatever.  The whole collection and each constituent.

laws of motion or conservation laws are just that, laws,regularities and abstractions. They merely mathematically describe ,not explain, SO such laws depend on causal facts about real substances in the first place.

Human mathematical models are descriptive, not prescriptive.  Ok.  Nobody knows why things progress the way they do, as opposed to some other imagined manner of progression.  Speculating god does nothing to solve that question, rather, only makes the problem worse.

So once again They simply do not effect the argument, Nothing here leads to any "existential inertia"

Existential inertia is an experimentally confirmed scientific fact.  The fact of existential inertia destroys the Second Way as an argument for the *necessity* of a hierarchical first mover acting in the present moment to account for observed persistence of material.

The fact that you are composed of your constituents does not mean, you are "reducible" to those constituents. because then there no "You" here in the first place, there are just those constituents that really exist.

That's not what reducible means.  Of course if we smash an object into its atoms that changes the manner that material progresses, now its just a pile of atoms, not an organized object.

Reducible means that we account for the actions of the whole as the sum, as it were, of the parts.




 

@Calhoun

if car is assembled/disassembled a new concrete object is created and destroyed both of these processes are changes which are explained by particular  changer,

Such changes are temporal, not hierarchical.  They are accounted for with a temporal regress of mutual causation between multiple material objects, such as you, the tools, the electricity to power the tools, the generator plant to generate the electricity, the transportation of the fuel to the generator plant, and back and back and back at least as far as the big bang, clearly an "accidental" series of which your process regarding the care are simply a small subset.

whatever actualizing them here and now. So we clearly have hierarchical series,

No, objects interact temporally in processes of mutual causation, which is a temporal causal series, not hierarchical.

The notion of conservation mass/energy isn't much relevant to the argument

It's relevant to the Second Way, which is why Feser (fallaciously) discusses it from time to time.

All these processes need explanation of what keeps them actual at any particular moment

No, if there is no change in some respect then there is no need for an explanation of no change.

In the respects that there is change the explanation is temporal interaction in mutual causation with other objects, not hierarchical.

And what do you mean net-energy ? How on Earth is such a thing empirically accessible in the first place, so we can make scientific claims about it ?

Net mass/energy is measured by defining a boundary, measuring the mass/energy that crosses the boundary and measuring the mass/energy within that boundary.

Say we start with x mass/energy within a volumetric boundary.  After an experiment we measure .2x + .2x + .2x + .2x + .2x + .2x within that boundary.  During the experiment we measured .2x crossed into that boundary.  Conservation of mass/energy through the experiment is thus confirmed by measurement.

Material was rearranged during the experiment, but no new material was created and no material was destroyed,  The net amount of material was measured to remain constant.

I wasn't talking about any cosmological arguments or causal series here at all rather I was trying to offer an argument for my above claims which you ignore.

You didn't intend, perhaps, to talk about origins in the deep past, but that is where those particular arguments of yours lead, even though you do not at this time fully understand the implications of those particular arguments you made.

I have found you and others here continually say I am ignoring your points.  I have some 150 posts on a 400 post thread, hardly a matter of ignoring.  Any objective analysis of my writing would say it is at least fairly prolific, even if you don't agree with the content.

You are confusing an unexpected answer with no answer in saying I ignored your points.  I answered your points, but in ways you do not yet understand the relevance of.

form a hierarchical series in any particular moment anyway with each member being actualized by the other.

If they are in a process of mutual causation that is not hierarchical, it is temporal.  There is no necessity for a hierarchical first changer because the changes of each member are accounted for by mutual causation with other members.

Yes, you are correct, everything just keeps bouncing off, as it were, everything else.  That is a temporal process of mutual causation, not hierarchical.

what keeps the car in existence is hardly made unnecessary by citing "that" it is kept in existence,

To account for the continued existence of the car as an organized object we consider 2 categories of existence.
1,Existence of the material the car is composed of.
2.The arrangement of that material.

1.The persistence of existence of the material the car is composed of is accounted for by the conservation of mass/energy, which is no change in the existential respect of material, and thus requires no explanatory changer.
2.The arrangement of that material is accounted for by the dynamic, temporal, mutually causal interactions of the constituents of the car.  No hierarchical changer is necessary since the arrangement of the constituents is accounted for by mutual causal processes with each other.

Thus, for both 1. and 2. no hierarchical changer is *necessary*.

then either the "sum" is a further object thus falsifying your claims or if it isn't then you face such incoherence once again. 

Summation process is a verb, it is an action descriptor, it is a process of a noun, not itself a noun.