" While you ponder whether water will ever become a Blu-ray disc, " --On an omnipotent god water can become wine, dust can become man, words can become a universe, so I say all bets are off.
Stardusty: "Exist" where? How? What are properties made of? What is property stuff?" "I'm curious what magic it is that causes water to freeze into ice. Or do you deny that water freezes into ice?"
Properties of sub quark level fields lead to the macro level observation we call "ice". These properties are not existent in and of themselves, rather, what we call properties are the ways these fields act, their structure, their "shape" as it were.
We humans are incapable of analyzing macro level systems through the application of transfer functions from sub quark level fields to our level of perception. But we do notice many regularities that can be approximately modeled with relatively simple mathematical expressions, often mistakenly called "laws" or "emergent properties".
Having imagined some sort of "property" has "emerged" humans typically personalize or anthropomorphize physical objects as somehow possessing these "properties" that are imagined to somehow "exist". These misconceptions serve useful functional purposes in our lives, so they are very difficult to come to analytical terms with for most people.
>> "These properties are not existent in and of themselves, rather, what we call properties are the ways these fields act, their structure, their "shape" as it were."
Translation: What we call properties are [insert list of real things] - yet they don't exist.
>> " But we do notice many regularities that can be approximately modeled with relatively simple mathematical expressions, often mistakenly called "laws" or "emergent properties"
Translation: we notice the model, but not the reality itself which exists only at the subatomic level. Science describes the models it notices, but not the reality.
How does Dusty know that the subatomic level isn't another macro level model of reality, just at a less macro level? Stay tuned for his philosophical answer, and more non-science!
Me: "What example did you give earlier" Legion: "I gave the example of a leaf changing color. A-T did not hold that as an example of a change of physical location. Your turn. You say you understand it better than I do, let's see it."
mkay. A leaf changes color only because the chlorophyll (what gives the leaf its green color) is broken down and re-absorbed back into the tree. This is clear not only on a sub-atomic but also molecularly measurable way, involving movement in the physical position of the constituent parts.
Did you ever take a Biology or Chemistry course?
The "example" you gave is obviously not a case of a change without a change in physical location -- everyone should know that a leaf does NOT change its color without changes in location of the constituent parts. Is that really what you meant as your example?
But, so, yes, it appears that I understand change better than you do. To say the very least.
" Litmus paper changes colors without changing physical position." --Wrong. Molecules move into the fibers of the paper. Photons move to the paper and then to your eye.
" A block of steel rusts without moving to some new location." --Wrong. Oxygen atoms move to join iron atoms in the steel. The surface physically moves with respect to the internal structure as it transitions from smooth steel to rough rust.
" Your body heats up without moving across the room." --Heat is motion, don't you know that?
There's your problem, Dusty. You claim to be telling us what is true about reality, but you also claim that you don't KNOW if you have access to it. Which is it?
" The physics concept of potential and kinetic energy " --You are confusing the general notion of a potential change with the specific technical meaning a physical system that is arranged in a particular way after it has "absorbed" energy to "store" energy.
Dusty, Moving on from the massive glaring problem I mentioned above...
>> "Wrong. Molecules move into the fibers of the paper. Photons move to the paper and then to your eye."
Irrelevant to the FW argument. The argument describes reality any way you want to look at this. Either
The paper begins at rest, it changes and when it's over the paper has not moved from it's original position defined by the term 'rest'. This is the ancient view.
- or -
The paper is never at rest. Nothing is at rest. Everything is changing. This is the modern view.
Either way, the FW argument succeeds in describing change because it doesn't depend on knowing modern-day physics.
>> "The "example" you gave is obviously not a case of a change without a change in physical location"
A valid case can be made that indeed the leaf doesn't move. The constituents move in the area where the color is changed, but the leaf as a whole remains in it's original location. A physicist would say it didn't move to a new location.
It's pointless to argue which is the correct description. I think both are accurate and true in what they are describing. It's pointless because, as I stated above, the FW succeeds in either case.
stevek: "A valid case can be made that indeed the leaf doesn't move."
Right. Because the example is of a leaf changing color, not of a leaf moving.
stevek: "The constituents move in the area where the color is changed, but the leaf as a whole remains in it's original location."
More or less.
stevek: "A physicist would say it didn't move to a new location."
Right. Because the example is of a leaf changing color. Not of a leaf moving. Which does nothing to alter the fact that the leaf changes color because some of its the constituent parts related to its coloring actually move (in a number of ways that can be described).
Stardusty: "Thus, the First Way is an argument from motion, specifically, not from change, generally. You have committed the classic association fallacy"
Except that burning was an example of what A-T called a substantial change, the change from one type of thing into another (wood into ash and smoke). Feel free to demonstrate from A-T philosophy that this is not the case.
Stardusty: "On an omnipotent god water can become wine, dust can become man, words can become a universe, so I say all bets are off."
So you believe in an omnipotent god? If not, does water freeze into ice?
Stardusty: "Properties of sub quark level fields lead to the macro level observation we call "ice". These properties are not existent in and of themselves, rather, what we call properties are the ways these fields act, their structure, their "shape" as it were."
Call it what you want, that's what a potential state is based upon. Water reliably freezes into ice and not Blu-ray discs because of its physical characteristics, if you don't like the scientific notion of properties.
A potential thing is an unreal thing is a non-existent thing is not a thing at all is a mere figment of our brain process.
" The physics concept of potential and kinetic energy " --You are confusing the general notion of a potential change with the specific technical meaning a physical system that is arranged in a particular way after it has "absorbed" energy to "store" energy.
I'll substantiate my historical claims later, but let's examine your latest propositions.
Propositions: A:"A potential thing is an unreal thing is a non-existent thing" B:"a physical system that is arranged in a particular way after it has "absorbed" energy to "store" energy."
Prop B: States that a physical system existed both before energy (BE) absorption and after energy (AE) absorption. But clearly at one time BE exists and AE does not while at a later time AE exists and BE does not. Since BE lacks the potential/capability/capacity to become AE (per prop A:) either:
1) There was no change. Since BE has no potential to change, no change occurred and AE is an illusion. 2) BE and AE are actually different things altogether and so the same thing does not exist moment to moment (including us). BE is not AE and cannot become AE per prop A:. So But both BE and AE are also not the same thing from minute to minute, second to second, millisecond to millisecond divided down infinitesimally. So everything pops into existence and immediately pops back out of existence. Of course this includes you too and the false history that the momentary you imagines it has. Oops, should I repeat myself to the new you? ☺
", should I repeat myself" --If you do chances seem to be that you will continue to confuse the technical term "potential energy" with the common notion of a potential thing, or a potential change.
Poor Cal. Swing and a miss due to being in the wrong stadium.
Let's go line by line.
Cal: "Legion: "I gave the example of a leaf changing color. A-T did not hold that as an example of a change of physical location. Your turn. You say you understand it better than I do, let's see it."
Lovely attempt to change what I was actually asking for. I asked you to explain the First Way. Here's what I said:
"Your turn. You say you understand it better than I do, let's see it. Explain the First Way in terms of its purpose for being presented and how the premises relate to physical movement, as well as demonstrating how those premises fail to hold up to Newton. I just did so, and you claim I'm wrong. Your explanation will decisively demonstrate that, if so."
And, just in case you are trying to claim I was linking the above to the example of the leaf, let's go back to the first time I said the above quote, the post on May 25 at 1:22 a.m. The sentence the above quote directly follows is "Nothing in modern physics has refuted act, potency, or an essentially ordered series."
So obviously, both times I asked you to explain the First Way, and not how a leaf changes color. You failed to even attempt it, instead telling me all about basic biology that elementary students learn about. Is that a failure to comprehend what was said to you, or is that an attempt to deceive? Hmm.
I explained at length what the point of the leaf example was - what A-T held to be an example of change that isn't physical motion, not an actual example of something with no physical motion (I called it a history lesson). You ignored that multi-paragraph explanation, of course.
So, to say again:
Ignoring what I write and then responding to me as if I didn't write anything is not a valid tactic. You have to actually read what I write, attempt to understand it, and respond to what I wrote. That's how it works.
Either explain how there being types of change that involve no physical movement is a premise of the First Way, or admit that you are engaging in the First Strawman.
And for the third time
Explain the First Way in terms of its purpose for being presented and how the premises relate to physical movement, as well as demonstrating how those premises fail to hold up to Newton. I just did so, and you claim I'm wrong. Your explanation will decisively demonstrate that, if so.
--If you do chances seem to be that you will continue to confuse the technical term "potential energy" with the common notion of a potential thing, or a potential change.
Then you must think that energy is non-existent because "A potential thing is an unreal thing is a non-existent thing is not a thing at all is a mere figment of our brain process." Physicists use the term "potential energy" and so it must not be a real thing.
" Then you must think that energy is non-existent because "A potential thing is an unreal thing is a non-existent thing is not a thing at all is a mere figment of our brain process." Physicists use the term "potential energy" and so it must not be a real thing." --It's a technical term, try to learn the difference.
--It's a technical term, try to learn the difference.
Well potential is an term that English speaking children understand. "Motion" on the other hand when used discussing the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas is a technical term that more generally translates to "change".
Stardusty: "From the viewpoint of a human being, yes."
Out of curiosity, can you point me to any scientist or philosopher who would equivocate when asked if water freezes into ice? I'm aware of certain positions that would entail such a thing, but I'm just curious.
For elaboration, scientists have discovered that the reason ice floats in water is because ice is less dense than water due to its molecular structure. So, you deny that ice floats in water due to less density?
Stardusty: "From the viewpoint of a human being, yes."
" Out of curiosity, can you point me to any scientist or philosopher who would equivocate when asked if water freezes into ice? " --It's not an equivocation in the sense of changing a definition mid way through an argument.
It's a clarification of deeper understanding, but I think I catch your drift, and yes, pretty much any particle physicist or cosmologist will tell you that things like ice freezing are valid approximations, and in some sense "emergent", from a more fundamental reality.
The term "emergent" is itself problematic in that implies something new called a "property" has somehow been created, and this new thing somehow exists.
" For elaboration, scientists have discovered that the reason ice floats in water is because ice is less dense than water due to its molecular structure. So, you deny that ice floats in water due to less density?" --Those are valid approximations that allow us to function. If we are to consider the origin of motion or the origin of change or the origin of existence we need to move beyond our useful macro level approximations and think much more deeply.
So, the argument from motion is reduced to "stuff can only do what stuff can do, stuff never does what stuff can't do." Ok, fine, that is true, trivial, but true.
>> "If we are to consider the origin of motion or the origin of change or the origin of existence we need to move beyond our useful macro level approximations and think much more deeply."
We're attempting to do that here. Please join us by moving beyond the simplistic reductionism and scientism that is preventing you from thinking more deeply about it.
Legion: "I gave the example of a leaf changing color. A-T did not hold that as an example of a change of physical location. Your turn. You say you understand it better than I do, let's see it."
I did; I pointed out that change does not occur without any change in physical location, and that the “example” you provided was kind of pathetic. Thus, you haven’t risen to the level of elementary understanding of what change is. The only thing that needs understanding is that you don’t grasp the fundamental aspect of what constitutes change.
Failure to grasp the fundamental aspect of what constitutes change means I can’t take you seriously in dialogue on the subject, let alone consider you an authority. Your pretension is laughable.
Legion: Lovely attempt to change what I was actually asking for. I asked you to explain the First Way.”
Yeah, you’ve said that several times, I think.
You seem to miss the fact that my criticism of the First Way is my explanation of the First Way. You think I’m wrong. You have failed to demonstrate this, because your (chosen) role is to show how the criticism offered is somehow invalid.
Instead, you pretend that 1) the argument is somehow good, despite the criticism and your laughably poor defenses thus far; 2) that with the assumption that the argument is good (despite our pointing out its many flaws), your assessment of my explanation is what’s at issue.
As I’ve pointed out, I couldn’t care less about your assessment, because 1. The standard is not your assessment, it’s the standard for good arguments, and 2. You have shown that you fail to grasp the fundamental aspect of what constitutes change, exempting you as any kind of authority on its topic.
Don’t mistake my politeness and continued engagement with you as regard for your intellectual prowess on this topic. I’ve engaged here for as long as I have because I’m interested in how people absorb information and (fail to) change their thinking, and because I enjoy reading Stardusty’s posts. If you ever wanted to rise to the level of intellectual engagement that would be an added plus, but you certainly haven’t shown that one.
Legion: "Your turn. You say you understand it better than I do, let's see it. Explain the First Way in terms of its purpose for being presented and how the premises relate to physical movement, as well as demonstrating how those premises fail to hold up to Newton. I just did so, and you claim I'm wrong. Your explanation will decisively demonstrate that, if so."
Legion: “And, just in case you are trying to claim I was linking the above to the example of the leaf, let's go back to the first time I said the above quote, the post on May 25 at 1:22 a.m. The sentence the above quote directly follows is "Nothing in modern physics has refuted act, potency, or an essentially ordered series." “
Who cares. This doesn’t change the fact that you failed to grasp the fundamental concept of what constitutes change. And you’ve offered nothing in your definition of act, potency, or essentially ordered series that isn’t trivially true, tautological, or begging the question.
Legion: “So obviously, both times I asked you to explain the First Way, and not how a leaf changes color. You failed to even attempt it, instead telling me all about basic biology that elementary students learn about. Is that a failure to comprehend what was said to you, or is that an attempt to deceive? Hmm.”
You misunderstand; you have shown that you fail to grasp the fundamental concept of what constitutes change, and (until you grasp it) this prohibits me from taking you seriously in any discussion about change.
Legion: “I explained at length what the point of the leaf example was - what A-T held to be an example of change that isn't physical motion, not an actual example of something with no physical motion (I called it a history lesson). You ignored that multi-paragraph explanation, of course.”
Did the multi-paragraph explanation explain how it’s actually possible for something to change without any changes in physical location occurring? If not, that’s not much of an explanation, now, is it?
Legion: “So, to say again: Ignoring what I write and then responding to me as if I didn't write anything is not a valid tactic. You have to actually read what I write, attempt to understand it, and respond to what I wrote. That's how it works.”
I don’t respond to everything you write because your comments are often long-winded, tendentious, rambling, incoherent, irrelevant, and self-congratulatory over imagined (but never provided) meaningful responses. Pointing this out over and over would just make me seem unpleasant.
Legion: “Either explain how there being types of change that involve no physical movement is a premise of the First Way, or admit that you are engaging in the First Strawman.”
That is your strawman; you are the one who introduced the concept, as evidence that YOU UNDERSTAND the argument and that I do not. Here, I’ll quote you, again:
Legion: "Since the First Way covers every category of change that they had in mind - only one of which being physical movement - we know that they weren't just making a physics argument."
and
Legion: "We know [that the First Way is “not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around] because A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well. I and bmiller have both listed examples."
So, that’s you, twice scolding me for not understanding that change without a change in physical location is in the First Way, and that is what the First Way covers.
You are such a piece of work.
Legion: “And for the third time. Explain the First Way in terms of its purpose for being presented and how the premises relate to physical movement, as well as demonstrating how those premises fail to hold up to Newton. I just did so, and you claim I'm wrong. Your explanation will decisively demonstrate that, if so.”
" And you, the understanding of a reductionist" --So, you equate a modern analytical approach based on our most advanced knowledge of physics with the thinking of a child.
" No, Dusty, I equate reductionist thinking with the thinking of a child." --Have you heard about unification efforts? The search for the underlying reality? The quest of physicists to discover ever more fundamental structures?
@Stardusty, I will say this -- after years of gaining an appreciation for the role of biases in religious / superstitious thinking, these exchanges have given me a greater appreciation for the role that good-old fashioned dullness must play.
>> "Have you heard about unification efforts? The search for the underlying reality? The quest of physicists to discover ever more fundamental structures?"
I have and it's irrelevant. There's that reading comprehension issue again. Try it. Reductionist thinking is childlike thinking when applied to irreducible things. You do that all the time but that's another subject.
>> "Have you heard about unification efforts? The search for the underlying reality? The quest of physicists to discover ever more fundamental structures?"
" I have and it's irrelevant. There's that reading comprehension issue again. Try it. Reductionist thinking is childlike thinking when applied to irreducible things." --At this point seemingly irreducible things are quarks, electrons, neutrinos, and photons and fields.
Everything that exists is reducible to such things. All observations are of the combined actions of such things.
However, there are strong indications that these things are not truly irreducible, hence the search for strings, fields, or some other even more fundamental structures, which, if existing, all existence reduces to.
This is critical to the First Way, for to understand the origin of motion, change, and existence we must understand how the most fundamental constituents of reality work
Cal, thinking is important. You need to do that in order for us to have a conversation. Even after me pointing out every way you are embarrassing yourself, you just dig in deeper. You aren't even making a minimal effort anymore.
Cal: "Thus, you haven’t risen to the level of elementary understanding of what change is."
Completely irrelevant to what the conversation was about. I went and explained why I brought the leaf up, so you wouldn't even have to figure it out, and pointed out that you ignored the explanation. You are still ignoring it, presumably because you realize you've lost badly but lack the integrity to admit it. There's still hope for you, if you decide to begin thinking about what is being said and swallow your pride.
Cal: "Failure to grasp the fundamental aspect of what constitutes change means I can’t take you seriously in dialogue on the subject, let alone consider you an authority."
So now your abject and humiliating failure to understand something as simple as the First Way is me "failing to understand change". Let's be a little more accurate, and call it your abject and humiliating failure to understand something as simple as the First Way. I have proven over and over that your understanding is lacking compared to mine, which is why I'm constantly having to repeat myself. You also have zero - I repeat, zero - evidence that I have some sort of problem understanding change, so in addition to being intellectually dishonest by ignoring what I write, and being unwilling to think outside your ideological shackles, you are also a liar. This is quite a poor showing on your part.
Cal: "Yeah, you’ve said that several times, I think."
Because you have failed to do so several times now. We both know it's because you have no idea what the argument is saying, so you can't offer even a basic attempt at a refutation.
Cal: "You have failed to demonstrate this"
I've demonstrated it with pretty much every single post I've written in response to you. So now we've shown you are intellectually dishonest, ideologically shackled, a liar, and full of baseless arrogance.
Cal: "Instead, you pretend that 1) the argument is somehow good, despite the criticism and your laughably poor defenses thus far"
I'd be embarrassed to be somebody like you, who can't even overcome laughably poor defenses.
Cal: "The standard is not your assessment, it’s the standard for good arguments"
An argument can't be refuted if someone, like you, has zero understanding of what the argument is even saying. If your objections are your assessment, then your understanding is pathetic.
Cal: "I’ve engaged here for as long as I have because I’m interested in how people absorb information and (fail to) change their thinking"
This literally made me laugh out loud. How can you miss the obvious fact that you're describing yourself here?
Legion: "Explain the First Way" Cal: "See above"
Epic fail. Thank you for showing the First Way is even stronger than I had suspected.
Cal: "Who cares. This doesn’t change the fact that you failed to grasp the fundamental concept of what constitutes change."
Baseless assertion. Lying is easier if you can at least have some way of trying to back it up.
Cal: "Did the multi-paragraph explanation explain how it’s actually possible for something to change without any changes in physical location occurring?"
If anything, this proves how shallow a thinker you are. I said what it was in response to, so you wouldn't have to figure it out. Apparently I still need to connect more dots for you. Perhaps I should number them so you can draw the picture. Shall I number the dots, or do you admit that at no point did I claim that things in the universe change with no physical movement on any level? The former will be far more embarrassing for you, trust me.
Cal: "I don’t respond to everything you write because your comments are often long-winded, tendentious, rambling, incoherent, irrelevant, and self-congratulatory over imagined (but never provided) meaningful responses."
I suspected my failure to be able to dumb it down to your level was a problem. Thank you for confirming it.
Cal: "That is your strawman"
No, that is your strawman, as I've proven.
Cal: "you are the one who introduced the concept, as evidence that YOU UNDERSTAND the argument and that I do not"
No, I introduced it in response to the attempts to tie the First Way to A-T physics so that if A-T physics is obsolete, then so is the First Way. I spelled it out for you. You still fail to understand, even after I spell it out for you. Seriously, how much are you wanting to humiliate yourself?
Cal: "So, that’s you, twice scolding me for not understanding that change without a change in physical location is in the First Way, and that is what the First Way covers."
No, and this is going to require some reading comprehension and thinking on your part, so pay attention. That's me, twice scolding you for attempting to say that if Newtonian physics has supplanted A-T physics, then the First Way is obsolete because the First Way is a physics argument dealing with nothing but physical movement. I demonstrated that if Aquinas was wanting to only present an argument based on physical movement, he would not have based it on act and potency, which covered all types of change held by A-T philosophy. He would have only used the concepts relevant to what they believed were pertinent to physical motion.
This is really simple stuff, Cal. It shouldn't be hard to grasp. Also, notice that nowhere in my explanation did I say that there was change in the stuff of the universe that had no physical motion. Quite the opposite, in fact, though of course you ignored it.
So Cal, you still have yet to demonstrate that the First Way was intended to be a treatise on physical movement and so is completely interwoven with A-T physics.
You have yet to demonstrate that the First Way requires there to be change in matter that has no physical movement on any level.
You have yet to demonstrate that I have a flawed understanding of change.
You have yet to demonstrate that you have even the most basic understanding of the argument.
You have yet to demonstrate that my understanding of the argument is flawed.
You have yet to come up with a credible defense for ignoring what I write in an attempt to avoid admitting you have no idea what you are talking about.
Basically, you're a laughingstock at this point due to your behavior and refusal to alter it. I suppose it's partly my fault for keeping the discussion alive and giving you these opportunities to humiliate yourself and destroy any credibility you had, but a few times you had seemed to demonstrate an ability to think about it and get away from the First Strawman. I was mistaken.
I'll keep pointing out how your insults are baseless and will keep flicking your protests aside for as long as you want, but this has turned out very poorly for you. I don't blame you if you give up.
If all those words from Legion overwhelm you, Cal, here are the takeaway quotes you should focus on. You're welcome!
1) "I introduced it in response to the attempts to tie the First Way to A-T physics so that if A-T physics is obsolete, then so is the First Way."
2) "at no point did I claim that things in the universe change with no physical movement on any level?"
3) "That's me, twice scolding you for attempting to say that if Newtonian physics has supplanted A-T physics, then the First Way is obsolete because the First Way is a physics argument dealing with nothing but physical movement. I demonstrated that if Aquinas was wanting to only present an argument based on physical movement, he would not have based it on act and potency, which covered all types of change held by A-T philosophy. He would have only used the concepts relevant to what they believed were pertinent to physical motion."
4) "notice that nowhere in my explanation did I say that there was change in the stuff of the universe that had no physical motion. Quite the opposite, in fact, though of course you ignored it."
5) "Basically, you're a laughingstock at this point"
Stardusty: "It's a clarification of deeper understanding, but I think I catch your drift, and yes, pretty much any particle physicist or cosmologist will tell you that things like ice freezing are valid approximations, and in some sense "emergent", from a more fundamental reality."
