JT is a Platonist and non-dualist. His criticisms of Thomism are unlikely to have much in common with yours. Do you agree, for example, with Plotinus that the Aristotelian notion of essence requires a separate form? These are more or less diametrically opposed objections to those of the scientistic naturalist.

@Strawdusty,

StardustyPsyche wrote:

@SteveK #455

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.

 

I agree with SteveK that your response didn't address his 3 points.
You didn't cite any mass that is unchanging.
Since the First Way addresses things that change, how is asserting that *something* doesn't change remain relevant to the argument?
Your assertion that some things change in a certain respect and not in another does not mean they don't change at all.  If change is occurring in *any* respect that change requires an explanation.

Others have pointed these things out to you before, but you robotically repeat them.

Specifically:

StardustyPsyche wrote:

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

Energy is not conserved.  You agreed with Sean Carroll's article.  Since energy is convertible to mass and energy is not conserved, then neither is not conserved.  Put another way, when photons lose energy, they likewise lose mass equivalency and nothing is conserved.  Why do you keep insisting on a discredited Newtoninan idea?

StardustyPsyche wrote:

That means mass/energy stays the same in the respect of its existence.
That means mass/energy does not change in the respect of its existence.
Therefore no changer at all is necessary to account for existential inertia.
 

Mass and energy are 2 different things and are constantly changing.  You merely *assert* that there is *something* that stays the same but you've given no reason for this assertion or told us exactly what that something is.  But why would you assume that anything remains in existence for even a moment?  Your chair a moment ago is not the same chair that it is now and neither are you.  So what principle are you invoking to assume that any existence is static?   It seems you've merely smuggled in essence, act and potency into your argument while trying to refute them.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

Mass/energy does change in its structure or arrangement.
 

OK, so you agree that it changes it's hierarchical relationships as part of the change process.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

Zero change occurs in zero time.
Therefore all change requires the passage of time.
Therefore to account for change a temporal, not a hierarchical, regress is necessary.
 

It is false to conclude that since change requires time, that *only* time is necessary for change.  For an existing material thing to change, it must also exist as a combination of form and matter which is arranged non-temporally as you acknowledged above.  

StardustyPsyche wrote:

Human beings employ a hierarchy of physics models.
Those models are explanatory abstractions, not causes for existence or causes for change; else one commits the fallacy of reification.
Motion can be scientifically analyzed as the superposition of uniform linear motion and acceleration.
An object in uniform linear motion does not change in the respect of its motion.
And object in uniform linear motion does not change in the respect of its particular kinetic energy.
 

Here you take your assertion that motion can be analyzed as uniform and non-uniform and make conclusions about the causes of change or no change right after you warn others not to do this.  

However, there can never physically be *any* uniform linear motion anywhere in the universe at any time since this theoretical concept requires the absense of all other forces.  Gravity and electromagnetism are present everywhere in the universe so this type of theoretical motion is impossible.

Also, you've arbitrarily decided to only consider uniform linear motion as *no change* of it's motion, ignoring the fact that it is defined as a change in location wrt change in time. One could just as well define uniform acceleration as *no change* of acceleration.  You have merely taken an abstract derivative (dx/dt) and reified it into something you claim doesn't change (when .  It's ironic that you warn others not to do this.

StardustyPsyche wrote:

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

Merely (another) unsupported assertion.  What is "fundamental physics" and how is it different from the Unmoved Mover? 

StardustyPsyche wrote:

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

But you've just asserted that that "fundamental physics" fills that role in the sentence right before this one.  



So to recap:
1) You have provided no definition of what you assert remains unchanged wrt existence.  Clearly mass and energy change.  
2) There is no conservation of mass/energy per General Relativity.  So attempting to use it as the basis for any argument is unscientific.
3) Things that change in some way have a different hierarchical relationship either internally or externally from before the change.  If not, no change would be observed.  So change involves more than just time.
4) You accuse others of reification when that's exactly what you've done with the time derivative of change of location.
5) You assert that "fundamental physics" ends the hierarchical regress consideration and then deny it in the very next sentence and your conclusions.

And finally as SteveK and others point out, you merely repeat the same assertions without interacting with the counter arguments

Steve, very true. SP will be taking a well deserved indefinite vacation after his outstanding display of sophistry and stupidity in this thread. That doesn't mean others can't pick apart his earlier posts, if they so wish. They'll probably accomplish much more without him.