Posted by StardustyPsyche  11/25/2017 5:48 pm | #11 |
RomanJoe"SP is wrong in assuming that the First Way is unsound if local motion can be shown to operate without a concurrent actualizing cause."
--If motion is a sort of change then how can the first changer not be required to account for it? In truth, uniform motion is not a change in the intrinsic properties of the object in motion. You can sense this for yourself. Right now you are in motion at about a thousand miles per hour in Earth's rotation, but you do not sense any change in yourself. You are in motion at orders of magnitude higher speeds through space due to orbital velocity of the solar system and galaxy, yet you sense no change in yourself.
Acceleration changes the intrinsic properties of an object, and you can sense when that happens. No changer is needed to account for no change, and uniform linear motion is no change in the intrinsic properties of the object in motion.
"There are other types of change, namely, substantial, qualitative, and quantitative"
--These are all necessarily due to motion, the physical displacement of material from one location to another location. All change of all sorts is due to motion of material from one place to another place.
"This could easily be rephrased as being potentially at point A, being potentially at point B, and being potentially at point C."
--There is no analytical value to that means of describing motion, which is why scientists do not employ it. Scientists have equations to describe mass, acceleration, force, and velocity. The old terminology of actualizing potentials is obsolete.
|
Posted by ficino 11/25/2017 8:27 pm | #12 |
Aristotle sets it forth that locomotion is the first of motions, of which there are three: motion over space, alteration, and growth/decay. In some earlier works, e.g. Categories, Aristotle had included generation and corruption as motions, but in what seem to be more mature parts of the corpus, he denies this. That's because the subject does not persist through generation/corruption.
Locomotion is the primary motion, ἡ κατὰ τόπον φορὰ πρώτη τῶν κινήσεων, Physics 265b17; cf. IV.1, 208a31-32.
Does this entail that motion in space is necessary for alteration or growth/diminution? Yes.
If a substance undergoes growth or diminution, something moves to become part of it or moves away to cease to be a part of it. But for alteration, too, something has to move in space, since between substances that are composites of form and matter, the agent must be in contact with the patient. Cf. Istvan Bodnar:
"All other changes depend on locomotions, because any two entities involved in change, with their active and passive potentialities respectively, need to come into contact in order for the interaction to occur.[28]Contact, however, as a rule needs to be established by locomotion: either the entity to be moved, or the mover, or both, need to proceed so that they meet (Physics 8.7, 260a26-b7). Moreover locomotion is the form of change which can occur in isolation of generation, perishing and the other forms of change (Physics 8.7, 260b26–29). Other changes are indepedent kinds of change insofar as they can occur in an entity which does not perform any other change. Nevertheless all these forms of change include or presuppose that some other entity engages in locomotion.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/
|
Posted by StardustyPsyche 11/25/2017 9:39 pm | #13 |
""All other changes depend on locomotions"
--And that makes sense. All the more puzzling why those supposedly educated in Aristotle and motion more generally, such as Feser, would continually assert other sorts of change are distinct from locomotion, when clearly they are not. Feser has even stated change of quantity is distinct from locomotion, when obviously the number of objects in a set changes by motions of objects into or outside of the boundary of the set.
Clearly, Aquinas was of the worldview that motion of an object would naturally cease if not being moved by another. The first way only makes sense on that worldview. But that turns out to be false. It is manifest and evident to our senses that uniform linear motion persists without the object being acted upon by another, making the first mover unnecessary because no other mover is necessary to account for observed uniform linear motion.
|
Posted by bmiller 11/25/2017 9:57 pm | #14 |
@RomanJoe,
"However he does bring up a good point. When something is in uniform motion it moves from point A to B to C (theoretically ad infinitum)."
But things cannot move ad infinitum in a finite universe. See Aquinas's commentary on Physics Book 6 around 881.
Uniform rectilinear motion cannot be infinite.
|
Posted by bmiller 11/25/2017 10:30 pm | #15 |
@ficino,
Aristotle sets it forth that locomotion is the first of motions, of which there are three: motion over space, alteration, and growth/decay. In some earlier works, e.g. Categories, Aristotle had included generation and corruption as motions, but in what seem to be more mature parts of the corpus, he denies this. That's because the subject does not persist through generation/corruption.
I disagree. Aristotle considered generation and corruption as a categorically different types of change than than changes in location, quality and quantity.
Something that does not exist cannot change location for instance.
Per Aristotle, the change of location of a materially existing object is also different than the object changing color (change in quality) or the object losing hair (change in quantity). So these types of changes relate to how a materially existing thing can change and still remain essentially the same thing. He called them *accidents*. We call them *properties*.
Now I don't think Aristotle would classify the increase in my circumference was an actual change of location. I wouldn't either.
|
Posted by StardustyPsyche 11/25/2017 11:04 pm | #16 |
@bmiller
"Per Aristotle, the change of location of a materially existing object is also different than the object changing color (change in quality)"
--Aristotle was wrong. Locomotion is necessary for every change of color.
"or the object losing hair (change in quantity)."
--Aristotle was wrong. Locomotion is necessary to lose hair. Isn't that obvious? A physical object, a hair, must physically move in order for it to be lost. How is this not apparent to all?
"Now I don't think Aristotle would classify the increase in my circumference was an actual change of location. I wouldn't either"
--Then you are both wrong. How can a physical object change its size absent a physical motion?
|
Posted by bmiller 11/25/2017 11:17 pm | #17 |
@Strawdusty,
Ha Ha.
My GPS reads the same whether I get sunburned or not. There are different senses of a thing *changing while remaining the same*.
|
Posted by StardustyPsyche 11/26/2017 12:03 am | #18 |
@bmiller
You got sunburned because material moved.
Your GPS provided readings because material moved.
All change requires locomotion. All those who have said differently are wrong.
The First Way is false as an argument for the necessity of a hierarchical first changer acting in the present moment because another changer in the present moment is not necessary to account for observed uniform linear motion.
|
Posted by Calhoun 11/26/2017 2:32 am | #19 |
There is serious conflation going on between two claims here :
1.All change requires locomotion.
2.All change is locomotion.
And Even still 1st one is false , its locomotion that requires change , not the other way around. Like duration is a change but it doesn't require any local motion.
|
Posted by Jeremy Taylor 11/26/2017 3:48 am | #20 |
StardustyPsyche wrote:
JT"True. That seems confirmation, if more were needed, he is a troll."
--Is that some sort of theistic groupthink thing? The leader lacks the personal fortitude to engage a rational challenger, so he shouts TROLL, and all the followers chant in agreement?
It is telling you ignored the actual context of my comment. Trolls and trollish behaviours exist, so it can't always be wrong to make such accusations. You were offered this thread before you were banned from Fester's blog. Here you were free to discuss in peace, there you were shunned and Feser had already told people not to respond to you. That you chose to stay there is almost certainly the mark of a troll. That was my point and I note you didn't give any proper response to it.
Anyway, although you actually didn't take the bargain, and only came here when you were banned at Feser's, you may still post in this thread in your own inimitable style. I ask others to tone down denunciations of SP, from what was seen at Feser's blog. Not because I think most of that was wrong, but we all know what he is by now. Trolling posts on other threads will be deleted.