I'd like to explore this a bit deeper, if you don't mind. No pun intended. Specifically what you are getting at with "valid approximation".
If I point to my house and say "This is my house" then the word "house" encompasses the structure I live in. Sure it's a non-comprehensive statement - I don't identify its architectural style, its construction material, or its size. Those things are of secondary importance, though, since any of those can vary or even be unknown, yet it is still my house.
I view the water to ice issue on the quantum level similarly to how I view a multi-cellular organism. My cat, for example, is composed of hundreds of billions of cells. Each cell is for all practical purposes a specialized single-cell organism, but when they come together, they produce a new biological unit which is my cat. So, on the one hand, my cat is actually several hundred billion living cells. But on the other hand, it is also accurate to say "There's my cat" because "cat" encompasses what is going on at the cellular level, as well. What the cells are doing causes the cat to exist, but the cat encompasses the cells.
Similarly, the changes that water undergoes on a subatomic level when its temperature lowers results in ice on the macro level, but the macro change of water into ice encompasses whatever is going on at the subatomic level - I may not have a clue what is going on at a subatomic level, but whatever is happening results in water freezing into ice at the macro level.
That's why I wonder about the relevancy of quantum physics on this issue, but I do find it fascinating to think about.
I doubt a concise reply from me would produce more effective results, but I suppose I could just ignore everything irrelevant he writes and simply say "I'm waiting for a response to what I said".
@Legion, you've said nothing that counters my three earlier comments responded to your earlier post. I stand by every word I wrote. Anybody reading them, and comparing your responses, can see that you struggle to understand rudimentary concepts. For example, from your latest:
Legion: "You also have zero - I repeat, zero - evidence that I have some sort of problem understanding change..."
Nope. Your comments are evidence of your understanding of change. (Why do apologists so struggle with understanding what evidence is?)
I have (too) patiently pointed out that you are easily fooled by the First Way (despite its obvious failings as an argument, as described in detail), and more recently that your asserting that a leaf somehow changes color without any changes in position is just, well, amazingly stupid in this day and age. All of the comments in which you repeat these mistakes are further evidence that you don't really understand change. So, by zero, I think you mean "tons."
Apologetics = Opposite World
Legion: "... so in addition to being intellectually dishonest by ignoring what I write, and being unwilling to think outside your ideological shackles, you are also a liar."
Ignoring what you write? I just wrote, as you requested, a line by line response to your previous post. This after I have spent countless previous comments responding to what you write, and trying to get you to respond with some precision and discipline.
So, I've ignored what you wrote? Saying that just makes you a, well, liar.
I also explained why I don't always respond, line by line, to everything you write.
So, that makes you guilty of that which you accuse me. (Hypocrisy! Drink!)
As for my being the one struggling to think outside of my ideological shackles, well, that one is my favorite.
Hey, are you ever going to get around to finishing up defining terms so that we can all see how the First Way avoids the problems that have been so meticulously described, over and over?
Legion: "... A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well. I and bmiller have both listed examples."
stevek, quoting Legion: "2) "at no point did I claim that things in the universe change with no physical movement on any level"
Legion: "A leaf changing color does not, upon study with the naked eye, move physically in order for the change to occur, so they placed it in a different category of change."
THEY placed it in a different category, not Legion. THEY placed it in the "you don't see it physically move" category.
" I'd like to explore this a bit deeper, if you don't mind. No pun intended. Specifically what you are getting at with "valid approximation"." --An approximation is a description that is not precise. In mathematics a closed form solution is considered precise whereas a numerical "solution" is likely to be met with disdain and indignation as a mere approximation. Engineers love numerical solutions, which is the source of a sort of friendly feud between the fields (I know that was a bit rambling, just some color commentary since you set out to explore).
In physics we have no precise theories. All theories known to humans are approximations. The higher level the more error they contain. But they are thought to be valid models when they are broadly repeatable to a high degree of accuracy.
" If I point to my house and say "This is my house" then the word "house" encompasses the structure I live in. " --Ok, but that is not what most people think of as a physics theory. You are defining a boundary and giving the contents of that boundary a label.
"Sure it's a non-comprehensive statement" --Thus inaccurate, but rational, repeatable and demonstrably accurate to a functionally useful degree, thus generally considered valid.
" - I don't identify its architectural style, its construction material, or its size. Those things are of secondary importance, though, since any of those can vary or even be unknown, yet it is still my house." --Those things can't vary at all? The paint will oxidize, thus gaining oxygen atoms, for example. Your statement is highly inaccurate, but that's ok, that is how we all function, so your statement is close enough to be useful.
" it is also accurate to say "There's my cat" because "cat" encompasses what is going on at the cellular level, as well." --How accurate though? Perfectly accurate? Where does your cat end and the atmosphere begin? Is that boundary precisely definable?
You might think I am being pedantic, obnoxious, and hypernitpicking. Fair enough, none of us lives our life continually questioning the precise boundaries of every object we label. But such nitpicking is critical if we are to consider the origins of motion, change, and existence.
It is just that sort of nitpicking that led to the theory of Hawking radiation.
" What the cells are doing causes the cat to exist, but the cat encompasses the cells." --Well, you are personalizing or personifying existence and it seems like you may be reading your labels into objects that know nothing of your labels.
" Similarly, the changes that water undergoes on a subatomic level when its temperature lowers results in ice on the macro level, but the macro change of water into ice encompasses whatever is going on at the subatomic level " --Right, "freezing" is a catch-all label. It is not precise, but it is a useful and rational approximation.
" That's why I wonder about the relevancy of quantum physics on this issue, but I do find it fascinating to think about." --For starters there is the old idea of intrinsic randomness. I don't accept that notion but it is still out there, and if it were true then there would be an effect without a cause.
But it isn't so much QM that is the key issue, rather, the nature of fundamental reality, and our need to realize that our macro level sensibilities are, or at least have been thus far, demonstrably incapable of comprehending at least one fundamental fact of existence.
All attempts to logically account for the origin of motion, change, and existence fail. No human being has solved this problem and published the solution into general circulation.
I do not pretend to have solved this problem. I am here to tell you Aquinas did not solve this problem, nor has anybody else.
There are some hints, though, in my view leaning toward eternal existence of stuff, as evidenced by conservation. Also, and I have to stress this is not a bona fide theory, just a possible hint, a photon is calculated to "experience" precisely zero time. So maybe some state of stuff can exist for what we think of as infinite time because it "experiences" zero passage of time.
The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations is I am convinced the answer must be found at the very most fundamental level. Humans have tried and failed for millennia to reason from ordinary observations to an account of origins.
The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations is I am convinced the answer must be found at the very most fundamental level
I'm glad you finally just came out and said it. Thank you.
Now let me ask a question.
Why do you think the the most fundamental levels are not illusory rather than the level at which we observe reality? The only way we can know about the "more fundamental" levels is from our "macro level" perspective?
Which is why I feel a small measure of guilt for dragging this out and giving you more opportunities to embarrass yourself.
May 20
Cal: "Newtonian physics and AT physics do part ways in several regards"
Legion: "Too bad the First Way isn't an A-T physics argument, as it accounts for all change and not just physical movement."
Cal: "Describe a change in which there is no physical movement."
Legion: "There is no relevant reason why I should do this."
Cal: "The relevant reason is that by not responding you are failing to do what you said you would do -- defend the First Way...In order for your words to have meaning, then you need to demonstrate what you say above -- that there is some other kind of change that the First Way now magically describes that doesn't involve physical movement."
Legion: "According to A-T, there were different kinds of change other than physical location change, since atomic movement and things of that nature were impossible to know at the time. So, the point of the argument would not simply be about why something moves from one place to another, but why something grows, why someone changes their mind, why something fades in sunlight, etc. Obviously they were not arguing about subatomic motion, since they had no knowledge of it, but they do come right out and define what they mean by "motion" in the argument's premises. So you're wrong about what the argument is even about.
If we apply modern physics to the subject, we now know about subatomic particles, photons, and things of that nature. So we do know that indeed, there is possibly nothing consisting of the stuff of the universe that isn't in motion on some level."
Cal: "What other kinds of change are there besides those that involve a change in physical location?"
Legion: "There were several categories according to A-T, but one example would be qualitative change, such as leaves changing color. They did not think of that as physical motion."
Cal: "So, that's NOT an example of a change that doesn't involve a change in physical location."
Legion: "Irrelevant...the purpose of the First Way is not simply about physics, as in physical movement...Since the First Way covers every category of change that they had in mind - only one of which being physical movement - we know that they weren't just making a physics argument."
Cal: "You are supposed to be defending THE ARGUMENT that is the First Way...You need to demonstrate that there REALLY IS a kind of change other than physical location change."
Legion: repeats self, then "the point of the first paragraph is simply to demonstrate that we know the First Way isn't a mere attempt at physics"
Cal: "How can you pretend to defend the First Way you won't explain exactly what you mean by change -- in particular, how it is that something can change without a change in physical position -- the kind of change that DOES NOT ACTUALLY involve a change in physical location...I think you realize that there's no such thing as a change without a change in physical position."
Legion: points out where you ignored me saying "If we apply modern physics to the subject, we now know about subatomic particles, photons, and things of that nature. So we do know that indeed, there is possibly nothing consisting of the stuff of the universe that isn't in physical motion on some level."
Cal: "Tell us what you had in mind -- what you understand about the First Way and we do not -- that is a change that doesn't involve a change in physical location."
Legion: "The point of the First Way is not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around. We know this because A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well...Logically, if the First Way was only about how things move around, it would not cover other types of change, which would be irrelevant. So logically, the First Way is not a predecessor to Newton. It does not rise and fall with A-T concepts of movement, but rather with the A-T concepts of change - act and potency.
These days we know that possibly any time something in the universe changes, it involves a physical movement on some level, cellular, subatomic etc. This also does nothing to damage the First Way, as it is not a precursor of Newtonian physics.
Cal: "What other types of changes don't involve a change in physical location?"
Legion: "All of my talking about the purpose of the First Way, and the types of change A-T believed in, was in response to that attempt. At no point have I asserted that one of the premises of the First Way is that there must be types of change that involve no motion."
Cal: "The "example" you gave is obviously not a case of a change without a change in physical location -- everyone should know that a leaf does NOT change its color without changes in location of the constituent parts"
Legion: "I explained at length what the point of the leaf example was - what A-T held to be an example of change that isn't physical motion, not an actual example of something with no physical motion"
Cal: "you have shown that you fail to grasp the fundamental concept of what constitutes change...Did the multi-paragraph explanation explain how it’s actually possible for something to change without any changes in physical location occurring?...That is your strawman; you are the one who introduced the concept, as evidence that YOU UNDERSTAND the argument and that I do not."
Legion: "You also have zero - I repeat, zero - evidence that I have some sort of problem understanding change...I introduced it in response to the attempts to tie the First Way to A-T physics so that if A-T physics is obsolete, then so is the First Way. I spelled it out for you. You still fail to understand, even after I spell it out for you... He would have only used the concepts relevant to what they believed were pertinent to physical motion."
Cal: "Your comments are evidence of your understanding of change...Lying idiots"
We learned that at no point did I make a claim that there are things in the universe that change without physical movement on some level. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.
We learned that I stressed it was A-T philosophy that believed that some of the change they observed did not involve physical movement. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.
We learned that the reason I introduced the subject of A-T categories of change was in response to the attempt to make the First Way a functional precursor to Newtonian physics, which it was not. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.
We learned that I said there was possibly no change in the observable universe that did not involve physical movement on some level. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.
Sorry, Cal, but you have completely demolished your credibility. I've repeated myself over and over on all these things, and you ignored them all. If you can't even follow this conversation, in which everything is in modern English and has been spelled out repeatedly with citations, then you have zero chance of ever understanding the First Way. Not without a huge shift in attitude.
@Strawdusty, The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations is I am convinced the answer must be found at the very most fundamental level
" I'm glad you finally just came out and said it. Thank you." --I have said this about a gazillion times.
" Why do you think the the most fundamental levels are not illusory rather than the level at which we observe reality? The only way we can know about the "more fundamental" levels is from our "macro level" perspective?" --The Greek anatomists had some very clever reasons for concluding that substances are composed of atoms, for example careful observations of how odors are associated with substances, travel distances, and can be blocked from traveling to a closed location.
We didn't arrive at the Standard Model overnight. Science has taken centuries to get here and the remaining unanswered questions make it plain we have not get arrived at the bottom.
@Strawdusty, The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations is I am convinced the answer must be found at the very most fundamental level
"I'm glad you finally just came out and said it. Thank you." --I have said this about a gazillion times.
Well, I don't recall you explicitly saying that our perception of reality is an illusion. If you believe that is the case, then science is an illusion as well and so it is irrational and/or dishonest to use "science/illusion" against your opponent's position.
We didn't arrive at the Standard Model overnight. Science has taken centuries to get here and the remaining unanswered questions make it plain we have not get arrived at the bottom.
We humans only make "macro observations" and so does human science. Since we are living in a illusion and we derived the Standard Model while being fooled, then we've merely added another layer of illusion. Right?
@Strawdusty, The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations
" Well, I don't recall you explicitly saying that our perception of reality is an illusion." --Because those are two different things.
Concrete pavement seems solid, but it is mostly empty space, so the appearance of being solid is illusory. However, the concrete is not an illusion, which I could test by pounding my head on it, but I won't, because I have in the past and I do not care to repeat that test.
" We humans only make "macro observations" and so does human science. Since we are living in a illusion and we derived the Standard Model while being fooled, then we've merely added another layer of illusion. Right?" --Science has methods to control for this danger. Our models get ever more accurate and less illusory, but since we have not gotten to the bottom, some aspects are still unknown, so our models are to that extent still illusory.
" We humans only make "macro observations" and so does human science. Since we are living in a illusion and we derived the Standard Model while being fooled, then we've merely added another layer of illusion. Right?" --Science has methods to control for this danger. Our models get ever more accurate and less illusory, but since we have not gotten to the bottom, some aspects are still unknown, so our models are to that extent still illusory.
But science only makes "macro observations" which are illusory. How can illusion be controlled for by doing more of the same?
Models are based on assumptions. If the assumptions are illusory to start with, why should we expect the output of the models to to get less illusory? And how could we judge how our model is behaving if we have nothing to compare it to except illusion? It seems more likely to me under these illusory assumptions it's much more likely we are getting further from reality than closer to it by building illusion upon illusion.
@Strawdusty, The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations
" Well, I don't recall you explicitly saying that our perception of reality is an illusion." --Because those are two different things.
Concrete pavement seems solid, but it is mostly empty space, so the appearance of being solid is illusory. However, the concrete is not an illusion, which I could test by pounding my head on it, but I won't, because I have in the past and I do not care to repeat that test.
I think I understand your reasoning.
Solid things hurt when we pound our head on it. Empty space does not hurt when we pound our head on it. Concrete seems like a solid thing so it should hurt when we pound our head on it. But we know that concrete is mostly empty space so it should not hurt when we pound our head on it. Past experience shows that when we pound our head on concrete, we get hurt. So our human experience of being hurt was an illusion.
" But science only makes "macro observations" which are illusory. How can illusion be controlled for by doing more of the same?" --You apparently know nothing about the scientific method. Learn how it works.
" But science only makes "macro observations" which are illusory. How can illusion be controlled for by doing more of the same?" --You apparently know nothing about the scientific method. Learn how it works.
Perhaps you missed my point. I'm curious how you square this.
Science is done by scientists. Scientists are humans. Humans make macro observations. The scientific method is:
"a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.".
If systematic observation is illusory then rest that follows is based on illusion. So as we use observations to develop hypotheses for the observations and then even more hypotheses for those hypotheses how can we know we are getting closer to reality rather than further away? How do we know we didn't make a wrong turn at Albuquerque?
>> "You apparently know nothing about the scientific method. Learn how it works."
" We've learned that concrete is a solid. We learned that from science. But you say this is an illusion. Are you anti-science?" --You didn't learn much, apparently. Scientists treat substances as solid, liquid, gas, or plasma for the purpose of applying various models at that level.
Scientists also know that this so-called solid is mostly space such that certain particles can pass through certain solids, thus illustrating the illusory nature of considering these substances a somehow continuously solid.
In science "solid" is a technical term, but you probably don't understand what that means either.
>> "Scientists treat substances as solid, liquid, gas, or plasma for the purpose of applying various models at that level.
They treat each of them this way because they have the requisite properties and behave in unique ways. These properties and behaviors co-exist with all that empty space. In other words solids have a lot of empty space and behave/appear as solids. No illusions. .
@bmiller You are on the right path. Dusty just hasn't figured it out yet. If our macro world is an illusion we lack any ability to know if we are working our way toward greater illusions or lesser illusions. It could be that the illusions increase the closer we look at the subatomic level. Maybe the macro world is the least illusionary. Dusty has no way to know.
--You have what Ron White says can't be fixed. I am beginning to understand his point.
I'm merely asking you how you came to be convinced of your present position that the macro reality we experience is an illusion and that the reality of QM (or whatever micro-level you prefer) is not. Weren't micro level explanations derived to explain macro level (human level) observations?
Legion: “We learned that at no point did I make a claim that there are things in the universe that change without physical movement on some level. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.”
Well, the most charitable thing I can say about this is that you have said conflicting things.
Legion: “The point of the First Way is not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around. We know this because A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well.
The above indicates to me that the First Way, which is derived from A-T physics, includes a kind of change that does not involve physical motion at some levels. I don’t see how anyone should read it otherwise. And that is why I asked for an example.
Legion: “According to A-T, there were different kinds of change other than physical location change, since atomic movement and things of that nature were impossible to know at the time.”
The above indicates to me A-T physics, upon which the First Way is based, includes a kind of change that does not involve any change in physical location (“there were different kinds of change other than physical location change.”) I don’t see how anyone should read it otherwise. And that is why I asked for an example.
Legion: "Too bad the First Way isn't an A-T physics argument, as it accounts for all change and not just physical movement."
The above indicates to me that the argument you say you are defending includes the premise that not all change involves a change in physical location. And since you have said you are arguing for the First Way, and by your own admission the First Way accounts for (includes as a premise) change that does NOT involve a change in physical location, I asked for an example.
I don’t see how one can reconcile your first statement above (“at no point did [Legion] make a claim that there are things in the universe that change without physical movement on some level”) with the previous statements I have cited that preceded it. At the very least, you have yet to be clear on the issue of what you mean by change.
And, of course, let’s not forget what you are arguing for. The First Way. Where,
Legion: “If something undergoes some change, then it had a potential state actualized."
Seeing as how a potential state does not exist in act, there is no physical location for that state. And that would, again, indicate to me that you are arguing for a kind of change that does not, on some level, include a change in physical location.
I find that position basically incoherent.
But don’t get yourself too hung up on that estimation. Please proceed with your defense of the First Way.
Legion: “We learned that I stressed it was A-T philosophy that believed that some of the change they observed did not involve physical movement. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.”
You are defending the First Way, which is intertwined with A-T physics. It sounds like you would like your cake, and eat it too.
Legion: “We learned that the reason I introduced the subject of A-T categories of change was in response to the attempt to make the First Way a functional precursor to Newtonian physics, which it was not. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.”
Nope. If the First Way is to be a good argument, it should not be about A-T physics; it should be about physics (as in, reality). That is the problem you have assumed when you declared that you could defend the First Way from the criticisms of it offered — criticisms that show how the argument fails to be a good argument.
Legion: “We learned that I said there was possibly no change in the observable universe that did not involve physical movement on some level. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.”
Talking out of both sides of your mouth (as evidenced by the previous comment to you) is not a good defense.
Legion: “Sorry, Cal, but you have completely demolished your credibility. I've repeated myself over and over on all these things, and you ignored them all. If you can't even follow this conversation, in which everything is in modern English and has been spelled out repeatedly with citations, then you have zero chance of ever understanding the First Way. Not without a huge shift in attitude.”
You have yet to offer ANY defense of the criticisms offered. And by ANY defense I mean one that actually saves the First Way from the criticisms offered — unclear language, equivocation, unsound premises, begging the question, and contradiction.
You seem to still be struggling the with the narcissistic notion that because you remain fooled by an argument, therefore it is a good argument. Once again, arguments fail not by anyone’s assessment of them, but by the standards of good argument.
No, Cal. In order for me to proceed, I'll need to see evidence of basic reading comprehension on your part. Not that I doubt you have the mental capabilities to do so, but rather I don't believe you have any interest in actually understanding what I'm saying, which makes the exercise pointless if so.
There is no need for you to have issues reconciling what I said, or be confused as to why I said it. I quoted for you why I said it. I shall do so again.
Legion: "I introduced it in response to the attempts to tie the First Way to A-T physics so that if A-T physics is obsolete, then so is the First Way."
Note that this is different than saying the First Way is dependent upon there being change not involving physical motion. The point of me saying that at all was one of intent - why was the First Way presented? Was it being offered as a pre-Newton physics argument that was made obsolete by Newton? As I demonstrated, the answer was no.
As is extremely clear, I introduced the subject of A-T classifications of change in response to the attempt to pin the First Way down to being dependent on the truth of A-T physics, which it is not. Act and potency transcend their concepts of physical movement. So there does not need to be an example that I must point to of something in the universe changing without any physical motion on any level in order for the First Way to work.
If, of course, you want to hold the First Way to a different standard than other ideas, in which faulty or obsolete concepts are corrected or replaced without abandoning the entire idea so long as the idea remains functional, then there is no point in continuing this exercise. The First Way is not dependent upon A-T concepts of physical motion in order to function. Agree or disagree?
Cal: "You have yet to offer ANY defense of the criticisms offered."
I have thoroughly destroyed every criticism you've offered. Your continuing to offer the same criticisms I have already demolished does not mean I haven't dealt with them.
Cal: "Seeing as how a potential state does not exist in act, there is no physical location for that state. And that would, again, indicate to me that you are arguing for a kind of change that does not, on some level, include a change in physical location."
I also find this incoherent, as it is not even remotely what I have said about potential states.
Cal: "You seem to still be struggling the with the narcissistic notion"
Stop projecting.
You apparently are still insisting on the First Way not being functional outside of A-T physics. If so, you should have no problem answering the following.
Name the part of Newtonian physics that refuted the concepts of act and potency.
Legion: "As is extremely clear, I introduced the subject of A-T classifications of change in response to the attempt to pin the First Way down to being dependent on the truth of A-T physics, which it is not."
Yes. Because then it would rely on a deficient description of reality.
Legion: "Act and potency transcend their concepts of physical movement."
You might as well say, matter and time transcend their concepts of physics. Which only makes sense if you want to avoid being clear in your description of reality. And we are supposed to be talking about reality.
Legion: "So there does not need to be an example that I must point to of something in the universe changing without any physical motion on any level in order for the First Way to work."
You can't have it both ways, again. We're talking about an argument based on reality. If you had made it clear that you think the First Way, which describes motion in reality, is going to be exempt from what we know about motion in reality, then you are just wasting our time.
Apologist Defense of the claim that there is a dragon in the garage: Investigator (opens door to garage): "There's no dragon in here." Apologist: "This dragon transcends dragons."
Legion: "If, of course, you want to hold the First Way to a different standard than other ideas, in which faulty or obsolete concepts are corrected or replaced without abandoning the entire idea so long as the idea remains functional, then there is no point in continuing this exercise. The First Way is not dependent upon A-T concepts of physical motion in order to function. Agree or disagree?"
Talk about projecting...
The First Way is an argument about reality, and therefore IT IS dependent on what we know about reality.
Your failure to understand something this simple is at the heart of your confusion.
Legion: "If, of course, you want to hold the First Way to a different standard than other ideas, in which faulty or obsolete concepts are corrected or replaced without abandoning the entire idea so long as the idea remains functional, then there is no point in continuing this exercise. The First Way is not dependent upon A-T concepts of physical motion in order to function. Agree or disagree?" --Then it's not the First Way anymore. It then becomes an error corrected modified updated modernized rewrite of the First Way.
Sure, you can do that if you want, and others have, but we are using the text of Haines as a reference point. Haines cites a source for his notation in his reference [8]. If you follow that link you can also find the full text translation, which I find useful to refer to as a translation of the primary source.
So, if you want to reword that into LoL's Argument From Motion, fine, edit as you wish, but please do not call your edited version the First Way by Aquinas.
Cal: "You might as well say, matter and time transcend their concepts of physics. Which only makes sense if you want to avoid being clear in your description of reality. And we are supposed to be talking about reality."
Gibberish that didn't respond to what I said. Act and potency are not dependent upon A-T notions of physical movement ("their" being Aristotle and Aquinas, didn't spell that out). Your failure to name the part of Newtonian physics that refutes act and potency as concepts is more than sufficient evidence for that.
Cal: "If you had made it clear that you think the First Way, which describes motion in reality, is going to be exempt from what we know about motion in reality, then you are just wasting our time."
Gibberish with no basis in reality. Act and potency do indeed describe change in reality, and you did not even attempt to refute it.
Cal: "The First Way is an argument about reality, and therefore IT IS dependent on what we know about reality."
The fact that you said this proves you didn't read what I wrote. Try responding again, in a manner consistent with someone who actually read what I wrote.
Cal: "Your failure to understand something this simple is at the heart of your confusion.
Your "responses" are impossible to follow, as they almost never actually correspond to anything I've said. That might lead to confusion for some, but unfortunately for you I can go back and quote what I actually said, and prove that you aren't responding to it. The only thing I'm still confused about is your certainty in your extremely flawed position.
Name the part of Newtonian physics that refuted the concepts of act and potency.
Stardusty: "Then it's not the First Way anymore. It then becomes an error corrected modified updated modernized rewrite of the First Way."
I'm unaware of any modern A-T philosophers who deny A-T notions of physics have been rendered obsolete. They, like me, happen to agree this does not render the First Way obsolete. At most it would affect some of the examples, not the premises themselves.
>> "If you had made it clear that you think the First Way, which describes motion in reality, is going to be exempt from what we know about motion in reality, then you are just wasting our time"
Strawman. Nobody is claiming an exemption except you.
If you think this is the case you'll need to explain EXACTLY how the FW is describing motion that we KNOW is not motion in reality. Be very specific.
I doubt specific questions will be answered, as it is much harder to bluster in such circumstances.
Frankly I'm getting bored. I hit the volleyball over the net, and rather than hitting it back, Cal is swinging a bat at a baseball, striking out, and claiming it was a home run. Problem is we are not even playing baseball.
The minimum criteria of a dialogue is responding to what is said, and that minimum is not being met. I'm entertained by the direction things take, given that it is so easy to prove what was said in online conversation, but it's getting boring. I could get the same results chatting with a program that generates random sentences and then tells me I'm confused.
Legion, Yep, lots of bluster about how the FW argument fails, but so far we've only heard claims. No detailed explanation as to where the argument fails and why it fails.
The definitions are on the table. Let's see if the skeptics will actually spell it out or if they will continue to make claims and bluster.
" I could get the same results chatting with a program that generates random sentences and then tells me I'm confused." --Random sentences might well confuse you! But, I suppose your point is that in that case your confusion would not be evidence that the actually random sentences were somehow meaningful.
So, to your point about act and potency, yes, one can sort of shoehorn that language into modern physics. It is rather cumbersome and clumsy. It think it is far more useful to express modern physics as modern physics is expressed by modern physicists. I don't see the value in dredging up ancient language for that purpose.
Yes stuff can only do the sorts of thing stuff can do in the ways stuff actually does stuff. We don't see causal effects propagating in ways they cannot propagate. OK, not very informative, but not strictly mistaken either.
Not only is the language of Aquinas based an false notions of motion, it is also excessively brief thus making it subject to ambiguity. Further, the OP does not actually use every word in the First Way, although there are various sources for it such as http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html
So, if it really matters, I can rehash is fine detail how the language works on A-T physics, but if those principles of motion are applied to modern physics then there are some subtle defects in the language of the First Way.
Also, the First way defines motion as a reduction from potential to actual, but it does not define a reduction of potential to actual as motion, since this would commit the fallacy of confirming the consequent by inferring the converse of the actual words. Further, motion is explicitly distinguished from change in the words of Aquinas, not equated. Motion is used distinctly from change, not as a synonym for change, as I have quoted and analyzed above at length.
But, one needn't dwell on these linguistic defects if one wishes to read primarily for the gist of the argument, as opposed to dwelling on the defects that come to light through careful parsing of every word.
Unfortunately, such a generalization turns the first half into the First Way into little more than pedestrian observations at the level of tautology. That is not all bad, because a rigorous argument may well begin with seemingly obvious assertions just to lay a firm foundation.
So yes, stuff only does what stuff can do. Causal effects do not propagate in ways causal effects cannot propagate. Causal effects do propagate in particular sorts of ways, and they do not propagate in other sorts of ways.
I don't see how that will lead to an argument for a first mover, much less an argument for God, but hey, I'm willing to give it a go.
Legion: "Act and potency transcend their concepts of physical movement." Cal: "You might as well say, matter and time transcend their concepts of physics. Which only makes sense if you want to avoid being clear in your description of reality. And we are supposed to be talking about reality."
Legion: "Gibberish that didn't respond to what I said."
mkay. Actually (surprise!), I responded to what you said as an analog, as a means to point out that "transcendence" is not actually a benefit when it comes to terms that accurately describe reality; "matter" transcends its use in the description of physical events (what's it matter, the fact of the matter, etc.), but we continue to use the word (in its more strict Physics sense) DESPITE this transcendence, not because of it.
Legion: "Act and potency are not dependent upon A-T notions of physical movement..."
But our descriptions of physical movement are dependent on real things, aren't they? And we are talking about real things, right?
Legion: "Your failure to name the part of Newtonian physics that refutes act and potency as concepts is more than sufficient evidence for that."
I've mentioned what Newtonian physics describes more accurately than A-T physics -- inertia, for one. But you misunderstand (no way!) -- the problem isn't with A-T physics versus Newtonian per se (although there do some to be some assumptions of A-T physics that explain the allure and the failure of the First Way), it's with the language of the First Way (the ambiguity of its terms, and equivocation it employs), and that stands as A BARRIER to understanding the dilemma it sets out to establish, NOT A BENEFIT.
Are you ever going to get around to trying to finishing your defense of the First Way? Or have you given up on that one entirely?
Stardusty: "one can sort of shoehorn that language into modern physics
Before I respond, I want to make sure that this isn't a branch of the "every argument about every subject is a physics argument because everything is physics" approach - lawyers in court present physics arguments, song lyrics are about physics, etc which leads to everything that exists being a physicist performing the field of physics. I got a kick out of that, but it wasn't even remotely compelling as a conversational topic.
Because I would agree that modern physics as described by modern physicists is more useful to modern physics than concepts like act and potency - but I would not agree that the terminology of modern physics is more useful in every discussion.
Stardusty: "it is also excessively brief thus making it subject to ambiguity."
I don't find it to be so. Not for what it is attempting to describe.
Stardusty: "Further, motion is explicitly distinguished from change in the words of Aquinas, not equated."
Even if so, motion is described as the reduction from potential to actual. So are the other categories of change in their other writings - all of them are potential states being actualized. That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around.
Stardusty: "That is not all bad, because a rigorous argument may well begin with seemingly obvious assertions just to lay a firm foundation."
Legion: "That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around."
Cal: "Actually (surprise!), I responded to what you said as an analog, as a means to point out that "transcendence" is not actually a benefit when it comes to terms that accurately describe reality; "matter" transcends its use in the description of physical events (what's it matter, the fact of the matter, etc.), but we continue to use the word (in its more strict Physics sense) DESPITE this transcendence, not because of it."
Act and potency do not depend on A-T concepts of physical motion in order to function.
Cal: "But our descriptions of physical movement are dependent on real things, aren't they? And we are talking about real things, right?"
The only thing I can think of that this could possibly be addressing would be your objection earlier about potential states not existing in a location. Is that what you're getting at?
Cal: "I've mentioned what Newtonian physics describes more accurately than A-T physics"
Of course Newtonian physics is more accurate. I should hope that new scientific models would be more accurate than their predecessors.
Cal: "the ambiguity of its terms, and equivocation it employs"
Why do you believe the problem is with the terminology itself, and not your understanding? I had no problem learning it and know exactly what they mean by it, so there is no reason for me to assume there's a terminology problem.
Cal: "Are you ever going to get around to trying to finishing your defense of the First Way? Or have you given up on that one entirely?"
That's like asking to continue on a car ride when you have three flat tires and the water pump fell off. We could try, but we're never going to get anywhere unless the problems are fixed first.
To that end, I suppose to gauge where things are, I would ask you how the concepts of act and potency hold up under Newtonian physics.
Stardusty: "one can sort of shoehorn that language into modern physics
" Before I respond, I want to make sure that this isn't a branch of the "every argument about every subject is a physics argument because everything is physics" approach" --Ultimately that is true but it turns out not to be a functionally useful analytical method for our daily experiences because we lack the physics theories and computational capabilities that would be needed to perform that kind of analysis.
However, it is critical to keep this in mind when discussing the origins of motion, change, and existence, because those origins depend on just that, physics, the physics of the very smallest most fundamental structures that exist.
Things at the most fundamental level, the level we must examine, do not necessarily function as common sense would tell us. That doesn't mean we should accept nonsense, but it does mean we have to be prepared to confront the limits our own rationality and not merely assume we can extrapolate every aspect of what seems reasonable to our sense experience to the most fundamental level we must examine to answer these questions.
" Because I would agree that modern physics as described by modern physicists is more useful to modern physics than concepts like act and potency - but I would not agree that the terminology of modern physics is more useful in every discussion." --Ok, writing a birthday card to my wife in terms of modern physics is not useful. Discussing the origins of the most fundamental structures of existence in A-T language is also not useful.
Stardusty: "it is also excessively brief thus making it subject to ambiguity."
" I don't find it to be so. Not for what it is attempting to describe." --"Motion", "move", "moved", and "change" are used very poorly in the argument.
Verbs have many forms, which is further complicated by the need to translate. For example "moves" can mean to be in motion (changing position), or it can mean to move something else (a hand moves a staff).
"Moved" can mean that an object was in motion (changed position from one place to another), or it can mean that an object was caused to move by something else (the bat moved the ball), or it can mean that an object caused something else to move(the bat).
To avoid these and other ambiguities in a technical argument is it best to add more qualifiers and descriptive language to each statement to make each statement absolutely clear as to the form of the key verbs that is intended. Aquinas fails to do this.
Stardusty: "Further, motion is explicitly distinguished from change in the words of Aquinas, not equated."
" Even if so, motion is described as the reduction from potential to actual. So are the other categories of change in their other writings" --If you have to pull in all these other writings to infer what Aquinas "really meant" then either Aquinas did a very bad writing job or you are pulling in whatever bits suit you to bend the argument around from what was actually written, or both.
" - all of them are potential states being actualized." --Inferring the converse is known as the fallacy of confirming the consequent. M therefore C C therefore M (invalid logic)
" That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around." --Aquinas opens with the lines "The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion." "It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
Later he defines motion as reduction from potential to actuality. He does not define reduction from potential to actuality as motion, and to infer such is logically invalid.
He goes on to use the phrase "thereby moves and changes it", clearly distinguishing between the two "move" versus "change". Since he used the word "change" here he could have used the word "change" elsewhere, but he did not. He used the word "move".
If he wanted to say "change" he could have, but he didn't, he said "move".
Yet, despite all this, you are convinced he did not mean "move" when he said "move". Rather, you cling to confirming the consequent, ignoring the fact his examples are of physical positional change, and he distinguishes between "move" and "change" when it suits him.
Aquinas tells us this is an argument from motion, not an argument from change.
Legion: "That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around." Me: Like...? Legion: "I just wrote a huge series of quotes answering this. Seriously, Cal, you need to read what I write and respond to it. This is why I can't move on."
A huge series of quotes?
Can you be more specific? Why can't apologist ever actually cite what they claim they said earlier?
If you can't be bothered to scroll up to read what I wrote on this very subject a few days ago, then you don't deserve my time. The fact that you can't do that much makes it hilarious when you accuse us of not citing our references or giving straight answers - why bother when you just ignore them?
Scroll up and read it. Pay particular attention to the bolded parts. I'll give you a hint - it occurs sometime after May 25 and before May 27. Also, if you again only take partial quotes of what I said in order to twist it into what you want, this discussion is done. Dealing with childishness is not what I signed up for.
Locate my series of quotes. Read the bolded parts. Attempt to comprehend what I said and why I said it, and then respond to what I said. It is incomprehensible that you believe I have not addressed you on this subject yet.
Legion: "Locate my series of quotes. Read the bolded parts."
WTF. How do you propose I do a find on "my series of quotes." How do you propose I do a search on "bolded parts"?
You guys don't actually know how to cite yourselves. Are you truly that clueless?
Or, because you know what you are referring to, and I do not (something than all narcissists have trouble imagining, I know), you could actually just copy it and paste it what should take you about 8 seconds.
Try and understand this: I seriously don't know what you mean by "my series of quotes" that explains what exactly the First Way is really, truly, actually supposed to be about besides describing "why things move around."
If I do a search on "quote", the first one I see in a comment from you on this page is:
Legion (quote?): "The sentence the above quote directly follows is "Nothing in modern physics has refuted act, potency, or an essentially ordered series."
An essentially ordered series is about how things move around. So that can't be it, right?
Or, the next one on this page (closest that I can see):
Legion: "There is no need for you to have issues reconciling what I said, or be confused as to why I said it. I quoted for you why I said it. I shall do so again. / Legion: "I introduced it in response to the attempts to tie the First Way to A-T physics so that if A-T physics is obsolete, then so is the First Way."
This is just vintage Legion -- babbling about your own babbling.
So, the two "quotes" above don't answer my question (at all) -- what example are you thinking of when you wrote, "That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around."
Do you have an inkling now on how utterly feckless your ability to plainly answer simple questions that could actually explain your thinking are? This is why I say that you act like a narcissist -- you seem pathologically incapable of understanding that other people aren't privy to your vantage concerning your own thoughts.
And if you can't learn to actually explain yourself, then no one will ever know what you think is so important.
The context for Aquinas's discussion of motion involves Aristotle's list of 10 categories from which Aristotle thought 4 proper to discuss with respect to change/motion for various reasons.
"Nevetheless [sic], when making this claim, Aristotle speaks about four kinds of motion and change only—those in substance, in quality, in quantity and in place—whereas the number of the kinds of being should have remained ten.
Substance (οὐσία, ousia, essence or substance).[6] Substance is that which cannot be predicated of anything or be said to be in anything. Hence, this particular man or that particular tree are substances. Later in the text, Aristotle calls these particulars “primary substances”, to distinguish them from secondary substances, which are universals and can be predicated. Hence, Socrates is a primary substance, while man is a secondary substance. Man is predicated of Socrates, and therefore all that is predicated of man is predicated of Socrates.
Quantity (ποσόν, poson, how much). This is the extension of an object, and may be either discrete or continuous. Further, its parts may or may not have relative positions to each other. All medieval discussions about the nature of the continuum, of the infinite and the infinitely divisible, are a long footnote to this text. It is of great importance in the development of mathematical ideas in the medieval and late Scholastic period. Examples: two cubits long, number, space, (length of) time.
Qualification or quality (ποιόν, poion, of what kind or quality). This determination characterizes the nature of an object. Examples: white, black, grammatical, hot, sweet, curved, straight.
Where or place (ποῦ, pou, where). Position in relation to the surrounding environment. Examples: in a marketplace, in the Lyceum.
The last of these (change of place) was referred to as local motion (where the word locomotion comes from). So due to this historical distinction, local motion such as a ball rolling is considered a different type of motion than the quality of a leaf changing color on the same tree.
Cal: "How do you propose I do a find on "my series of quotes." How do you propose I do a search on "bolded parts"?"
You have several options. If you have a wheel on your mouse, use it to scroll upward. Or perhaps you could hit the "page up" key or the "up" arrow key. If you have no wheel or functional keyboard, click the "up" arrow on the right and scroll upward until you find my posts that are surrounded with quote marks (hence why they are called "quotes") and that contain bolded parts. You need only scroll to the date I indicated, falling somewhere between May 25 and May 27. It's quite simple to find. It took me literally less than 10 seconds to do so just now - it would take me longer to copy paste it all again than it would for you to just put some effort in and scroll up to where it's already at.
And yes, I'm not pasting it for you because I'm tired of you ignoring what I write if you don't find it convenient for your position.
Scroll up. Look between May 25 and May 27. Look for my posts that are surrounded in quote marks and contain bolded sections. If you find that this is too complicated a task, let me know. If you do manage to locate the bolded sections that occurred between May 25 and May 27 in a series of quotes, explain to me how that does not address your "like...?"
Finally, stop projecting your narcissism onto others. It's pathetic.
Legion: "That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around." Me: "Like...?"
Legion: "The point of the First Way is not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around. We know this because A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well...Logically, if the First Way was only about how things move around, it would not cover other types of change, which would be irrelevant. So logically, the First Way is not a predecessor to Newton. It does not rise and fall with A-T concepts of movement, but rather with the A-T concepts of change - act and potency. / These days we know that possibly any time something in the universe changes, it involves a physical movement on some level, cellular, subatomic etc. This also does nothing to damage the First Way, as it is not a precursor of Newtonian physics. "
But you (surprise!) don't answer my question there -- you just (surprise!) repeat yourself asserting the same thing ("the First Way is not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around") that led to my last request for an example.
As I've mentioned throughout this thread, and you and others may have as well, the First Way was never intended to be a stand-alone argument completely separated from the rest of their works. There are plenty of other writings expanding upon act, potency, and the various types of change, all of which are the reason I've been saying all along that the First Way isn't only about local motion, even though that information is not all contained within the First Way itself.
I'm beginning to wonder, since the First Way is only one part of a larger body of work aimed at theology students, and since there are much larger bodies of work on the terms the First Way touches upon, if it's even possible to defend only the First Way without having to lay the foundation of A-T philosophy in general. It seems that when one approaches the argument with no conception of what Aquinas actually believed, that strawmen are quite easy to build.
I recommend reading what bmiller posted earlier today at 2:16 for some more depth, but the example I gave is of a leaf changing color, if I recall correctly. Under A-T philosophy, that would not have been considered local motion.
Now, the point of me saying this is not to say that A-T is correct that there are types of change that have no physical movement at any level. Nor was it to say that the First Way is dependent upon there being such types of change. Rather, the point is that if they wanted the First Way to be only about local motion, and not all forms of change they held there to be, then they could have done so but did not. So the First Way is not solely about local motion, it is not bound to A-T notions of local motion, and it is not rendered obsolete by Newtonian physics.
If you're getting anything else from what I wrote, it's almost certainly wrong, but point it out to me so I can make sure I didn't forget something.
"Scroll up and read it. Pay particular attention to the bolded parts. I'll give you a hint - it occurs sometime after May 25 and before May 27. Also, if you again only take partial quotes of what I said in order to twist it into what you want, this discussion is done. Dealing with childishness is not what I signed up for. "
Locate my series of quotes. Read the bolded parts. Attempt to comprehend what I said and why I said it, and then respond to what I said. It is incomprehensible that you believe I have not addressed you on this subject yet.
And yes, I'm not pasting it for you because I'm tired of you ignoring what I write if you don't find it convenient for your position.
Scroll up. Look between May 25 and May 27. Look for my posts that are surrounded in quote marks and contain bolded sections. If you find that this is too complicated a task, let me know. If you do manage to locate the bolded sections that occurred between May 25 and May 27 in a series of quotes, explain to me how that does not address your "like...?"
I recommend reading what bmiller posted earlier today at 2:16 for some more depth, but the example I gave is of a leaf changing color, if I recall correctly."
Rather, the point is that if they wanted the First Way to be only about local motion, and not all forms of change they held there to be, then they could have done so but did not.
Yes, when people hear the word motion today they normally don't associate it with the broader concept of change. The First Way applies to all categories of material change and so it's worth noting. As you've pointed out, most everyone can grasp the 4 categories and how they generally change, while not everyone can grasp Newtoninan physics.
I'm beginning to wonder, since the First Way is only one part of a larger body of work aimed at theology students, and since there are much larger bodies of work on the terms the First Way touches upon, if it's even possible to defend only the First Way without having to lay the foundation of A-T philosophy in general. It seems that when one approaches the argument with no conception of what Aquinas actually believed, that strawmen are quite easy to build.
There are at least 3 versions of the First Way in Thomist works. The particular one in the OP is from the Summa Theologica and yes it is aimed at Theology students. The one aimed at "non" Theology students is from the Summa Contra Gentiles and is found in the first comment on this thread.
"Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover."
It only has one example, but of course that won't stop one from missing the point of it if one intends to. The post also links to the section of the SCG where the background reasoning is explained in a relatively succinct manner.
I think if one understands that things aren't moving themselves or aren't moving for no reason then it's pretty easy to understand, unless of course you don't want to understand.
Me: "The one who seems befuddled here is you." Legion: "I'm pleased that our discourse has descended to the level of "I am rubber, you are glue." / Was the task too complex?"
I suppose I should have been more explicit.
I quoted you in order to demonstrate that you have slid from:
Legion: "Scroll up and read it. Pay particular attention to the bolded parts. I'll give you a hint - it occurs sometime after May 25 and before May 27."
to
Legion: "Look for my posts that are surrounded in quote marks and contain bolded sections."
to
Legion: "I recommend reading what bmiller posted earlier today at 2:16 for some more depth, but the example I gave is of a leaf changing color, if I recall correctly."
I say that you appear befuddled because you won't answer a direct question (still), and you seem to be backtracking even further from where this supposed answer might lie. Now, it's maybe a leaf (which, as I thoroughly addressed over and over and over, is NOT an example of a change that that occurs without any change in physical position of some component part).
So maybe I should have said "confused handwaving."
Why won't you answer a direct question?
You say you have; I have shown that nowhere does the answer lie according to your direction.
It's dishonest to pretend that you have answered a question, when you have not. And it's dishonest to avoid a question when you have pretended that you are engaged in a frank discussion.
That is the question I think you should ask yourself -- are you engaged in a frank discussion? Do you really, truly, think you are?
Cal: "I have shown that nowhere does the answer lie according to your direction."
Which is why I say you don't read what I write, as it's the only way to hold the position you do.
Cal: "Now, it's maybe a leaf (which, as I thoroughly addressed over and over and over, is NOT an example of a change that that occurs without any change in physical position of some component part)."
Point out where I said that a leaf changing color IS an example of a change that occurs without any change in physical position of some component part.
You can't. Know why you can't? Because I never said that. I clearly said otherwise, in fact, per the quotes with bolded sections.
Here's what I did say. In response to the attempt to make the First Way nothing but an argument about local motion (change in physical location) and thereby synonymous with A-T physics which were rendered obsolete by Newtonian physics, I pointed out that A-T did not believe that some sorts of change involved a change in location, such as a leaf changing color. The First Way was worded in such a way that these other types of change were also covered. If they had wanted it to be about local motion and only about local motion, they could have said so. But they did not. Thus there is no reason to believe that the First Way is only about local motion, and there is no reason to believe that the First Way is a retelling of A-T physics which were replaced by Newtonian physics.
The concepts of act and potency are of all change according to A-T philosophy, not just local motion, and the concepts of act and potency easily withstand Newton when much of A-T physics was rendered obsolete or outright false. They even withstand the knowledge of cellular and subatomic movement which make the A-T categories of change obsolete. Point to take away - the First Way isn't dependent on A-T notions of physical movement.
That was the sole purpose of the leaf example - evidence that the First Way is more than just an A-T physics argument involving local motion. It was not (and I stressed it was not) an example of a type of change that involved no physical movement on any level. In fact, I dismissed your repeated requests for me to provide such an example because it is utterly irrelevant to the First Way (which is why I called it the First Strawman).
So, is your odd request for me to provide some sort of change involving no physical movement on any level finally laid to rest, or are you going to keep asking for one for reasons only you know?
Edit to above: made a typo. I wrote "Here's what I did say. In response to...physics, I pointed out that A-T did not believe that some sorts of change involved a change in location, such as a leaf changing color."
That should have read "I pointed out that A-T believed that some sorts of change did not involve a change in location, such as a leaf changing color."
>> "Now, it's maybe a leaf (which, as I thoroughly addressed over and over and over, is NOT an example of a change that that occurs without any change in physical position of some component part)"
You wanted Legion to give you an example that is not considered local motion (locomotion) according to A-T. The leaf example does that. The musical skills example does that. The examples in the summary bmiller provided do that. Stop asking for more examples.
This is why you seem confused, and to be talking out of both sides of your mouth:
Legion: "That was the sole purpose of the leaf example - evidence that the First Way is more than just an A-T physics argument involving local motion. It was not (and I stressed it was not) an example of a type of change that involved no physical movement on any level. In fact, I dismissed your repeated requests for me to provide such an example because it is utterly irrelevant to the First Way (which is why I called it the First Strawman)."
Nope. You introduced this notion -- that there is more to change than a change in physical position -- and explicitly tied it to the First Way. You are literally calling your defense of the First Way a strawman.
Legion: "Legion: "That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around."
I asked you what other things you suppose they had in mind.
You reply, "So, is your odd request for me to provide some sort of change involving no physical movement on any level finally laid to rest, or are you going to keep asking for one for reasons only you know?"
You are the one who has introduced the notion above -- that there is more to change than a change in physical position. I pointed out that a leaf change color ONLY because of a change in physical position, so that example can't be what you mean. (Unless you are incapable of processing information.)
You could clear this up for us. But for some reason you refuse. And so that is why I say you seem confused, or to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Apologist: "Skeptics don't understand the First Way because they think that change only involves some change in physical position." Skeptic: "What other kind of change is there besides one in which there is some kind of change in physical position?" Apologist: "Why do you ask that irrelevant question?" Skeptic: "Because you claimed that it is the reason for your believing the First Way is actually a good argument." Apologist: "I am not interested in exploring a tangent." Skeptic: "How can it be a tangent if you introduced it as your supposed defense." Apologist: "I told you change beyond a change in physical position is not relevant." Skeptic: "Okay, so why do you think the refutations of the First Way can be answered." Apologist: "Because you think that change only involves some change in physical position."
Stevek: "The argument is based on A-T METAPHYSICAL principles. / Skeptic: What kind of change is there other than a change in physical position? / FW: Metaphysical change"
Is metaphysical change like metaphysical dragons? Asking for a friend.
stevek: "Why must you make this so difficult?"
I've said so many times; because I am inexplicably compelled to oppose inconsistency, hypocrisy, and sanctimony.
Definition of metaphysics 1 a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
changing your brain is NOT identical to changing your mind One is a physical change, the other is not These are A-T principles like them or not. Both fit equally well under the FW argument.
Cal: "Nope. You introduced this notion -- that there is more to change than a change in physical position -- and explicitly tied it to the First Way. You are literally calling your defense of the First Way a strawman."
Nope. I just told you why I did it, and provided the entire conversation above as context. You are simply wrong. You are the one engaging in strawman arguments. You can continue to engage in your strawman arguments if you desire to continue embarrassing yourself, it doesn't cost me anything.
Cal: "I asked you what other things you suppose they had in mind."
I provided an example, and others did as well.
Cal: "You could clear this up for us."
Already did. The confusion is yours alone, and not based on my failure to provide information. Full context and intent was provided for your consumption, and you refuse to engage with it. You can lead a horse to water, but...
Also, your ridiculous skeptic/apologist conversation has absolutely no bearing on what was actually said. How embarrassing for you.
The world isn't limited to only "physical properties". There are essential and accidental properties. Physically you can't tell one from the other. They are indistinguishable. They are not illusions either, despite Dusty's protests that they must be.
The takeaway is that the FW works for both the metaphysical and the physical.
Legion: "Already did. The confusion is yours alone, and not based on my failure to provide information. Full context and intent was provided for your consumption, and you refuse to engage with it. You can lead a horse to water, but... / Also, your ridiculous skeptic/apologist conversation has absolutely no bearing on what was actually said. How embarrassing for you."
Cal has yet to display basic reading comprehension skills, even when his errors are specifically pointed out to him. I see no point in proceeding with the First Way until I see a sliver of evidence that Cal can comprehend what he reads.
If you want to take the mantle and proceed, that's up to you, but I won't be doing so until Cal understands why the First Strawman is the First Strawman.
Yeah, my reading comprehension is the reason why apologists struggle to simply answer these simple questions:
1. Is the First Way about change? Yes or no.
2. Is the First Way about change other than a change that involves, at some level, a change in physical position? Yes or no.
3. If the First Way is about something other than a change that involves, at some level, a change in physical position, what other kind of change is there?
4. If an instance of a change that supposedly does not involve a change in physical position at some level is show to actually involve a change in physical position at some level, is it reasonable to continue to believe otherwise? Yes or no.
Btw, I would love to see Legion do as he promised earlier -- define his terms, and defend the First Way. The only reason I'm pointing out the problems that I have pointed out are because there's nothing else to work with.
I suspect that Legion has looked at the road ahead in the First Way, where the larger problems glare far brighter, and doesn't feel quite as cocky about his earlier promises as he once did. That happens when one has time to become familiar with material that, on closer scrutiny, reveals defects that a more peremptory judgment can easily hide.
2. If speaking about A-T categories of change bases on what they knew, then yes.
3. Qualitative, quantitative, substantive, etc.
4. No.
Your point? Because these answers conform to what I have been saying all along, and likely do not indicate what you think they do.
Cal: "Btw, I would love to see Legion do as he promised earlier -- define his terms, and defend the First Way. The only reason I'm pointing out the problems that I have pointed out are because there's nothing else to work with."
The reason we haven't moved on is the alleged problems you are pointing out aren't problems at all, yet you insist they are. So we have to deal with them until you figure out the difference between the First Way and the First Strawman. I'm not moving on until you agree the First Strawman was a poor attack and should be discarded like the garbage it is.
Cal: "I suspect that Legion has looked at the road ahead in the First Way, where the larger problems glare far brighter, and doesn't feel quite as cocky about his earlier promises as he once did."
You suspect wrong, though I do doubt my ability to overcome the First Strawman in your mind, based on recent experience.
" We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover." --This sort of thinking is how Aquinas begs the question in the First Way.
The first mover, an unchanged changer, is just as irrational as an infinite regression.
There is no rational answer.
However, conservation is strong evidence that the infinite regression is somehow the case. We never see evidence of an unchanged changer. We always see evidence of regression.
" So we have to deal with them until you figure out the difference between the First Way and the First Strawman. --That's why I like to go back not only to to the OP but the full text referenced in [8] of the OP. See also May 31, 2017 5:00 AM
The first line written by Aquinas makes clear “The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. “ Motion, not more general change. Motion is, very apparently, a sort of change, but a particular sort of change. All motion may be change, but it does not follow logically all change is motion (it is, but Aquinas did not know that, and his First Way argument does not support this subatomic fact of physics).
Aquinas says “For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.” Your assertion that this definition is a definition of general change calls for the converse wording “the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality is nothing else than motion”, which commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent relative to the actual wording.
The converse does not follow because there could logically be different sorts of potential and corresponding different sorts of actuality. While motion may be one sort of actuality it does not follow as a logical necessity that all sorts of actuality are motion.
Inferring the converse is known as the fallacy of confirming the consequent. M therefore C C therefore M (invalid logic)
Further, Aquinas clearly differentiates between motion and change when he says “, and thereby moves and changes it”. If move means change then this phrase would read “, and thereby changes and changes it”, which would then suffer from a redundancy.
The fact that the word “change” is used separately from and additionally to “move” shows that Aquinas was quite capable of using the words he meant to use, and has no need of others to say “what he really meant was…”. If he had meant something different he could have said something different. Additionally, Aquinas said “as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand”, clearly using “move” to mean a physical motion, his argument being predicated at the outset on what is “evident to our senses”, and the staff quite evidently is in physical motion.
Thus, what Aquinas himself calls "the argument from motion" is just that, not the converse as you invalidly argue.
Dusty >> "The first mover, an unchanged changer, is just as irrational as an infinite regression."
You'd have to explain how this is true because I don't see it.
We know what inanimate objects are because we have direct experience with them. Whether it's 1 object or an infinite array of them it's rational to think they will behave in the same way - as inanimate objects.
We don't have any direct experience with an unchanged changer. There's nothing obviously contradictory about it so it's not irrational to think an unmoved mover can move inanimate objects.
" We know what inanimate objects are because we have direct experience with them. Whether it's 1 object or an infinite array of them it's rational to think they will behave in the same way - as inanimate objects." --Which do not change themselves or suddenly start changing without being changed either.
We have no experience with an infinity of change or a spontaneous beginning of change. Our only experience is with a finite series of changes.
However, an unbounded series of changes is perfectly rational. We can easily conceive of an unlimited future of changes, but that is not an infinity of changes, only an unbounded finite series of changes.
To imagine a series of changes ever achieves infinity is irrational. To imagine a spontaneous change is irrational.
" We don't have any direct experience with an unchanged changer." --Hence the utter lack of evidence for it.
" There's nothing obviously contradictory about it so it's not irrational to think an unmoved mover can move inanimate objects." --Perhaps not "obvious" at first, but apparent upon examination.
First, we need to clarify "unchanged". Like so many words, it is ambiguous and needs to be expanded upon to be dealt with clearly.
When we say something is "unchanged" we might mean that it is the same as it was, it has not altered in any way, and presumably the unchanged changer in this sense has always been and will always be in the same state, never altering any of its properties in any way.
Or, "unchanged" can be taken to mean that nothing else changed it. In this sense the unchanged changer is changing, but nothing else changed it. This opens up two more possibilities 1. The unchanged changer has always been changing. 2. The unchanged changer was not changing, and then it began to change, but was not changed by anything else.
Restating the previous possibility 3. The unchanged changer never has and never will have any of its properties altered in any way, and will thus never itself change.
All 3 so called possibilities are irrational.
In the case of 1. if the unchanged changer was always changing then an infinity of change is possible after all and there is no need for a first mover in the first instance, yet the irrationality of a real infinity remains and this violates the assertion against infinity in the First Way making the First Way self contradictory.
In the case of 2. if the unchanged changer began to change then it violates the assertion of Aquinas that nothing moves itself, which would be irrational and would make the First Way self contradictory.
In the case of 3. if the unchanged changer never alters and at one time there was not change in our universe and then the unchanged changer imparted the first change then at one time the unchanged changer was potentially imparting change and then later it was actually imparting change, and thus it satisfies the definition of change put forward variously, making the changer not unchanging, rather, changing, thus a self contradictory assertion in the First Way.
Further, in the case of 3. it is absurd to think a thing could impart change without itself being changed. To impart change is a time sequence of events, at one time doing one thing, and at another time doing something different. A changer is always itself changed in the process of changing something else, to consider otherwise is preposterous.
By any notion of the words, "unchanged changer" is irrational.
Stardusty: "The first line written by Aquinas makes clear “The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. “ Motion, not more general change. Motion is, very apparently, a sort of change, but a particular sort of change. All motion may be change, but it does not follow logically all change is motion"
I might agree with you, if the First Way was the only sample of A-T philosophy I had.
Even ignoring that most, if not all, A-T philosophers equate motion with change in general in A-T thought, but here we have the writings of Aquinas himself regarding Aristotle:
Aquinas on Aristotle: "That which is being moved is midway between the potential and the actual, being partly in potentia and partly in actu: and this is evident in alteration. For water, when hot in potentia only, is not yet moved or changed. When already hot, the movement of heating is ended. But if it participate of heat imperfectly, it is then moving towards being hot; for that which is becoming hot participates of heat gradually by little and little. Therefore that imperfect act of heat in the thing that is being heated is motion, not as actual only, but inasmuch as, being an act, it has a disposition for a further act, because, if that disposition were taken away, the act, however imperfect, would terminate the motion, instead of being motion, as when anything is incompletely heated. But the disposition for a further act belongs to what is potentially that further act."
Note that here Aquinas, in describing the philosophy of Aristotle, has used a type of change called alteration, and uses the example of water heating. Throughout, he calls it motion and even uses "move and change" again. It is described in terms of act and potency, just like the burning wood example in the First Way.
Aquinas on Aristotle: ""He (Aristotle) begins by laying down what he means to show: and he says that, of the three species of motion -- one according to quantity, which is called increase and decrease, another according to quality, which is called alteration, and another according to place, which is called change of place -- the last-named must be the first of all. And secondly, he proves this by the fact of its being impossible that increase can be the first of motions, because it cannot take place without a previous alteration. For that by which anything is increased is in a way similar and in another way dissimilar. It is evidently dissimilar: for that by which anything is increased is nourishment, which at first is different from what it nourishes; but when it does nourish, it must be similar. Now it cannot pass from dissimilarity to similarity without alteration. Increase, therefore, must be preceded by alteration, through which the nourishment passes from one disposition into another. Thirdly, he shows that every alteration is preceded by local motion. When anything is altered, there must be something that alters it, making (for instance) actually hot that which before was potentially so. But if that which causes the alteration were always equally near to the altered thing, it would not cause the heat now rather than sooner. Evidently therefore the mover of the alteration is not always at the same distance from that which is altered, but sometimes nearer and sometimes further. This cannot happen without change of place."
Here Aquinas clearly distinguishes burning as an alteration and not a change of place. Burning wood is not an example of local motion according to Aquinas or Aristotle, thus the First Way is not only about local motion.
There are other snippets throughout the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas, not to mention the commentaries of those who have spent a career studying them, that also support my contention that burning is not local motion according to A-T thought. Hence why I say the First Way covers all change - one of the two examples in the argument is itself illustrative of this.
Dusty You'll need to show your homework. The default position is that inanimate objects remain inanimate. I don't need to imagine that reality. You'll need to explain how they become animated. Develop an argument for your claim and we'll look at it.
Legion: "There are other snippets throughout the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas, not to mention the commentaries of those who have spent a career studying them, that also support my contention that burning is not local motion according to A-T thought."
Right. A-T physics didn't understand that all change is motion. A-T physic was wrong about this.
Just because ancient people thought that whales were a kind of fish doesn't make a whale a kind of fish.
You seem reluctant or incapable of focusing on THE ARGUMENT per se, not the argument as historically justifiable. They are two different things, but the first is what I thought you set out do to.
>> Just because ancient people thought that whales were a kind of fish doesn't make a whale a kind of fish."
This is an empty statement without any historical citations. Tell us WHY they though whales were a kind of fish. Was it because they lived in the water or was it because they laid eggs? One "whales are a kind of fish" statement stands up to time, the other does not. Historical citations, please.
" he calls it motion and even uses "move and change" again. It is described in terms of act and potency, just like the burning wood example in the First Way." --And thus differentiates between "move" and "change".
Whatever Aquinas may have written about Aristotle at some point the fact remains that there is no definition that motion means change in the First Way, only that motion is a sort of realizing a potential.
The word "change" was undeniably in the vocabulary of Aquinas. If he had meant change he could have called it the argument from change.
He called qualitative change "motion" and intentionally distinguished it from physical movement. I see no reason to accept your interpretation based upon that. In the excerpt I provided he listed three types of motion, so the First Way as an argument from motion would include all of them, not just physical location, unless he was to specify otherwise. The burning wood is an example of a qualitative change, and not a physical movement change, so there is every reason to believe the First Way means motion in the broader A-T sense, and not just physical movement.
Any meaning you get out of "moves and changes" has to accommodate his calling a qualitative change "motion" and distinguishing that motion from physical movement, while still referring to it as motion. Whatever his motivation for using both words, it was clearly not to narrow the First Way down to only being about local motion in A-T thought.
I have trouble imagining a potential state being realized that would not involve a change of some sort. They may not be strictly synonymous, but motion as the realization of a potential state would seem to necessitate a change on some level.
" Stardusty, He called qualitative change "motion" and intentionally distinguished it from physical movement." --Perhaps elsewhere, but both examples provided were of physical motion, and he further based his argument on what is "evident to the senses".
" The burning wood is an example of a qualitative change, and not a physical movement change, " --Wrong, a flame moves necessarily and evidently, as does the wood while it burns, as is evident simply by watching a wood fire.
" Whatever his motivation for using both words, it was clearly not to narrow the First Way down to only being about local motion in A-T thought." --He made a series of 5 arguments, thus each one could well have been intended to be quite narrow in anticipation of the whole set of arguments to be presented. Further, general change is a much more difficult concept to illustrate convincingly and with which to demonstrate necessity. Motion is something we all observe and grasp, hence the example of a hand moving a staff, clearly an example of physical positional change.
You are estimating intent by your own lights, by implying what Aquinas meant to say.
I am reading the words as they are written in the argument itself.
" I have trouble imagining a potential state being realized that would not involve a change of some sort. They may not be strictly synonymous, but motion as the realization of a potential state would seem to necessitate a change on some level." --Right, Aquinas defines motion as a sort of realizing a potential, but to assert the converse, to assert that realizing a potential is necessarily motion is to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Stardusty: "Perhaps elsewhere, but both examples provided were of physical motion"
Not according to A-T philosophy, of which he was a proponent. He distinguishes it from local motion as a category, so obviously he did not present the burning wood as an example of physical movement.
Now before Cal comes gleefully charging in, the point here isn't to say that A-T philosophy was correct in their concepts of change. Rather, it is simply evident that the First Way is not only about physical movement according to A-T physics, but all types of change according to A-T philosophy. The First Way isn't rendered obsolete by Newton the way A-T physics are.
Stardusty: "Wrong, a flame moves necessarily and evidently, as does the wood while it burns, as is evident simply by watching a wood fire."
I think I'll trust Aquinas about what he believed. He obviously did not provide burning wood as an example of the A-T category of change involving local motion, since he makes a clear distinction. If he did not believe burning wood was an example of physical movement, then obviously the First Way is not intended to only address physical movement within A-T philosophy. Your interpretation is incompatible with A-T thought.
Stardusty: "Further, general change is a much more difficult concept to illustrate convincingly and with which to demonstrate necessity. Motion is something we all observe and grasp, hence the example of a hand moving a staff, clearly an example of physical positional change."
Both Aristotle and Aquinas tackle the concepts of change in greater detail than the First Way. They seemed to not be baffled by their own categorizations, so I don't see why their own beliefs would make them struggle. Plus, Aquinas clearly differentiates burning wood from the category of change dealing with local motion, so obviously the burning wood is not provided as an example of physical movement since that would contradict his own beliefs. Neither of them were that dumb.
Stardusty: "You are estimating intent by your own lights, by implying what Aquinas meant to say."
I quoted what Aquinas said. Feel free to provide other thoughts by Aristotle or Aquinas that support your interpretation, but at this point it seems decisively refuted. Burning wood was not offered as an example of the A-T category of change dealing with physical movement, thus the First Way is not only about that category.
Stardusty: "I am reading the words as they are written in the argument itself."
As am I. Mine is the only reading that is true to the other writings of what they believed regarding categories of motion, so I have every reason to suspect mine is the correct interpretation of the First Way.
Stardusty: "Right, Aquinas defines motion as a sort of realizing a potential, but to assert the converse, to assert that realizing a potential is necessarily motion is to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent."
All I know is the three categories of motion that Aquinas referred to in the quote were, according to him, transitions between potential and actual. Burning wood is a qualitative motion according to A-T, and not an example of local motion. Thus we know that the burning wood example in the First Way was not provided as an example of local motion, thus we know the First Way deals with, at the very least, both local motion and qualitative change. And since quantitative motion (increase and decrease) is also described with act and potency, the First Way would easily cover it, as well - though an example of such is not provided in the argument itself, unlike qualitative and local motion.
It seems rather straightforward, according to A-T thought, that the First Way was not intended to only be about the A-T category of motion dealing with physical movement.
Money quote: "Rather, it is simply evident that the First Way is not only about physical movement according to A-T physics, but all types of change according to A-T philosophy."
>> " Your interpretation is incompatible with A-T thought."
Quality was not thought to be merely physical and it still isn't to this very day. Value is a quality characteristic that is metaphysical.
A wood log has whatever quality of value before it is burned (ex: valuable for producing heat) and another after it is burned. The change is one of the things that the FW describes. Yes, it correlates with the physical change but it's not identical to it.
Why skeptics cannot understand this is beyond me. It's those atheist-colored glasses I suppose.
" It seems rather straightforward, according to A-T thought, that the First Way was not intended to only be about the A-T category of motion dealing with physical movement." --That is an implication based on works outside of the First Way argument you assume you can apply in the manner that seems to make sense to you, not the words found in the argument itself.
But, it really doesn't matter for most of the invalid and unsound aspects of the First Way. The First Way fails for a variety of reasons whether motion means motion as both examples clearly show and the language clearly states, or if you bring in other works to infer a broader meaning of "change" for the word "move".
Stardusty: "The First Way fails for a variety of reasons whether motion means motion as both examples clearly show"
I see you prefer pretzel logic to admitting when you are obviously wrong. When Cal admits the First Strawman is garbage, I'm ready to move on and see if the rest of your post holds up.
--That is an implication based on works outside of the First Way argument you assume you can apply in the manner that seems to make sense to you, not the words found in the argument itself.
Some people prefer to research the background of an argument while others prefer to make things up.
Legion: "I see you prefer pretzel logic to admitting when you are obviously wrong. When Cal admits the First Strawman is garbage, I'm ready to move on and see if the rest of your post holds up."
Yes, I agree that the "defense" you have assembled so far is garbage -- a round and round motte and bailey routine that seems like either an endless stalling routine or preparation for another return to the notion that your task is to rationalize and excuse primitive understanding rather than demonstrate an actually good argument.
Have you clarified what the actual difference is between change and motion in the argument yet? I don't mean in a vague "different for them" kind of way, I mean with simple assignment of semantic values that clarify the terms as they should be understood. Also, going forward, please be clear about what you mean if you are going to use the term "move" (see below):
motion = a change in position change = ? move = to move oneself move = to be moved move = to move something else
Do you know how fast I could have done all this if I was trying to defend an argument?
Why does it take you so long to do something like just assign semantic values to the terms you are gong to use?
@Legion, btw, I still don't know what you mean by "First Strawman."
Since you seem to think that my criticism of the First Way is somehow NOT my understanding of the First Way, why don't you write out what you think the First Strawman is? Because it seems to me that it's not going to be the same as my criticism has been.
Cal Metzger said... motion = a change in position change = ? move = to move oneself move = to be moved move = to move something else June 03, 2017 7:29 AM
Yes, I have been wondering much the same sort of thing, hence my assertion the First Way is so tersely worded that ambiguities arise. LoL did not agree, thinking meanings are clear.
From http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html "move" appears 27 times in some form motion motion motion motion motion motion motion motion motion motion motion motion motion motion motion move move moved mover mover mover mover mover movers moves moves moves
"changes" appears just once.
Indeed, what do all these forms of the word mean exactly?
"Moves" can mean that an object changes position by design even though it is not presently changing position. Or it can mean that an objects imparts motion to something else. Or it can mean that an object moves in the present, and is thus moving right now.
"Moved" is similarly ambiguous. If an object moved it changed position, or it moved something else, or it was moved by something else.
And so on for the other forms...
Indeed, what is "motion"? The First Way defines it as actualizing a potential. It would be a fallacy to infer the converse, that actualizing a potential is therefore necessarily motion.
I think the simplest explanation is to take "move" in all its forms at face value, as we all commonly consider it, to change location relative to some frame of reference.
Trying to read the intent of an author of 700 years past is risky business. Assertions as to what the author must have had in mind are unjustifiably arrogant.
It seems to me that other sorts of change, say change in color, or volume of a puddle would have been very difficult to argue with respect to an infinite versus finite causal series. If a puddle evaporates how does that require a finite causal series or even any apparent external cause at all? Such effects were mysterious at that time.
But motion, the positional change of objects, was indeed "manifest" and "evident to the senses" so I think it likely Aquinas simply chose the sort of change that was manifest and evident as one push leads to another and another and another.
It doesn't much matter for the rest of the argument to fail. On some general notion of change, or change of position, the First Way fails in numerous ways.
Indeed, what do all these forms of the word mean exactly?
Are you really saying you don't understand how the various tenses of a verb work? Or that you don't understand how nouns can be the subject or object in a sentence? Or are you looking for a discussion of how these distinctions are made in Thomist works? Because the way you phrased it I can't tell. Perhaps you understand the various forms of the word the same way as Aquinas.
Indeed, what is "motion"? The First Way defines it as actualizing a potential. It would be a fallacy to infer the converse, that actualizing a potential is therefore necessarily motion.
Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy applying to arguments formed of premises and conclusions. Definitions are not arguments and don't have the form of premises and conclusions. So this fallacy cannot apply to definitions.
I think the simplest explanation is to take "move" in all its forms at face value, as we all commonly consider it, to change location relative to some frame of reference.
Trying to read the intent of an author of 700 years past is risky business. Assertions as to what the author must have had in mind are unjustifiably arrogant.
It certainly is if one doesn't research the historical context and scholarship related to a topic or simply ignores it. But good news for you, Legion has provided that context. There is no need to guess what Aquinas intended when his writings explaining the background are HERE. Books 3-5 go into excruciating detail on the subject of change and motion as well as the notion of 'per se' and how it is distinguished from 'per accidens'. Now of course I don't expect you to read any of that, but I've linked it for Legion and SteveK in case they hadn't found it yet.
" are you looking for a discussion of how these distinctions are made" --The usages of the various forms in the argument are ambiguous due to the paucity of words in the argument itself.
"So this fallacy cannot apply to definitions." --How stupid.
Blue is a color. thus All colors are blue. (can you find the error?)
"A geometric square is defined as a rectangle with all four sides equal"
" Works in the reverse too so it's not always a fallacy. You'll have to show us that it actually is a fallacy." --Basic logic 101. It's called affirming the consequent.
M therefore C C therefore M (invalid logic)
Motion is only the realization of a potential. The realization of a potential. Therefore motion. (invalid logic)
--The usages of the various forms in the argument are ambiguous due to the paucity of words in the argument itself.
Here is a succinct version of the argument. Please point out what you consider ambiguous. I can help you.
"Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover."
" Here is a succinct version of the argument. " --Those are your words, not the words of Aquinas. Aquinas did such a bad job choosing his words that even you can write points more clearly and unambiguously than he did.
--Those are your words, not the words of Aquinas. Aquinas did such a bad job choosing his words that even you can write points more clearly and unambiguously than he did.
Those are not my words. They were written by Aquinas and are from his Summa Contra Gentiles. Maybe you didn't read the very first response in this thread where it was first posted along with a link to the section in the SCG where it came from.
I'm pleased to see that you now find the argument (from the same author intended for a different audience) more clear and unambiguous. See. I told you I could help. ☺
Blue is a color. thus All colors are blue. (can you find the error?)
Me: "Yes I see the error. You added "All" thus changing the definition from the first example to the second.
Your example should have been: Blue is a color A color is blue
Or more precisely: Blue is a species of color. A species of color is blue."
Motion is said to be realizing a potential.
It does not follow that all cases of realizing a potential are motion.
This just repeats our disagreement. You've added "all" again when it was not in the first statement. This is simply not reversing the order of the subject and predicate of the statement.
But there is more I disagree with. "Motion is said to be realizing a potential" is not an accurate restatement of the AT philosophical position.
@Strawdusty, " They were written by Aquinas and are from his Summa Contra Gentiles. " --So not the first way.
Here is the First Way. That is the subject of the OP. "The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. 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, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
" This just repeats our disagreement. You've added "all" again when it was not in the first statement. " --That's the point. It's not in the First Way. The reverse is not in the first way. Motion is realizing a potential (this is in the First Way) Realizing a potential is motion (this is not in the First Way)
Five Ways (Aquinas) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia See also Aquinas' Five Ways and onward links in Existence of God
The Quinque viæ (Latin, usually translated as "Five Ways" or "Five Proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica. They are:
the unmoved mover; the first cause; the argument from contingency; the argument from degree; the teleological argument ("argument from design"). Aquinas expands the first of these – God as the "unmoved mover" – in his Summa Contra Gentiles.[1] He omitted those arguments he believed to be insufficient, such as the ontological argument due to St. Anselm of Canterbury.
Cal: "Yes, I agree that the "defense" you have assembled so far is garbage"
Like someone with no taste buds criticizing my brand of ketchup, but okay.
Cal: "Have you clarified what the actual difference is between change and motion in the argument yet?"
As has been pointed out since January, the two are functionally equivalent in the First Way.
Yes, Aquinas uses both words, in the First Way and then again in another writing (the two times I know of). I also know that Aquinas plainly stated that neither he nor Aquinas view something becoming hot as physical movement, but rather the category of change they called alteration. And both alteration and physical movement (along with quantitative change) are referred to as motion, and all three are referred to as the actualization of a potential.
So knowing that A-T did not hold burning to be a physical movement sort of change, whatever explanation you come up with as to why Aquinas used both words has to incorporate the fact that all of their categories of motion were described as the actualization of a potential, and only one of those categories was physical movement - which did not include burning.
Cal: "Why does it take you so long to do something like just assign semantic values to the terms you are gong to use?"
Well I've learned that clear definitions and illustrations don't work, so my arsenal is being depleted.
Cal: " btw, I still don't know what you mean by "First Strawman."
Way back in January and February (which was a continuation of the LLL and Aswedenism threads), there was an objection being brought to bear against the First Way which was based upon not understanding the difference between the term "in act" and the meaning of "motion". It turned into "only a thing that is moving can make something move", which is not a premise of the First Way, and then it turned into repeated demands to provide an example of movement that is caused by something stationary. We continuously pointed out that this idea was not a premise of the First Way, but the demands kept coming. I first called the imaginary premise behind this demand the First Strawman on Feb. 16. It has now slightly morphed into wanting an example of change that does not involve physical movement on any level, but it's still the same basic demand for something that the First Way isn't even proposing. Change without movement is not a premise of the First Way.
And I suspect you still don't understand why I keep talking about A-T categories of change. We know for a fact that the First Way is not just a treatise on physical movement, but rather a broader metaphysical argument about the nature of change in general. Thus, the First Way is the same whether or not there are examples of change that have no physical movement. The First Way is the same whether or not general relativity replaced Newtonian physics or whether a possible future grand unified theory replaces general relativity - and this is because the First Way is neither synonymous with nor dependent upon A-T concepts of how things move around or the physical mechanisms behind changes.
Stardusty: "The First Way defines it as actualizing a potential. It would be a fallacy to infer the converse, that actualizing a potential is therefore necessarily motion."
Perhaps, but know what we do know about Aristotle and Aquinas' beliefs?
Aquinas: "That which is being moved is midway between the potential and the actual, being partly in potentia and partly in actu: and this is evident in alteration. For water, when hot in potentia only, is not yet moved or changed. When already hot, the movement of heating is ended. But if it participate of heat imperfectly, it is then moving towards being hot; for that which is becoming hot participates of heat gradually by little and little. Therefore that imperfect act of heat in the thing that is being heated is motion, not as actual only, but inasmuch as, being an act, it has a disposition for a further act, because, if that disposition were taken away, the act, however imperfect, would terminate the motion, instead of being motion, as when anything is incompletely heated. But the disposition for a further act belongs to what is potentially that further act."
Takeaway: Alteration such as water heating or wood burning, which is not physical movement according to A-T, is called motion and is described with act and potency.
Know what else we know about what they believed?
Aquinas: "of the three species of motion -- one according to quantity, which is called increase and decrease, another according to quality, which is called alteration, and another according to place, which is called change of place"
Takeaway: There are three separate categories of changes he lists, all of which are called motion, and only one of which involves local motion.
Know what else they believed?
Aquinas: "Thirdly, he shows that every alteration is preceded by local motion. When anything is altered, there must be something that alters it, making (for instance) actually hot that which before was potentially so."
Takeaway: The burning wood is specifically called NOT an example of local motion.
Your attempt at defining what the First Way is about ignores all of these things, so it is clearly false.
Stardusty: "Trying to read the intent of an author of 700 years past is risky business. Assertions as to what the author must have had in mind are unjustifiably arrogant."
Agreed, so why are you ignoring what they obviously believe in order to make the First Way what you want it to be? For over 1600 posts now (counting other threads) we have been trying to explain what motion was according to A-T, and I and others have been quoting Aristotle and Aquinas, who are the experts on Aristotle and Aquinas respectively, and you are choosing to ignore the original sources. That does seem unjustifiably arrogant.
Quite simply, for 1600 posts we have been clashing over the meaning of the argument. One of our "versions", if you will, is in full accordance with the other writings of Aquinas and Aristotle that show what they believed. The other blatantly contradicts the larger body of writings.
" One of our "versions", if you will, is in full accordance with the other writings of Aquinas and Aristotle that show what they believed. The other blatantly contradicts the larger body of writings.
Which to believe?" --Mine, of course!
But seriously folks..."contradicts" is not accurate, rather "is a subset of" your assertions from other writings made at different times, even by different people.
The fact you bring in so many other writings goes to one of my points, that the First Way itself is so tersely worded as to be ambiguous.
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
The plain reading of those two sentences is that motion is positional change, since positional change is so certain and evident to our senses, whereas the subtler sorts of "motion" imagined by Aristotle and Aquinas are not certain and evident to our senses, requiring a substantial amount of rather dubious argumentation to assert, much less confirm.
Further, even if "motion" is meant in several general senses the argument must still hold up for "motion" meaning positional change. This leads to some further ambiguities as to what sense "moves" and "moved" are employed, again owing to the paucity of words provided.
But, those structural and linguistic defects aside, the rest of the argument fails by begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false premise, and non-sequitur irrespective of the sense in which "move" is defined.
Stardusty: "The plain reading of those two sentences is that motion is positional change, since positional change is so certain and evident to our senses, whereas the subtler sorts of "motion" imagined by Aristotle and Aquinas are not certain and evident to our senses, requiring a substantial amount of rather dubious argumentation to assert, much less confirm."
This contradicts their other writings. Something burning, for example, is highly evident to the senses yet is demonstrably not considered physical movement by them.
Stardusty: "Further, even if "motion" is meant in several general senses the argument must still hold up for "motion" meaning positional change. This leads to some further ambiguities as to what sense "moves" and "moved" are employed, again owing to the paucity of words provided."
I've not seen that it would be harmed even with the modern knowledge of cellular and subatomic movement.
Stardusty: "But, those structural and linguistic defects aside, the rest of the argument fails by begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false premise, and non-sequitur irrespective of the sense in which "move" is defined."
Legion: The other blatantly contradicts the larger body of writings.
Strawdusty: But seriously folks..."contradicts" is not accurate
I'm afraid I will have to side with Strawdusty as far as his quote goes. In order to contradict something, you have to know what it is and then state the opposite. Missing the point completely and making stuff up out of thin air isn't really a contradiction.
Cal: "Have you clarified what the actual difference is between change and motion in the argument yet?" Legion: “As has been pointed out since January, the two are functionally equivalent in the First Way.”
Except that you’ve confused the issue by subsequently saying that the argument holds that there are other types of change BESIDES motion.
So, on one one hand, you say that with regard to the argument, change = motion (above).
And then subsequently, with regard to the argument motion = subset of change / not all change involves motion (multiple instances below):
Legion: “The point of the First Way is not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around. We know this because A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well.” Legion: “According to A-T, there were different kinds of change other than physical location change, since atomic movement and things of that nature were impossible to know at the time.” Legion: "Too bad the First Way isn't an A-T physics argument, as it accounts for all change and not just physical movement."
So, let’s be clear; you have not been clear on this topic. But I will ignore your later writings regarding change and motion, and understand you henceforth be arguing that change = motion wrt to the First Way.
Cal: "Except that you’ve confused the issue by subsequently saying that the argument holds that there are other types of change BESIDES motion."
While it's possible I may have slipped occasionally, I have been careful to use "physical movement" or perhaps "local motion" to describe the change of physical location, rather than "motion". Because "motion" in A-T can refer to any of their categories of change, only one of which is the change in physical location, it muddies the waters to use "motion" to describe the change in physical location in this discussion, since in modern English "motion" has a much more specific connotation in most circumstances.
Cal: "So, let’s be clear; you have not been clear on this topic."
I have been consistent that the A-T term motion is pretty much synonymous with change, and that the modern English definition of motion is only one category of motion in A-T.
Me from January 27: ""Motion" in Aquinas' usage is akin to "change", which can include but is not dependent on the modern usage of the word "motion"."
But yes, as the First Way has examples of two of the categories of motion from A-T thought, there is no evidence it is only about physical change of location.
Legion: “So knowing that A-T did not hold burning to be a physical movement sort of change, whatever explanation you come up with as to why Aquinas used both words has to incorporate the fact that all of their categories of motion were described as the actualization of a potential, and only one of those categories was physical movement - which did not include burning.”
Okay Aquinas didn’t know that burning involves a chemical reaction in which molecules combine (move), and (more oddly) doesn’t seem to allow that burning wood displaces the wood (where’d it go?). But, so long as we understand that arguments are tested against reality, not against the justifiable limitations of prior understanding, then, this is just a curiosity.
Me: "Why does it take you so long to do something like just assign semantic values to the terms you are gong to use?" Legion: “Well I've learned that clear definitions and illustrations don't work, so my arsenal is being depleted.”
Okay. I will point out that the terms of the argument are, to say the least, vague and very much in need of clarification, and that (per my earlier comment), your attempts to clarify how these terms are to be understood in the argument have extended this problem (change = motion, then change = more than motion).
Legion: “Way back in January and February (which was a continuation of the LLL and Aswedenism threads), there was an objection being brought to bear against the First Way which was based upon not understanding the difference between the term "in act" and the meaning of "motion". It turned into "only a thing that is moving can make something move", which is not a premise of the First Way, and then it turned into repeated demands to provide an example of movement that is caused by something stationary. We continuously pointed out that this idea was not a premise of the First Way, but the demands kept coming. I first called the imaginary premise behind this demand the First Strawman on Feb. 16.”
Hmmm. What you call a strawman is actually a test for soundness.
You really have two choices: - Either come up with an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move (thus making the premise sound) or - Accept that a motionless thing isn’t sufficient to cause another motionless thing to move and incorporate that into your interpretation of what Aquinas intended with the regards to the First Way .
The above isn’t turning the First Way into a strawman — it’s pointing out that what you and the other apologists proposed makes it unsound.
Legion: “It has now slightly morphed into wanting an example of change that does not involve physical movement on any level, but it's still the same basic demand for something that the First Way isn't even proposing. Change without movement is not a premise of the First Way.”
Same problem as above. If you want your premise to be accepted, it has to be acceptable. Normally, an example suffices.
This is not turning the argument into a strawman; it’s pointing out that unsupported premises are unsound, and unsound premises make for bad arguments. This is very simple stuff.
Legion: “And I suspect you still don't understand why I keep talking about A-T categories of change. We know for a fact that the First Way is not just a treatise on physical movement, but rather a broader metaphysical argument about the nature of change in general.”
If the argument wants to be considered a good argument, it must abide by the rules of good argument. Saying that it’s not to be constrained by the rules of good argument (that it need not be sound, because it’s metaphysical, e.g.) is just an attempt to avoid what you said you would do — show how the First Way is actually a good argument.
Good arguments are good because, in part, they are tethered to reality. When your argument seeks to take flight from reality, that’s a sure-fire sign that your argument can’t fufill its obligations to abide by the rules of good argument.
Legion: “Thus, the First Way is the same whether or not there are examples of change that have no physical movement.”
Yes. If it has no examples of what it includes in its premise, then it remains unsound, and it remains a bad argument.
Legion: “The First Way is the same whether or not general relativity replaced Newtonian physics or whether a possible future grand unified theory replaces general relativity - and this is because the First Way is neither synonymous with nor dependent upon A-T concepts of how things move around or the physical mechanisms behind changes.”
If the First Way is in conflict with or takes flight from reality (and reality is more or less accurately described by modern physics), then it relies on premises that are unsound. And arguments with unsound premises are bad arguments.
- Either come up with an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move (thus making the premise sound)
There is no premise in the First Way that states that there is " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move". If you think there is, please quote it.
Yes. If it has no examples of what it includes in its premise, then it remains unsound, and it remains a bad argument.
Of course one could argue that an unmusical man becoming musical involves change of physical location in some sense, but that is not all it involves. This is one reason music theory is not taught in physics courses.
bmller:"There is no premise in the First Way that states that there is " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move". If you think there is, please quote it."
Okay, then you agree that a motionless thing doesn't cause another motionless thing to move.
Both versions of the argument point out that it is evident that there are at least some things moving. Moving in the present sense. It is motion in the present sense that is the point of the argument, not the beginning or end of that motion.
" There is no premise in the First Way that states that there is " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move". If you think there is, please quote it."
*Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another*
*Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God*
By the words of Aquinas the first mover must be a motionless thing causing motion in a motionless thing.
The first mover cannot be in motion because whatever is in motion is put in motion by another. All things that are in motion, according to Aquinas, were put in motion by another. But the first mover cannot have been put in motion by another, so must therefore be motionless.
bmller:"There is no premise in the First Way that states that there is " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move". If you think there is, please quote it." Me: "Okay, then you agree that a motionless thing doesn't cause another motionless thing to move." bmiller: "No, it simply is not a premise so why discuss it?" then... bmiller: "There is a reason that this is not a premise."
The first mover cannot be in motion because whatever is in motion is put in motion by another. All things that are in motion, according to Aquinas, were put in motion by another. But the first mover cannot have been put in motion by another, so must therefore be motionless.
No, all things that are in motion are put in motion by another, present tense, not past tense. Aristotle explains motion as having 3 parts, a terminus of motion being the beginning, a terminus of motion being the end of motion and the motion itself happening between the 2 termini. The explanation can be found at the Commentary on Physics link provided: Book 5 in the vicinity of #642.
This quote is from that particular discussion: He says therefore (468) that whatever is being moved directly and per se is distinct from the terminus into which the motion tends and from the terminus from which the motion begins, as is evident in these three things: wood, hot and cold. For in the motion called heating, the wood is the mobile subject, whereas the hot which is the terminus into which, is something else, as is the cold, which is the terminus from which.
" No, all things that are in motion are put in motion by another, present tense, " --Here again we see how badly worded and ambiguous the First Way is due to its paucity of words.
As detailed June 03, 2017 11:13 AM and elsewhere the tense of the forms of the word "move" are not made clear in the argument itself.
But suppose we use the principle to apply to the moment the the first mover imparted the first motion to the previously motionless thing. At that moment the first mover must have been motionless, because at that moment if the first mover was in motion it would have been put in motion by another, and then not actually the first mover.
Every scenario of sequence for the first mover leads to an irrationality when the entire sequence is carefully analyzed. Apologists then play whack a mole, only looking at one part of the sequence and declaring "see it works!"
I have examined all the possibilities many times above. 1.The first mover was always moving. 2.The first mover was motionless and then began to move. 3.The first mover has always been motionless.
Taken together, these 3 possibilities in combination with the First Way always lead to self contradictions when thoroughly examined against the principles of the first way.
If you want to play whack a mole go to the arcade. If you demonstrate a capacity for a thoroughly rational argument from start to finish of these 3 possibilities against all the principles of the First Way consistently and thoroughly applied I will consider that you might not be the liar I think you are.
Every scenario of sequence for the first mover leads to an irrationality when the entire sequence is carefully analyzed. Apologists then play whack a mole, only looking at one part of the sequence and declaring "see it works!"
I have examined all the possibilities many times above. 1.The first mover was always moving. 2.The first mover was motionless and then began to move. 3.The first mover has always been motionless.
It's been your opponents' point all along that you're analyzing an argument different from the First Way. You've just demonstrated it again as highlighted by the bolded text above. You keep insisting that it is refers to the beginning of motion of some sort while your opponents insist it is not.
That the argument is not about the beginning of motion has been consistently argued and supported with links to scholarly works as well as primary sources. I think you will continue to be frustrated until you can grasp what it means to analyze motion as it exists between it's starting point and ending point, which is the subject of the First Way.
bmiller: "You keep insisting that it is refers to the beginning of motion of some sort while your opponents insist it is not."
Without a beginning frame, there is no motion. Insisting otherwise is like denying existence.
bmiller: "That the argument is not about the beginning of motion has been consistently argued and supported with links to scholarly works as well as primary sources."
You are evidently both a) so stupid that you don't understand that all motion must have a beginning (else there can be no motion), and b) so aggressively gullible that you think that "scholarly works as well as primary sources" could somehow alter this unalterable fact.
All motion must have a beginning. This is an unalterable fact. Unalterable facts are not the subject of scholarly debate. That you would repeat your mistake so many times indicates that you are a kind of moron.
bmiller: "I think you will continue to be frustrated until you can grasp what it means to analyze motion as it exists between it's starting point and ending point, which is the subject of the First Way."
Stupid, gullible, and mendacious. Ah, but you are an apologist. And once again, I repeat myself.
Without a beginning frame, there is no motion. Insisting otherwise is like denying existence.
No one has insisted that motion does not have a beginning. If you think I or anyone else has said anything about motion not having a beginning, then please quote it. It's just that the First Way does not address this question, so it is irrelevant to the First Way.
All motion must have a beginning. This is an unalterable fact. Unalterable facts are not the subject of scholarly debate. That you would repeat your mistake so many times indicates that you are a kind of moron.
The fact that I quoted from the commentary that mentions motion has both a beginning and end as well as the motion between both termimi should alert you to the fact that no one has denied it.
Once more here is the quote: He says therefore (468) that whatever is being moved directly and per se is distinct from the terminus into which the motion tends and from the terminus from which the motion begins, as is evident in these three things: wood, hot and cold. For in the motion called heating, the wood is the mobile subject, whereas the hot which is the terminus into which, is something else, as is the cold, which is the terminus from which.
The bolded parts show that motion moves from the beginning to the end. Both the beginning and ending of motion is discussed by Aristotle in great detail and so is motion between the 2 termini. It is the discussion of motion between the 2 termini that the First Way is about.
bmiller: "You keep insisting that [the First Way] refers to the beginning of motion of some sort while your opponents insist it is not." Me: "Without a beginning frame, there is no motion. Insisting otherwise is like denying existence." bmille: "No one has insisted that motion does not have a beginning. If you think I or anyone else has said anything about motion not having a beginning, then please quote it. It's just that the First Way does not address this question, so it is irrelevant to the First Way."
Okay. I'll quote you.
bmiller: "You keep insisting that [the First Way] refers to the beginning of motion of some sort while your opponents insist it is not."
A discussion about only 1 does not mean that 2 and 3 don't exist. A discussion about only 3 does not mean that 1 and 2 don't exist. A discussion about only 2 does not mean that 1 and 3 don't exist.
You seem to imply that a discussion about only 2 is the same as saying that 1 and 3 don't exist. Is that right?
bmiller: "You seem to imply that a discussion about only 2 is the same as saying that 1 and 3 don't exist. Is that right?"
I guess you just can't come to this on your own.
There is no talk of motion from a single reference frames. EVERY discussion about motion entails at least two reference frames. A discussion of motion from a single reference frame is, by definition, incoherent concerning a discussion about motion.
As I've said before, I don't mind ignorance, nor stupidity. But when they're combined with a Dunning-Kruger arrogance I lose all sympathy.
" All motion must have a beginning. This is an unalterable fact. " --Yes, as we ordinarily observe objects bouncing off each other. And Aquinas bases his argument on this fact that is "evident to our senses".
Particularly in the days of Aquinas this was apparently true. Ordinary objects were stationary, then were moved by something else, and then stopped. The various assertions in the First Way describe this simple set of observations.
But this does indeed lead to the question of how motion began. There seem to be only 2 choices, at least 1 thing was always moving, or something began to move without being moved by anything else. Both options lead to irrationalities, so this problem, the origin of motion, like the problem of the origin of existence, remains unsolved.
In an effort to solve this problem Aquinas asserts a first mover. but the first mover fails because we must apply the same questions to it.
Suppose: 1.The first mover was always moving. Then motion can proceed to infinity after all and there is no need for a first mover. This violates the First Way prohibition of motion regressing to infinity.
2.The first mover was motionless and then began to move. Then something can move itself after all, another violation of the First Way.
3.The first mover has always been motionless. Not only does this violate the examples of the First Way, but it violates the notion put forth that the realization of a potential is motion. If the universe was motionales and then the first mover moved something in the universe then the first mover was first potentially going to move something and then the first mover actually moved something, and thus satisfies the very definition of change and motion put forth variously here. Thus, to change something else a thing must itself change.
Further, the First Way merely asserts ~I in order to prove U. But U=~I and ~U=I. So to use the premise ~I to prove U is the same as using the premise U to prove U, clearly begging the question.
As for bmiller and his/her disjointed whack a mole sputterings your attribution of the word "mendacious" sums it up.
stardusty: "But this does indeed lead to the question of how motion began. There seem to be only 2 choices, at least 1 thing was always moving, or something began to move without being moved by anything else. Both options lead to irrationalities, so this problem, the origin of motion, like the problem of the origin of existence, remains unsolved."
Why superstitious thinkers can't resolve to this obvious conclusion remains inexplicable.
stardusty: "In an effort to solve this problem Aquinas asserts a first mover. but the first mover fails because we must apply the same questions to it."
Rather than "fail" I'd say doesn't resolve the dilemma. Fail makes it seem as if the first mover is ruled out, and maybe this is a misunderstanding that the superstitious minded have so much trouble processing -- the fact that some questions aren't resolvable in the ways that we currently understand resolution, and that framing a dilemma doesn't mean that a choice can or should be made.
Anyway, it looks like the only one (Legion) who thought he could put forward a real defense eventually has lost the time or inclination to address his assigned task.
While you are entitled to your opinion about what can be and cannot be talked about, the fact is that the First Way talks about motion as it exists after it starts and before it ends but does not talk about it's start nor it's end.
The examples from the argument mention fire changing wood, a hand moving a stick and the sun moving in the sky. All of them refer to things happening in the present sense, not the past tense nor the future sense. This is not a point of dispute of scholars who have studied the argument and it's background. I am merely reporting the facts.
You may want to argue that this particular aspect of motion shouldn'/can't be studied and that would actually be addressing the argument as it stands. However, it is not addressing the First Way argument to insist that it discusses either or both of the 2 termini of motion. It simply doesn't.
You may recall early on that defenders of the argument told you and Strawdusty that you were confusing a 'per se' essential series with a 'per accidens' series. This is what they were talking about.
I apologize for the many posts recently, but it seems that if what motion means in the First Way is under dispute, then that must be the first topic in a line by line discussion.
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1401 – 1600 of 3162 Newer› Newest»Legion of Logic said...
" While you ponder whether water will ever become a Blu-ray disc, "
--On an omnipotent god water can become wine, dust can become man, words can become a universe, so I say all bets are off.
May 25, 2017 1:41 AM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Exist" where? How? What are properties made of? What is property stuff?"
"I'm curious what magic it is that causes water to freeze into ice.
Or do you deny that water freezes into ice?"
Properties of sub quark level fields lead to the macro level observation we call "ice". These properties are not existent in and of themselves, rather, what we call properties are the ways these fields act, their structure, their "shape" as it were.
We humans are incapable of analyzing macro level systems through the application of transfer functions from sub quark level fields to our level of perception. But we do notice many regularities that can be approximately modeled with relatively simple mathematical expressions, often mistakenly called "laws" or "emergent properties".
Having imagined some sort of "property" has "emerged" humans typically personalize or anthropomorphize physical objects as somehow possessing these "properties" that are imagined to somehow "exist". These misconceptions serve useful functional purposes in our lives, so they are very difficult to come to analytical terms with for most people.
May 25, 2017 1:41 AM
>> "These properties are not existent in and of themselves, rather, what we call properties are the ways these fields act, their structure, their "shape" as it were."
Translation: What we call properties are [insert list of real things] - yet they don't exist.
You can't make this stuff up, folks.
>> " But we do notice many regularities that can be approximately modeled with relatively simple mathematical expressions, often mistakenly called "laws" or "emergent properties"
Translation: we notice the model, but not the reality itself which exists only at the subatomic level. Science describes the models it notices, but not the reality.
How does Dusty know that the subatomic level isn't another macro level model of reality, just at a less macro level? Stay tuned for his philosophical answer, and more non-science!
Me: "What example did you give earlier"
Legion: "I gave the example of a leaf changing color. A-T did not hold that as an example of a change of physical location. Your turn. You say you understand it better than I do, let's see it."
mkay. A leaf changes color only because the chlorophyll (what gives the leaf its green color) is broken down and re-absorbed back into the tree. This is clear not only on a sub-atomic but also molecularly measurable way, involving movement in the physical position of the constituent parts.
Did you ever take a Biology or Chemistry course?
The "example" you gave is obviously not a case of a change without a change in physical location -- everyone should know that a leaf does NOT change its color without changes in location of the constituent parts. Is that really what you meant as your example?
But, so, yes, it appears that I understand change better than you do. To say the very least.
SteveK said...
" Litmus paper changes colors without changing physical position."
--Wrong. Molecules move into the fibers of the paper. Photons move to the paper and then to your eye.
" A block of steel rusts without moving to some new location."
--Wrong. Oxygen atoms move to join iron atoms in the steel. The surface physically moves with respect to the internal structure as it transitions from smooth steel to rough rust.
" Your body heats up without moving across the room."
--Heat is motion, don't you know that?
May 24, 2017 9:48 AM
SteveK said...
" How does Dusty know that the subatomic level isn't another macro level model of reality, "
--It may well be. Nobody knows what the bottom is.
May 25, 2017 8:38 AM
>> "Nobody knows what the bottom is."
Translation: nobody knows about reality
There's your problem, Dusty. You claim to be telling us what is true about reality, but you also claim that you don't KNOW if you have access to it. Which is it?
Blogger bmiller said...
" The physics concept of potential and kinetic energy "
--You are confusing the general notion of a potential change with the specific technical meaning a physical system that is arranged in a particular way after it has "absorbed" energy to "store" energy.
May 24, 2017 8:26 AM
Dusty,
Moving on from the massive glaring problem I mentioned above...
>> "Wrong. Molecules move into the fibers of the paper. Photons move to the paper and then to your eye."
Irrelevant to the FW argument. The argument describes reality any way you want to look at this. Either
The paper begins at rest, it changes and when it's over the paper has not moved from it's original position defined by the term 'rest'. This is the ancient view.
- or -
The paper is never at rest. Nothing is at rest. Everything is changing. This is the modern view.
Either way, the FW argument succeeds in describing change because it doesn't depend on knowing modern-day physics.
>> "The "example" you gave is obviously not a case of a change without a change in physical location"
A valid case can be made that indeed the leaf doesn't move. The constituents move in the area where the color is changed, but the leaf as a whole remains in it's original location. A physicist would say it didn't move to a new location.
It's pointless to argue which is the correct description. I think both are accurate and true in what they are describing. It's pointless because, as I stated above, the FW succeeds in either case.
stevek: "A valid case can be made that indeed the leaf doesn't move."
Right. Because the example is of a leaf changing color, not of a leaf moving.
stevek: "The constituents move in the area where the color is changed, but the leaf as a whole remains in it's original location."
More or less.
stevek: "A physicist would say it didn't move to a new location."
Right. Because the example is of a leaf changing color. Not of a leaf moving. Which does nothing to alter the fact that the leaf changes color because some of its the constituent parts related to its coloring actually move (in a number of ways that can be described).
The takeaway Cal is the FW still succeeds
Stardusty: "Thus, the First Way is an argument from motion, specifically, not from change, generally. You have committed the classic association fallacy"
Except that burning was an example of what A-T called a substantial change, the change from one type of thing into another (wood into ash and smoke). Feel free to demonstrate from A-T philosophy that this is not the case.
Stardusty: "On an omnipotent god water can become wine, dust can become man, words can become a universe, so I say all bets are off."
So you believe in an omnipotent god? If not, does water freeze into ice?
Stardusty: "Properties of sub quark level fields lead to the macro level observation we call "ice". These properties are not existent in and of themselves, rather, what we call properties are the ways these fields act, their structure, their "shape" as it were."
Call it what you want, that's what a potential state is based upon. Water reliably freezes into ice and not Blu-ray discs because of its physical characteristics, if you don't like the scientific notion of properties.
@Strawdusty,
A potential thing is an unreal thing is a non-existent thing is not a thing at all is a mere figment of our brain process.
" The physics concept of potential and kinetic energy "
--You are confusing the general notion of a potential change with the specific technical meaning a physical system that is arranged in a particular way after it has "absorbed" energy to "store" energy.
I'll substantiate my historical claims later, but let's examine your latest propositions.
Propositions:
A:"A potential thing is an unreal thing is a non-existent thing"
B:"a physical system that is arranged in a particular way after it has "absorbed" energy to "store" energy."
Prop B: States that a physical system existed both before energy (BE) absorption and after energy (AE) absorption. But clearly at one time BE exists and AE does not while at a later time AE exists and BE does not. Since BE lacks the potential/capability/capacity to become AE (per prop A:) either:
1) There was no change. Since BE has no potential to change, no change occurred and AE is an illusion.
2) BE and AE are actually different things altogether and so the same thing does not exist moment to moment (including us). BE is not AE and cannot become AE per prop A:. So But both BE and AE are also not the same thing from minute to minute, second to second, millisecond to millisecond divided down infinitesimally. So everything pops into existence and immediately pops back out of existence. Of course this includes you too and the false history that the momentary you imagines it has. Oops, should I repeat myself to the new you? ☺
bmiller said...
", should I repeat myself"
--If you do chances seem to be that you will continue to confuse the technical term "potential energy" with the common notion of a potential thing, or a potential change.
May 25, 2017 2:10 PM
Poor Cal. Swing and a miss due to being in the wrong stadium.
Let's go line by line.
Cal: "Legion: "I gave the example of a leaf changing color. A-T did not hold that as an example of a change of physical location. Your turn. You say you understand it better than I do, let's see it."
Lovely attempt to change what I was actually asking for. I asked you to explain the First Way. Here's what I said:
"Your turn. You say you understand it better than I do, let's see it. Explain the First Way in terms of its purpose for being presented and how the premises relate to physical movement, as well as demonstrating how those premises fail to hold up to Newton. I just did so, and you claim I'm wrong. Your explanation will decisively demonstrate that, if so."
And, just in case you are trying to claim I was linking the above to the example of the leaf, let's go back to the first time I said the above quote, the post on May 25 at 1:22 a.m. The sentence the above quote directly follows is "Nothing in modern physics has refuted act, potency, or an essentially ordered series."
So obviously, both times I asked you to explain the First Way, and not how a leaf changes color. You failed to even attempt it, instead telling me all about basic biology that elementary students learn about. Is that a failure to comprehend what was said to you, or is that an attempt to deceive? Hmm.
I explained at length what the point of the leaf example was - what A-T held to be an example of change that isn't physical motion, not an actual example of something with no physical motion (I called it a history lesson). You ignored that multi-paragraph explanation, of course.
So, to say again:
Ignoring what I write and then responding to me as if I didn't write anything is not a valid tactic. You have to actually read what I write, attempt to understand it, and respond to what I wrote. That's how it works.
Either explain how there being types of change that involve no physical movement is a premise of the First Way, or admit that you are engaging in the First Strawman.
And for the third time
Explain the First Way in terms of its purpose for being presented and how the premises relate to physical movement, as well as demonstrating how those premises fail to hold up to Newton. I just did so, and you claim I'm wrong. Your explanation will decisively demonstrate that, if so.
Legion of Logic said...
" does water freeze into ice?"
--From the viewpoint of a human being, yes.
May 25, 2017 2:06 PM
@Strawdusty,
--If you do chances seem to be that you will continue to confuse the technical term "potential energy" with the common notion of a potential thing, or a potential change.
Then you must think that energy is non-existent because "A potential thing is an unreal thing is a non-existent thing is not a thing at all is a mere figment of our brain process." Physicists use the term "potential energy" and so it must not be a real thing.
bmiller said...
" Then you must think that energy is non-existent because "A potential thing is an unreal thing is a non-existent thing is not a thing at all is a mere figment of our brain process." Physicists use the term "potential energy" and so it must not be a real thing."
--It's a technical term, try to learn the difference.
May 25, 2017 6:55 PM
@Strawdusty,
--It's a technical term, try to learn the difference.
Well potential is an term that English speaking children understand. "Motion" on the other hand when used discussing the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas is a technical term that more generally translates to "change".
Stardusty: "From the viewpoint of a human being, yes."
Out of curiosity, can you point me to any scientist or philosopher who would equivocate when asked if water freezes into ice? I'm aware of certain positions that would entail such a thing, but I'm just curious.
For elaboration, scientists have discovered that the reason ice floats in water is because ice is less dense than water due to its molecular structure. So, you deny that ice floats in water due to less density?
bmiller said...
" Well potential is an term that English speaking children understand. "
--Fine, you have the understanding of a child.
May 25, 2017 7:52 PM
And you, the understanding of a reductionist
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "From the viewpoint of a human being, yes."
" Out of curiosity, can you point me to any scientist or philosopher who would equivocate when asked if water freezes into ice? "
--It's not an equivocation in the sense of changing a definition mid way through an argument.
It's a clarification of deeper understanding, but I think I catch your drift, and yes, pretty much any particle physicist or cosmologist will tell you that things like ice freezing are valid approximations, and in some sense "emergent", from a more fundamental reality.
The term "emergent" is itself problematic in that implies something new called a "property" has somehow been created, and this new thing somehow exists.
" For elaboration, scientists have discovered that the reason ice floats in water is because ice is less dense than water due to its molecular structure. So, you deny that ice floats in water due to less density?"
--Those are valid approximations that allow us to function. If we are to consider the origin of motion or the origin of change or the origin of existence we need to move beyond our useful macro level approximations and think much more deeply.
So, the argument from motion is reduced to "stuff can only do what stuff can do, stuff never does what stuff can't do." Ok, fine, that is true, trivial, but true.
May 26, 2017 3:17 AM
>> "If we are to consider the origin of motion or the origin of change or the origin of existence we need to move beyond our useful macro level approximations and think much more deeply."
We're attempting to do that here. Please join us by moving beyond the simplistic reductionism and scientism that is preventing you from thinking more deeply about it.
Legion: “Let's go line by line.”
Great!
Legion: "I gave the example of a leaf changing color. A-T did not hold that as an example of a change of physical location. Your turn. You say you understand it better than I do, let's see it."
I did; I pointed out that change does not occur without any change in physical location, and that the “example” you provided was kind of pathetic. Thus, you haven’t risen to the level of elementary understanding of what change is. The only thing that needs understanding is that you don’t grasp the fundamental aspect of what constitutes change.
Failure to grasp the fundamental aspect of what constitutes change means I can’t take you seriously in dialogue on the subject, let alone consider you an authority. Your pretension is laughable.
Legion: Lovely attempt to change what I was actually asking for. I asked you to explain the First Way.”
Yeah, you’ve said that several times, I think.
You seem to miss the fact that my criticism of the First Way is my explanation of the First Way. You think I’m wrong. You have failed to demonstrate this, because your (chosen) role is to show how the criticism offered is somehow invalid.
Instead, you pretend that 1) the argument is somehow good, despite the criticism and your laughably poor defenses thus far; 2) that with the assumption that the argument is good (despite our pointing out its many flaws), your assessment of my explanation is what’s at issue.
As I’ve pointed out, I couldn’t care less about your assessment, because
1. The standard is not your assessment, it’s the standard for good arguments, and
2. You have shown that you fail to grasp the fundamental aspect of what constitutes change, exempting you as any kind of authority on its topic.
Don’t mistake my politeness and continued engagement with you as regard for your intellectual prowess on this topic. I’ve engaged here for as long as I have because I’m interested in how people absorb information and (fail to) change their thinking, and because I enjoy reading Stardusty’s posts. If you ever wanted to rise to the level of intellectual engagement that would be an added plus, but you certainly haven’t shown that one.
Legion: "Your turn. You say you understand it better than I do, let's see it. Explain the First Way in terms of its purpose for being presented and how the premises relate to physical movement, as well as demonstrating how those premises fail to hold up to Newton. I just did so, and you claim I'm wrong. Your explanation will decisively demonstrate that, if so."
See above.
Legion: “And, just in case you are trying to claim I was linking the above to the example of the leaf, let's go back to the first time I said the above quote, the post on May 25 at 1:22 a.m. The sentence the above quote directly follows is "Nothing in modern physics has refuted act, potency, or an essentially ordered series." “
Who cares. This doesn’t change the fact that you failed to grasp the fundamental concept of what constitutes change. And you’ve offered nothing in your definition of act, potency, or essentially ordered series that isn’t trivially true, tautological, or begging the question.
Legion: “So obviously, both times I asked you to explain the First Way, and not how a leaf changes color. You failed to even attempt it, instead telling me all about basic biology that elementary students learn about. Is that a failure to comprehend what was said to you, or is that an attempt to deceive? Hmm.”
You misunderstand; you have shown that you fail to grasp the fundamental concept of what constitutes change, and (until you grasp it) this prohibits me from taking you seriously in any discussion about change.
Legion: “I explained at length what the point of the leaf example was - what A-T held to be an example of change that isn't physical motion, not an actual example of something with no physical motion (I called it a history lesson). You ignored that multi-paragraph explanation, of course.”
Did the multi-paragraph explanation explain how it’s actually possible for something to change without any changes in physical location occurring? If not, that’s not much of an explanation, now, is it?
Legion: “So, to say again: Ignoring what I write and then responding to me as if I didn't write anything is not a valid tactic. You have to actually read what I write, attempt to understand it, and respond to what I wrote. That's how it works.”
I don’t respond to everything you write because your comments are often long-winded, tendentious, rambling, incoherent, irrelevant, and self-congratulatory over imagined (but never provided) meaningful responses. Pointing this out over and over would just make me seem unpleasant.
Legion: “Either explain how there being types of change that involve no physical movement is a premise of the First Way, or admit that you are engaging in the First Strawman.”
That is your strawman; you are the one who introduced the concept, as evidence that YOU UNDERSTAND the argument and that I do not. Here, I’ll quote you, again:
Legion: "Since the First Way covers every category of change that they had in mind - only one of which being physical movement - we know that they weren't just making a physics argument."
and
Legion: "We know [that the First Way is “not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around] because A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well. I and bmiller have both listed examples."
So, that’s you, twice scolding me for not understanding that change without a change in physical location is in the First Way, and that is what the First Way covers.
You are such a piece of work.
Legion: “And for the third time. Explain the First Way in terms of its purpose for being presented and how the premises relate to physical movement, as well as demonstrating how those premises fail to hold up to Newton. I just did so, and you claim I'm wrong. Your explanation will decisively demonstrate that, if so.”
See above.
SteveK said...
" And you, the understanding of a reductionist"
--So, you equate a modern analytical approach based on our most advanced knowledge of physics with the thinking of a child.
I am not surprised.
May 26, 2017 9:07 AM
No, Dusty, I equate reductionist thinking with the thinking of a child.
Reading comprehension. Try it.
SteveK said...
" No, Dusty, I equate reductionist thinking with the thinking of a child."
--Have you heard about unification efforts? The search for the underlying reality? The quest of physicists to discover ever more fundamental structures?
It seems not.
May 26, 2017 10:50 AM
@Stardusty, I will say this -- after years of gaining an appreciation for the role of biases in religious / superstitious thinking, these exchanges have given me a greater appreciation for the role that good-old fashioned dullness must play.
>> "Have you heard about unification efforts? The search for the underlying reality? The quest of physicists to discover ever more fundamental structures?"
I have and it's irrelevant. There's that reading comprehension issue again. Try it. Reductionist thinking is childlike thinking when applied to irreducible things. You do that all the time but that's another subject.
Now back to the FW argument...
SteveK said...
>> "Have you heard about unification efforts? The search for the underlying reality? The quest of physicists to discover ever more fundamental structures?"
" I have and it's irrelevant. There's that reading comprehension issue again. Try it. Reductionist thinking is childlike thinking when applied to irreducible things."
--At this point seemingly irreducible things are quarks, electrons, neutrinos, and photons and fields.
Everything that exists is reducible to such things. All observations are of the combined actions of such things.
However, there are strong indications that these things are not truly irreducible, hence the search for strings, fields, or some other even more fundamental structures, which, if existing, all existence reduces to.
This is critical to the First Way, for to understand the origin of motion, change, and existence we must understand how the most fundamental constituents of reality work
May 26, 2017 1:17 PM
Cal, thinking is important. You need to do that in order for us to have a conversation. Even after me pointing out every way you are embarrassing yourself, you just dig in deeper. You aren't even making a minimal effort anymore.
Cal: "Thus, you haven’t risen to the level of elementary understanding of what change is."
Completely irrelevant to what the conversation was about. I went and explained why I brought the leaf up, so you wouldn't even have to figure it out, and pointed out that you ignored the explanation. You are still ignoring it, presumably because you realize you've lost badly but lack the integrity to admit it. There's still hope for you, if you decide to begin thinking about what is being said and swallow your pride.
Cal: "Failure to grasp the fundamental aspect of what constitutes change means I can’t take you seriously in dialogue on the subject, let alone consider you an authority."
So now your abject and humiliating failure to understand something as simple as the First Way is me "failing to understand change". Let's be a little more accurate, and call it your abject and humiliating failure to understand something as simple as the First Way. I have proven over and over that your understanding is lacking compared to mine, which is why I'm constantly having to repeat myself. You also have zero - I repeat, zero - evidence that I have some sort of problem understanding change, so in addition to being intellectually dishonest by ignoring what I write, and being unwilling to think outside your ideological shackles, you are also a liar. This is quite a poor showing on your part.
Cal: "Yeah, you’ve said that several times, I think."
Because you have failed to do so several times now. We both know it's because you have no idea what the argument is saying, so you can't offer even a basic attempt at a refutation.
Cal: "You have failed to demonstrate this"
I've demonstrated it with pretty much every single post I've written in response to you. So now we've shown you are intellectually dishonest, ideologically shackled, a liar, and full of baseless arrogance.
Cal: "Instead, you pretend that 1) the argument is somehow good, despite the criticism and your laughably poor defenses thus far"
I'd be embarrassed to be somebody like you, who can't even overcome laughably poor defenses.
Cal: "The standard is not your assessment, it’s the standard for good arguments"
An argument can't be refuted if someone, like you, has zero understanding of what the argument is even saying. If your objections are your assessment, then your understanding is pathetic.
Cal: "I’ve engaged here for as long as I have because I’m interested in how people absorb information and (fail to) change their thinking"
This literally made me laugh out loud. How can you miss the obvious fact that you're describing yourself here?
Legion: "Explain the First Way"
Cal: "See above"
Epic fail. Thank you for showing the First Way is even stronger than I had suspected.
Cal: "Who cares. This doesn’t change the fact that you failed to grasp the fundamental concept of what constitutes change."
Baseless assertion. Lying is easier if you can at least have some way of trying to back it up.
Cal: "Did the multi-paragraph explanation explain how it’s actually possible for something to change without any changes in physical location occurring?"
If anything, this proves how shallow a thinker you are. I said what it was in response to, so you wouldn't have to figure it out. Apparently I still need to connect more dots for you. Perhaps I should number them so you can draw the picture. Shall I number the dots, or do you admit that at no point did I claim that things in the universe change with no physical movement on any level? The former will be far more embarrassing for you, trust me.
Cal: "I don’t respond to everything you write because your comments are often long-winded, tendentious, rambling, incoherent, irrelevant, and self-congratulatory over imagined (but never provided) meaningful responses."
I suspected my failure to be able to dumb it down to your level was a problem. Thank you for confirming it.
Cal: "That is your strawman"
No, that is your strawman, as I've proven.
Cal: "you are the one who introduced the concept, as evidence that YOU UNDERSTAND the argument and that I do not"
No, I introduced it in response to the attempts to tie the First Way to A-T physics so that if A-T physics is obsolete, then so is the First Way. I spelled it out for you. You still fail to understand, even after I spell it out for you. Seriously, how much are you wanting to humiliate yourself?
Cal: "So, that’s you, twice scolding me for not understanding that change without a change in physical location is in the First Way, and that is what the First Way covers."
No, and this is going to require some reading comprehension and thinking on your part, so pay attention. That's me, twice scolding you for attempting to say that if Newtonian physics has supplanted A-T physics, then the First Way is obsolete because the First Way is a physics argument dealing with nothing but physical movement. I demonstrated that if Aquinas was wanting to only present an argument based on physical movement, he would not have based it on act and potency, which covered all types of change held by A-T philosophy. He would have only used the concepts relevant to what they believed were pertinent to physical motion.
This is really simple stuff, Cal. It shouldn't be hard to grasp. Also, notice that nowhere in my explanation did I say that there was change in the stuff of the universe that had no physical motion. Quite the opposite, in fact, though of course you ignored it.
So Cal, you still have yet to demonstrate that the First Way was intended to be a treatise on physical movement and so is completely interwoven with A-T physics.
You have yet to demonstrate that the First Way requires there to be change in matter that has no physical movement on any level.
You have yet to demonstrate that I have a flawed understanding of change.
You have yet to demonstrate that you have even the most basic understanding of the argument.
You have yet to demonstrate that my understanding of the argument is flawed.
You have yet to come up with a credible defense for ignoring what I write in an attempt to avoid admitting you have no idea what you are talking about.
Basically, you're a laughingstock at this point due to your behavior and refusal to alter it. I suppose it's partly my fault for keeping the discussion alive and giving you these opportunities to humiliate yourself and destroy any credibility you had, but a few times you had seemed to demonstrate an ability to think about it and get away from the First Strawman. I was mistaken.
I'll keep pointing out how your insults are baseless and will keep flicking your protests aside for as long as you want, but this has turned out very poorly for you. I don't blame you if you give up.
If all those words from Legion overwhelm you, Cal, here are the takeaway quotes you should focus on. You're welcome!
1) "I introduced it in response to the attempts to tie the First Way to A-T physics so that if A-T physics is obsolete, then so is the First Way."
2) "at no point did I claim that things in the universe change with no physical movement on any level?"
3) "That's me, twice scolding you for attempting to say that if Newtonian physics has supplanted A-T physics, then the First Way is obsolete because the First Way is a physics argument dealing with nothing but physical movement. I demonstrated that if Aquinas was wanting to only present an argument based on physical movement, he would not have based it on act and potency, which covered all types of change held by A-T philosophy. He would have only used the concepts relevant to what they believed were pertinent to physical motion."
4) "notice that nowhere in my explanation did I say that there was change in the stuff of the universe that had no physical motion. Quite the opposite, in fact, though of course you ignored it."
5) "Basically, you're a laughingstock at this point"
Stardusty: "It's a clarification of deeper understanding, but I think I catch your drift, and yes, pretty much any particle physicist or cosmologist will tell you that things like ice freezing are valid approximations, and in some sense "emergent", from a more fundamental reality."
I'd like to explore this a bit deeper, if you don't mind. No pun intended. Specifically what you are getting at with "valid approximation".
If I point to my house and say "This is my house" then the word "house" encompasses the structure I live in. Sure it's a non-comprehensive statement - I don't identify its architectural style, its construction material, or its size. Those things are of secondary importance, though, since any of those can vary or even be unknown, yet it is still my house.
I view the water to ice issue on the quantum level similarly to how I view a multi-cellular organism. My cat, for example, is composed of hundreds of billions of cells. Each cell is for all practical purposes a specialized single-cell organism, but when they come together, they produce a new biological unit which is my cat. So, on the one hand, my cat is actually several hundred billion living cells. But on the other hand, it is also accurate to say "There's my cat" because "cat" encompasses what is going on at the cellular level, as well. What the cells are doing causes the cat to exist, but the cat encompasses the cells.
Similarly, the changes that water undergoes on a subatomic level when its temperature lowers results in ice on the macro level, but the macro change of water into ice encompasses whatever is going on at the subatomic level - I may not have a clue what is going on at a subatomic level, but whatever is happening results in water freezing into ice at the macro level.
That's why I wonder about the relevancy of quantum physics on this issue, but I do find it fascinating to think about.
SteveK
I doubt a concise reply from me would produce more effective results, but I suppose I could just ignore everything irrelevant he writes and simply say "I'm waiting for a response to what I said".
@Legion, you've said nothing that counters my three earlier comments responded to your earlier post. I stand by every word I wrote. Anybody reading them, and comparing your responses, can see that you struggle to understand rudimentary concepts. For example, from your latest:
Legion: "You also have zero - I repeat, zero - evidence that I have some sort of problem understanding change..."
Nope. Your comments are evidence of your understanding of change. (Why do apologists so struggle with understanding what evidence is?)
I have (too) patiently pointed out that you are easily fooled by the First Way (despite its obvious failings as an argument, as described in detail), and more recently that your asserting that a leaf somehow changes color without any changes in position is just, well, amazingly stupid in this day and age. All of the comments in which you repeat these mistakes are further evidence that you don't really understand change. So, by zero, I think you mean "tons."
Apologetics = Opposite World
Legion: "... so in addition to being intellectually dishonest by ignoring what I write, and being unwilling to think outside your ideological shackles, you are also a liar."
Ignoring what you write? I just wrote, as you requested, a line by line response to your previous post. This after I have spent countless previous comments responding to what you write, and trying to get you to respond with some precision and discipline.
So, I've ignored what you wrote? Saying that just makes you a, well, liar.
I also explained why I don't always respond, line by line, to everything you write.
So, that makes you guilty of that which you accuse me. (Hypocrisy! Drink!)
As for my being the one struggling to think outside of my ideological shackles, well, that one is my favorite.
Hey, are you ever going to get around to finishing up defining terms so that we can all see how the First Way avoids the problems that have been so meticulously described, over and over?
Legion: "... A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well. I and bmiller have both listed examples."
stevek, quoting Legion: "2) "at no point did I claim that things in the universe change with no physical movement on any level"
Lying idiots.
Cal,
>> "Lying idiots"
If you only quote a portion of Legion's comments it's easy to show whatever you want. Like this.
Me: "A physicist would say it didn't move to a new location"
Cal: "Right. Because the example is of a leaf changing color. Not of a leaf moving."
It changed color. It did not move. What an amazingly stupid thing to say in this day and age, Cal.
Of course I left off the other part where you provided additional clarification. Legion did the same. You are dishonest
@Cal
To wit...
Legion: "A leaf changing color does not, upon study with the naked eye, move physically in order for the change to occur, so they placed it in a different category of change."
THEY placed it in a different category, not Legion. THEY placed it in the "you don't see it physically move" category.
Legion of Logic said...
" I'd like to explore this a bit deeper, if you don't mind. No pun intended. Specifically what you are getting at with "valid approximation"."
--An approximation is a description that is not precise. In mathematics a closed form solution is considered precise whereas a numerical "solution" is likely to be met with disdain and indignation as a mere approximation. Engineers love numerical solutions, which is the source of a sort of friendly feud between the fields (I know that was a bit rambling, just some color commentary since you set out to explore).
In physics we have no precise theories. All theories known to humans are approximations. The higher level the more error they contain. But they are thought to be valid models when they are broadly repeatable to a high degree of accuracy.
" If I point to my house and say "This is my house" then the word "house" encompasses the structure I live in. "
--Ok, but that is not what most people think of as a physics theory. You are defining a boundary and giving the contents of that boundary a label.
"Sure it's a non-comprehensive statement"
--Thus inaccurate, but rational, repeatable and demonstrably accurate to a functionally useful degree, thus generally considered valid.
" - I don't identify its architectural style, its construction material, or its size. Those things are of secondary importance, though, since any of those can vary or even be unknown, yet it is still my house."
--Those things can't vary at all? The paint will oxidize, thus gaining oxygen atoms, for example. Your statement is highly inaccurate, but that's ok, that is how we all function, so your statement is close enough to be useful.
" it is also accurate to say "There's my cat" because "cat" encompasses what is going on at the cellular level, as well."
--How accurate though? Perfectly accurate? Where does your cat end and the atmosphere begin? Is that boundary precisely definable?
You might think I am being pedantic, obnoxious, and hypernitpicking. Fair enough, none of us lives our life continually questioning the precise boundaries of every object we label. But such nitpicking is critical if we are to consider the origins of motion, change, and existence.
It is just that sort of nitpicking that led to the theory of Hawking radiation.
May 26, 2017 3:34 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" What the cells are doing causes the cat to exist, but the cat encompasses the cells."
--Well, you are personalizing or personifying existence and it seems like you may be reading your labels into objects that know nothing of your labels.
" Similarly, the changes that water undergoes on a subatomic level when its temperature lowers results in ice on the macro level, but the macro change of water into ice encompasses whatever is going on at the subatomic level "
--Right, "freezing" is a catch-all label. It is not precise, but it is a useful and rational approximation.
" That's why I wonder about the relevancy of quantum physics on this issue, but I do find it fascinating to think about."
--For starters there is the old idea of intrinsic randomness. I don't accept that notion but it is still out there, and if it were true then there would be an effect without a cause.
But it isn't so much QM that is the key issue, rather, the nature of fundamental reality, and our need to realize that our macro level sensibilities are, or at least have been thus far, demonstrably incapable of comprehending at least one fundamental fact of existence.
All attempts to logically account for the origin of motion, change, and existence fail. No human being has solved this problem and published the solution into general circulation.
I do not pretend to have solved this problem. I am here to tell you Aquinas did not solve this problem, nor has anybody else.
There are some hints, though, in my view leaning toward eternal existence of stuff, as evidenced by conservation. Also, and I have to stress this is not a bona fide theory, just a possible hint, a photon is calculated to "experience" precisely zero time. So maybe some state of stuff can exist for what we think of as infinite time because it "experiences" zero passage of time.
The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations is I am convinced the answer must be found at the very most fundamental level. Humans have tried and failed for millennia to reason from ordinary observations to an account of origins.
May 26, 2017 3:34 PM
@Strawdusty,
The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations is I am convinced the answer must be found at the very most fundamental level
I'm glad you finally just came out and said it. Thank you.
Now let me ask a question.
Why do you think the the most fundamental levels are not illusory rather than the level at which we observe reality? The only way we can know about the "more fundamental" levels is from our "macro level" perspective?
Stardusty: "Those things can't vary at all?"
I said they CAN vary without it affecting whether or not it is my house.
I'll think a little more about what you said over the weekend while at work.
Cal: "I stand by every word I wrote."
Which is why I feel a small measure of guilt for dragging this out and giving you more opportunities to embarrass yourself.
May 20
Cal: "Newtonian physics and AT physics do part ways in several regards"
Legion: "Too bad the First Way isn't an A-T physics argument, as it accounts for all change and not just physical movement."
Cal: "Describe a change in which there is no physical movement."
Legion: "There is no relevant reason why I should do this."
Cal: "The relevant reason is that by not responding you are failing to do what you said you would do -- defend the First Way...In order for your words to have meaning, then you need to demonstrate what you say above -- that there is some other kind of change that the First Way now magically describes that doesn't involve physical movement."
Legion: "According to A-T, there were different kinds of change other than physical location change, since atomic movement and things of that nature were impossible to know at the time. So, the point of the argument would not simply be about why something moves from one place to another, but why something grows, why someone changes their mind, why something fades in sunlight, etc. Obviously they were not arguing about subatomic motion, since they had no knowledge of it, but they do come right out and define what they mean by "motion" in the argument's premises. So you're wrong about what the argument is even about.
If we apply modern physics to the subject, we now know about subatomic particles, photons, and things of that nature. So we do know that indeed, there is possibly nothing consisting of the stuff of the universe that isn't in motion on some level."
Cal: "What other kinds of change are there besides those that involve a change in physical location?"
Legion: "There were several categories according to A-T, but one example would be qualitative change, such as leaves changing color. They did not think of that as physical motion."
Cal: "So, that's NOT an example of a change that doesn't involve a change in physical location."
Legion: "Irrelevant...the purpose of the First Way is not simply about physics, as in physical movement...Since the First Way covers every category of change that they had in mind - only one of which being physical movement - we know that they weren't just making a physics argument."
Cal: "You are supposed to be defending THE ARGUMENT that is the First Way...You need to demonstrate that there REALLY IS a kind of change other than physical location change."
Legion: repeats self, then "the point of the first paragraph is simply to demonstrate that we know the First Way isn't a mere attempt at physics"
Cal: "How can you pretend to defend the First Way you won't explain exactly what you mean by change -- in particular, how it is that something can change without a change in physical position -- the kind of change that DOES NOT ACTUALLY involve a change in physical location...I think you realize that there's no such thing as a change without a change in physical position."
Legion: points out where you ignored me saying "If we apply modern physics to the subject, we now know about subatomic particles, photons, and things of that nature. So we do know that indeed, there is possibly nothing consisting of the stuff of the universe that isn't in physical motion on some level."
Cal: "Tell us what you had in mind -- what you understand about the First Way and we do not -- that is a change that doesn't involve a change in physical location."
Legion: "The point of the First Way is not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around. We know this because A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well...Logically, if the First Way was only about how things move around, it would not cover other types of change, which would be irrelevant. So logically, the First Way is not a predecessor to Newton. It does not rise and fall with A-T concepts of movement, but rather with the A-T concepts of change - act and potency.
These days we know that possibly any time something in the universe changes, it involves a physical movement on some level, cellular, subatomic etc. This also does nothing to damage the First Way, as it is not a precursor of Newtonian physics.
Cal: "What other types of changes don't involve a change in physical location?"
Legion: "All of my talking about the purpose of the First Way, and the types of change A-T believed in, was in response to that attempt. At no point have I asserted that one of the premises of the First Way is that there must be types of change that involve no motion."
Cal: "The "example" you gave is obviously not a case of a change without a change in physical location -- everyone should know that a leaf does NOT change its color without changes in location of the constituent parts"
Legion: "I explained at length what the point of the leaf example was - what A-T held to be an example of change that isn't physical motion, not an actual example of something with no physical motion"
Cal: "you have shown that you fail to grasp the fundamental concept of what constitutes change...Did the multi-paragraph explanation explain how it’s actually possible for something to change without any changes in physical location occurring?...That is your strawman; you are the one who introduced the concept, as evidence that YOU UNDERSTAND the argument and that I do not."
Legion: "You also have zero - I repeat, zero - evidence that I have some sort of problem understanding change...I introduced it in response to the attempts to tie the First Way to A-T physics so that if A-T physics is obsolete, then so is the First Way. I spelled it out for you. You still fail to understand, even after I spell it out for you... He would have only used the concepts relevant to what they believed were pertinent to physical motion."
Cal: "Your comments are evidence of your understanding of change...Lying idiots"
So, what have we learned?
We learned that at no point did I make a claim that there are things in the universe that change without physical movement on some level. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.
We learned that I stressed it was A-T philosophy that believed that some of the change they observed did not involve physical movement. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.
We learned that the reason I introduced the subject of A-T categories of change was in response to the attempt to make the First Way a functional precursor to Newtonian physics, which it was not. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.
We learned that I said there was possibly no change in the observable universe that did not involve physical movement on some level. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.
Sorry, Cal, but you have completely demolished your credibility. I've repeated myself over and over on all these things, and you ignored them all. If you can't even follow this conversation, in which everything is in modern English and has been spelled out repeatedly with citations, then you have zero chance of ever understanding the First Way. Not without a huge shift in attitude.
Sad!
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty, The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations is I am convinced the answer must be found at the very most fundamental level
" I'm glad you finally just came out and said it. Thank you."
--I have said this about a gazillion times.
" Why do you think the the most fundamental levels are not illusory rather than the level at which we observe reality? The only way we can know about the "more fundamental" levels is from our "macro level" perspective?"
--The Greek anatomists had some very clever reasons for concluding that substances are composed of atoms, for example careful observations of how odors are associated with substances, travel distances, and can be blocked from traveling to a closed location.
We didn't arrive at the Standard Model overnight. Science has taken centuries to get here and the remaining unanswered questions make it plain we have not get arrived at the bottom.
May 26, 2017 7:47 PM
@Strawdusty,
@Strawdusty, The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations is I am convinced the answer must be found at the very most fundamental level
"I'm glad you finally just came out and said it. Thank you."
--I have said this about a gazillion times.
Well, I don't recall you explicitly saying that our perception of reality is an illusion. If you believe that is the case, then science is an illusion as well and so it is irrational and/or dishonest to use "science/illusion" against your opponent's position.
We didn't arrive at the Standard Model overnight. Science has taken centuries to get here and the remaining unanswered questions make it plain we have not get arrived at the bottom.
We humans only make "macro observations" and so does human science. Since we are living in a illusion and we derived the Standard Model while being fooled, then we've merely added another layer of illusion. Right?
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
@Strawdusty, The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations
" Well, I don't recall you explicitly saying that our perception of reality is an illusion."
--Because those are two different things.
Concrete pavement seems solid, but it is mostly empty space, so the appearance of being solid is illusory. However, the concrete is not an illusion, which I could test by pounding my head on it, but I won't, because I have in the past and I do not care to repeat that test.
" We humans only make "macro observations" and so does human science. Since we are living in a illusion and we derived the Standard Model while being fooled, then we've merely added another layer of illusion. Right?"
--Science has methods to control for this danger. Our models get ever more accurate and less illusory, but since we have not gotten to the bottom, some aspects are still unknown, so our models are to that extent still illusory.
May 27, 2017 11:02 AM
>> "Concrete pavement seems solid, but it is mostly empty space, so the appearance of being solid is illusory. "
The conclusion doesn't follow. Both are true factual statements from their own relative perspective. Science can prove each one to be true.
@Strawdusty,
" We humans only make "macro observations" and so does human science. Since we are living in a illusion and we derived the Standard Model while being fooled, then we've merely added another layer of illusion. Right?"
--Science has methods to control for this danger. Our models get ever more accurate and less illusory, but since we have not gotten to the bottom, some aspects are still unknown, so our models are to that extent still illusory.
But science only makes "macro observations" which are illusory. How can illusion be controlled for by doing more of the same?
Models are based on assumptions. If the assumptions are illusory to start with, why should we expect the output of the models to to get less illusory? And how could we judge how our model is behaving if we have nothing to compare it to except illusion? It seems more likely to me under these illusory assumptions it's much more likely we are getting further from reality than closer to it by building illusion upon illusion.
@Strawdusty,
@Strawdusty, The reason I stress the illusory nature of our macro observations
" Well, I don't recall you explicitly saying that our perception of reality is an illusion."
--Because those are two different things.
Concrete pavement seems solid, but it is mostly empty space, so the appearance of being solid is illusory. However, the concrete is not an illusion, which I could test by pounding my head on it, but I won't, because I have in the past and I do not care to repeat that test.
I think I understand your reasoning.
Solid things hurt when we pound our head on it.
Empty space does not hurt when we pound our head on it.
Concrete seems like a solid thing so it should hurt when we pound our head on it.
But we know that concrete is mostly empty space so it should not hurt when we pound our head on it.
Past experience shows that when we pound our head on concrete, we get hurt.
So our human experience of being hurt was an illusion.
bmiller said...
" But science only makes "macro observations" which are illusory. How can illusion be controlled for by doing more of the same?"
--You apparently know nothing about the scientific method. Learn how it works.
May 27, 2017 11:54 PM
>> "You apparently know nothing about the scientific method. Learn how it works."
We've learned that concrete is a solid. We learned that from science. But you say this is an illusion. Are you anti-science?
@Strawdusty,
" But science only makes "macro observations" which are illusory. How can illusion be controlled for by doing more of the same?"
--You apparently know nothing about the scientific method. Learn how it works.
Perhaps you missed my point. I'm curious how you square this.
Science is done by scientists. Scientists are humans. Humans make macro observations. The scientific method is:
"a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.".
If systematic observation is illusory then rest that follows is based on illusion. So as we use observations to develop hypotheses for the observations and then even more hypotheses for those hypotheses how can we know we are getting closer to reality rather than further away? How do we know we didn't make a wrong turn at Albuquerque?
SteveK said...
>> "You apparently know nothing about the scientific method. Learn how it works."
" We've learned that concrete is a solid. We learned that from science. But you say this is an illusion. Are you anti-science?"
--You didn't learn much, apparently. Scientists treat substances as solid, liquid, gas, or plasma for the purpose of applying various models at that level.
Scientists also know that this so-called solid is mostly space such that certain particles can pass through certain solids, thus illustrating the illusory nature of considering these substances a somehow continuously solid.
In science "solid" is a technical term, but you probably don't understand what that means either.
May 28, 2017 8:42 AM
bmiller said...
"How do we know we didn't make a wrong turn at Albuquerque?
--You have what Ron White says can't be fixed. I am beginning to understand his point.
May 28, 2017 6:35 PM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Those things can't vary at all?"
" I said they CAN vary "
--Indeed, I misread your words, sorry.
May 26, 2017 9:29 PM
>> "Scientists treat substances as solid, liquid, gas, or plasma for the purpose of applying various models at that level.
They treat each of them this way because they have the requisite properties and behave in unique ways. These properties and behaviors co-exist with all that empty space. In other words solids have a lot of empty space and behave/appear as solids. No illusions. .
@bmiller
You are on the right path. Dusty just hasn't figured it out yet. If our macro world is an illusion we lack any ability to know if we are working our way toward greater illusions or lesser illusions. It could be that the illusions increase the closer we look at the subatomic level. Maybe the macro world is the least illusionary. Dusty has no way to know.
@Strawdusty,
--You have what Ron White says can't be fixed. I am beginning to understand his point.
I'm merely asking you how you came to be convinced of your present position that the macro reality we experience is an illusion and that the reality of QM (or whatever micro-level you prefer) is not. Weren't micro level explanations derived to explain macro level (human level) observations?
@SteveK,
Dusty just hasn't figured it out yet.
I think he understands the question, hence the insults.
Legion: “We learned that at no point did I make a claim that there are things in the universe that change without physical movement on some level. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.”
Well, the most charitable thing I can say about this is that you have said conflicting things.
Legion: “The point of the First Way is not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around. We know this because A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well.
The above indicates to me that the First Way, which is derived from A-T physics, includes a kind of change that does not involve physical motion at some levels. I don’t see how anyone should read it otherwise. And that is why I asked for an example.
Legion: “According to A-T, there were different kinds of change other than physical location change, since atomic movement and things of that nature were impossible to know at the time.”
The above indicates to me A-T physics, upon which the First Way is based, includes a kind of change that does not involve any change in physical location (“there were different kinds of change other than physical location change.”) I don’t see how anyone should read it otherwise. And that is why I asked for an example.
Legion: "Too bad the First Way isn't an A-T physics argument, as it accounts for all change and not just physical movement."
The above indicates to me that the argument you say you are defending includes the premise that not all change involves a change in physical location. And since you have said you are arguing for the First Way, and by your own admission the First Way accounts for (includes as a premise) change that does NOT involve a change in physical location, I asked for an example.
I don’t see how one can reconcile your first statement above (“at no point did [Legion] make a claim that there are things in the universe that change without physical movement on some level”) with the previous statements I have cited that preceded it. At the very least, you have yet to be clear on the issue of what you mean by change.
And, of course, let’s not forget what you are arguing for. The First Way. Where,
Legion: “If something undergoes some change, then it had a potential state actualized."
Seeing as how a potential state does not exist in act, there is no physical location for that state. And that would, again, indicate to me that you are arguing for a kind of change that does not, on some level, include a change in physical location.
I find that position basically incoherent.
But don’t get yourself too hung up on that estimation. Please proceed with your defense of the First Way.
Legion: “We learned that I stressed it was A-T philosophy that believed that some of the change they observed did not involve physical movement. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.”
You are defending the First Way, which is intertwined with A-T physics. It sounds like you would like your cake, and eat it too.
Legion: “We learned that the reason I introduced the subject of A-T categories of change was in response to the attempt to make the First Way a functional precursor to Newtonian physics, which it was not. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.”
Nope. If the First Way is to be a good argument, it should not be about A-T physics; it should be about physics (as in, reality). That is the problem you have assumed when you declared that you could defend the First Way from the criticisms of it offered — criticisms that show how the argument fails to be a good argument.
Legion: “We learned that I said there was possibly no change in the observable universe that did not involve physical movement on some level. We learned that Cal has zero reading comprehension.”
Talking out of both sides of your mouth (as evidenced by the previous comment to you) is not a good defense.
Legion: “Sorry, Cal, but you have completely demolished your credibility. I've repeated myself over and over on all these things, and you ignored them all. If you can't even follow this conversation, in which everything is in modern English and has been spelled out repeatedly with citations, then you have zero chance of ever understanding the First Way. Not without a huge shift in attitude.”
You have yet to offer ANY defense of the criticisms offered. And by ANY defense I mean one that actually saves the First Way from the criticisms offered — unclear language, equivocation, unsound premises, begging the question, and contradiction.
You seem to still be struggling the with the narcissistic notion that because you remain fooled by an argument, therefore it is a good argument. Once again, arguments fail not by anyone’s assessment of them, but by the standards of good argument.
No, Cal. In order for me to proceed, I'll need to see evidence of basic reading comprehension on your part. Not that I doubt you have the mental capabilities to do so, but rather I don't believe you have any interest in actually understanding what I'm saying, which makes the exercise pointless if so.
There is no need for you to have issues reconciling what I said, or be confused as to why I said it. I quoted for you why I said it. I shall do so again.
Legion: "I introduced it in response to the attempts to tie the First Way to A-T physics so that if A-T physics is obsolete, then so is the First Way."
Note that this is different than saying the First Way is dependent upon there being change not involving physical motion. The point of me saying that at all was one of intent - why was the First Way presented? Was it being offered as a pre-Newton physics argument that was made obsolete by Newton? As I demonstrated, the answer was no.
As is extremely clear, I introduced the subject of A-T classifications of change in response to the attempt to pin the First Way down to being dependent on the truth of A-T physics, which it is not. Act and potency transcend their concepts of physical movement. So there does not need to be an example that I must point to of something in the universe changing without any physical motion on any level in order for the First Way to work.
If, of course, you want to hold the First Way to a different standard than other ideas, in which faulty or obsolete concepts are corrected or replaced without abandoning the entire idea so long as the idea remains functional, then there is no point in continuing this exercise. The First Way is not dependent upon A-T concepts of physical motion in order to function. Agree or disagree?
Cal: "You have yet to offer ANY defense of the criticisms offered."
I have thoroughly destroyed every criticism you've offered. Your continuing to offer the same criticisms I have already demolished does not mean I haven't dealt with them.
Cal: "Seeing as how a potential state does not exist in act, there is no physical location for that state. And that would, again, indicate to me that you are arguing for a kind of change that does not, on some level, include a change in physical location."
I also find this incoherent, as it is not even remotely what I have said about potential states.
Cal: "You seem to still be struggling the with the narcissistic notion"
Stop projecting.
You apparently are still insisting on the First Way not being functional outside of A-T physics. If so, you should have no problem answering the following.
Name the part of Newtonian physics that refuted the concepts of act and potency.
Legion: "As is extremely clear, I introduced the subject of A-T classifications of change in response to the attempt to pin the First Way down to being dependent on the truth of A-T physics, which it is not."
Yes. Because then it would rely on a deficient description of reality.
Legion: "Act and potency transcend their concepts of physical movement."
You might as well say, matter and time transcend their concepts of physics. Which only makes sense if you want to avoid being clear in your description of reality. And we are supposed to be talking about reality.
Legion: "So there does not need to be an example that I must point to of something in the universe changing without any physical motion on any level in order for the First Way to work."
You can't have it both ways, again. We're talking about an argument based on reality. If you had made it clear that you think the First Way, which describes motion in reality, is going to be exempt from what we know about motion in reality, then you are just wasting our time.
Apologist Defense of the claim that there is a dragon in the garage:
Investigator (opens door to garage): "There's no dragon in here."
Apologist: "This dragon transcends dragons."
Legion: "If, of course, you want to hold the First Way to a different standard than other ideas, in which faulty or obsolete concepts are corrected or replaced without abandoning the entire idea so long as the idea remains functional, then there is no point in continuing this exercise. The First Way is not dependent upon A-T concepts of physical motion in order to function. Agree or disagree?"
Talk about projecting...
The First Way is an argument about reality, and therefore IT IS dependent on what we know about reality.
Your failure to understand something this simple is at the heart of your confusion.
Legion: "If, of course, you want to hold the First Way to a different standard than other ideas, in which faulty or obsolete concepts are corrected or replaced without abandoning the entire idea so long as the idea remains functional, then there is no point in continuing this exercise. The First Way is not dependent upon A-T concepts of physical motion in order to function. Agree or disagree?"
--Then it's not the First Way anymore. It then becomes an error corrected modified updated modernized rewrite of the First Way.
Sure, you can do that if you want, and others have, but we are using the text of Haines as a reference point. Haines cites a source for his notation in his reference [8]. If you follow that link you can also find the full text translation, which I find useful to refer to as a translation of the primary source.
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html
So, if you want to reword that into LoL's Argument From Motion, fine, edit as you wish, but please do not call your edited version the First Way by Aquinas.
Cal: "You might as well say, matter and time transcend their concepts of physics. Which only makes sense if you want to avoid being clear in your description of reality. And we are supposed to be talking about reality."
Gibberish that didn't respond to what I said. Act and potency are not dependent upon A-T notions of physical movement ("their" being Aristotle and Aquinas, didn't spell that out). Your failure to name the part of Newtonian physics that refutes act and potency as concepts is more than sufficient evidence for that.
Cal: "If you had made it clear that you think the First Way, which describes motion in reality, is going to be exempt from what we know about motion in reality, then you are just wasting our time."
Gibberish with no basis in reality. Act and potency do indeed describe change in reality, and you did not even attempt to refute it.
Cal: "The First Way is an argument about reality, and therefore IT IS dependent on what we know about reality."
The fact that you said this proves you didn't read what I wrote. Try responding again, in a manner consistent with someone who actually read what I wrote.
Cal: "Your failure to understand something this simple is at the heart of your confusion.
Your "responses" are impossible to follow, as they almost never actually correspond to anything I've said. That might lead to confusion for some, but unfortunately for you I can go back and quote what I actually said, and prove that you aren't responding to it. The only thing I'm still confused about is your certainty in your extremely flawed position.
Name the part of Newtonian physics that refuted the concepts of act and potency.
Stardusty: "Then it's not the First Way anymore. It then becomes an error corrected modified updated modernized rewrite of the First Way."
I'm unaware of any modern A-T philosophers who deny A-T notions of physics have been rendered obsolete. They, like me, happen to agree this does not render the First Way obsolete. At most it would affect some of the examples, not the premises themselves.
>> "If you had made it clear that you think the First Way, which describes motion in reality, is going to be exempt from what we know about motion in reality, then you are just wasting our time"
Strawman. Nobody is claiming an exemption except you.
If you think this is the case you'll need to explain EXACTLY how the FW is describing motion that we KNOW is not motion in reality. Be very specific.
I doubt specific questions will be answered, as it is much harder to bluster in such circumstances.
Frankly I'm getting bored. I hit the volleyball over the net, and rather than hitting it back, Cal is swinging a bat at a baseball, striking out, and claiming it was a home run. Problem is we are not even playing baseball.
The minimum criteria of a dialogue is responding to what is said, and that minimum is not being met. I'm entertained by the direction things take, given that it is so easy to prove what was said in online conversation, but it's getting boring. I could get the same results chatting with a program that generates random sentences and then tells me I'm confused.
Legion,
Yep, lots of bluster about how the FW argument fails, but so far we've only heard claims. No detailed explanation as to where the argument fails and why it fails.
The definitions are on the table. Let's see if the skeptics will actually spell it out or if they will continue to make claims and bluster.
Legion of Logic said...
" I could get the same results chatting with a program that generates random sentences and then tells me I'm confused."
--Random sentences might well confuse you! But, I suppose your point is that in that case your confusion would not be evidence that the actually random sentences were somehow meaningful.
So, to your point about act and potency, yes, one can sort of shoehorn that language into modern physics. It is rather cumbersome and clumsy. It think it is far more useful to express modern physics as modern physics is expressed by modern physicists. I don't see the value in dredging up ancient language for that purpose.
Yes stuff can only do the sorts of thing stuff can do in the ways stuff actually does stuff. We don't see causal effects propagating in ways they cannot propagate. OK, not very informative, but not strictly mistaken either.
Not only is the language of Aquinas based an false notions of motion, it is also excessively brief thus making it subject to ambiguity. Further, the OP does not actually use every word in the First Way, although there are various sources for it such as
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html
So, if it really matters, I can rehash is fine detail how the language works on A-T physics, but if those principles of motion are applied to modern physics then there are some subtle defects in the language of the First Way.
Also, the First way defines motion as a reduction from potential to actual, but it does not define a reduction of potential to actual as motion, since this would commit the fallacy of confirming the consequent by inferring the converse of the actual words. Further, motion is explicitly distinguished from change in the words of Aquinas, not equated. Motion is used distinctly from change, not as a synonym for change, as I have quoted and analyzed above at length.
But, one needn't dwell on these linguistic defects if one wishes to read primarily for the gist of the argument, as opposed to dwelling on the defects that come to light through careful parsing of every word.
Unfortunately, such a generalization turns the first half into the First Way into little more than pedestrian observations at the level of tautology. That is not all bad, because a rigorous argument may well begin with seemingly obvious assertions just to lay a firm foundation.
So yes, stuff only does what stuff can do. Causal effects do not propagate in ways causal effects cannot propagate. Causal effects do propagate in particular sorts of ways, and they do not propagate in other sorts of ways.
I don't see how that will lead to an argument for a first mover, much less an argument for God, but hey, I'm willing to give it a go.
May 30, 2017 2:26 PM
Progress!
Legion: "Act and potency transcend their concepts of physical movement."
Cal: "You might as well say, matter and time transcend their concepts of physics. Which only makes sense if you want to avoid being clear in your description of reality. And we are supposed to be talking about reality."
Legion: "Gibberish that didn't respond to what I said."
mkay. Actually (surprise!), I responded to what you said as an analog, as a means to point out that "transcendence" is not actually a benefit when it comes to terms that accurately describe reality; "matter" transcends its use in the description of physical events (what's it matter, the fact of the matter, etc.), but we continue to use the word (in its more strict Physics sense) DESPITE this transcendence, not because of it.
Legion: "Act and potency are not dependent upon A-T notions of physical movement..."
But our descriptions of physical movement are dependent on real things, aren't they? And we are talking about real things, right?
Legion: "Your failure to name the part of Newtonian physics that refutes act and potency as concepts is more than sufficient evidence for that."
I've mentioned what Newtonian physics describes more accurately than A-T physics -- inertia, for one. But you misunderstand (no way!) -- the problem isn't with A-T physics versus Newtonian per se (although there do some to be some assumptions of A-T physics that explain the allure and the failure of the First Way), it's with the language of the First Way (the ambiguity of its terms, and equivocation it employs), and that stands as A BARRIER to understanding the dilemma it sets out to establish, NOT A BENEFIT.
Are you ever going to get around to trying to finishing your defense of the First Way? Or have you given up on that one entirely?
Stardusty: "one can sort of shoehorn that language into modern physics
Before I respond, I want to make sure that this isn't a branch of the "every argument about every subject is a physics argument because everything is physics" approach - lawyers in court present physics arguments, song lyrics are about physics, etc which leads to everything that exists being a physicist performing the field of physics. I got a kick out of that, but it wasn't even remotely compelling as a conversational topic.
Because I would agree that modern physics as described by modern physicists is more useful to modern physics than concepts like act and potency - but I would not agree that the terminology of modern physics is more useful in every discussion.
Stardusty: "it is also excessively brief thus making it subject to ambiguity."
I don't find it to be so. Not for what it is attempting to describe.
Stardusty: "Further, motion is explicitly distinguished from change in the words of Aquinas, not equated."
Even if so, motion is described as the reduction from potential to actual. So are the other categories of change in their other writings - all of them are potential states being actualized. That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around.
Stardusty: "That is not all bad, because a rigorous argument may well begin with seemingly obvious assertions just to lay a firm foundation."
Precisely.
Legion: "That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around."
Like...?
Cal: "Actually (surprise!), I responded to what you said as an analog, as a means to point out that "transcendence" is not actually a benefit when it comes to terms that accurately describe reality; "matter" transcends its use in the description of physical events (what's it matter, the fact of the matter, etc.), but we continue to use the word (in its more strict Physics sense) DESPITE this transcendence, not because of it."
Act and potency do not depend on A-T concepts of physical motion in order to function.
Cal: "But our descriptions of physical movement are dependent on real things, aren't they? And we are talking about real things, right?"
The only thing I can think of that this could possibly be addressing would be your objection earlier about potential states not existing in a location. Is that what you're getting at?
Cal: "I've mentioned what Newtonian physics describes more accurately than A-T physics"
Of course Newtonian physics is more accurate. I should hope that new scientific models would be more accurate than their predecessors.
Cal: "the ambiguity of its terms, and equivocation it employs"
Why do you believe the problem is with the terminology itself, and not your understanding? I had no problem learning it and know exactly what they mean by it, so there is no reason for me to assume there's a terminology problem.
Cal: "Are you ever going to get around to trying to finishing your defense of the First Way? Or have you given up on that one entirely?"
That's like asking to continue on a car ride when you have three flat tires and the water pump fell off. We could try, but we're never going to get anywhere unless the problems are fixed first.
To that end, I suppose to gauge where things are, I would ask you how the concepts of act and potency hold up under Newtonian physics.
Cal: "Like...?"
I just wrote a huge series of quotes answering this. Seriously, Cal, you need to read what I write and respond to it. This is why I can't move on.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "one can sort of shoehorn that language into modern physics
" Before I respond, I want to make sure that this isn't a branch of the "every argument about every subject is a physics argument because everything is physics" approach"
--Ultimately that is true but it turns out not to be a functionally useful analytical method for our daily experiences because we lack the physics theories and computational capabilities that would be needed to perform that kind of analysis.
However, it is critical to keep this in mind when discussing the origins of motion, change, and existence, because those origins depend on just that, physics, the physics of the very smallest most fundamental structures that exist.
Things at the most fundamental level, the level we must examine, do not necessarily function as common sense would tell us. That doesn't mean we should accept nonsense, but it does mean we have to be prepared to confront the limits our own rationality and not merely assume we can extrapolate every aspect of what seems reasonable to our sense experience to the most fundamental level we must examine to answer these questions.
" Because I would agree that modern physics as described by modern physicists is more useful to modern physics than concepts like act and potency - but I would not agree that the terminology of modern physics is more useful in every discussion."
--Ok, writing a birthday card to my wife in terms of modern physics is not useful. Discussing the origins of the most fundamental structures of existence in A-T language is also not useful.
Stardusty: "it is also excessively brief thus making it subject to ambiguity."
" I don't find it to be so. Not for what it is attempting to describe."
--"Motion", "move", "moved", and "change" are used very poorly in the argument.
Verbs have many forms, which is further complicated by the need to translate. For example "moves" can mean to be in motion (changing position), or it can mean to move something else (a hand moves a staff).
"Moved" can mean that an object was in motion (changed position from one place to another), or it can mean that an object was caused to move by something else (the bat moved the ball), or it can mean that an object caused something else to move(the bat).
To avoid these and other ambiguities in a technical argument is it best to add more qualifiers and descriptive language to each statement to make each statement absolutely clear as to the form of the key verbs that is intended. Aquinas fails to do this.
May 30, 2017 5:59 PM
Stardusty: "Further, motion is explicitly distinguished from change in the words of Aquinas, not equated."
" Even if so, motion is described as the reduction from potential to actual. So are the other categories of change in their other writings"
--If you have to pull in all these other writings to infer what Aquinas "really meant" then either Aquinas did a very bad writing job or you are pulling in whatever bits suit you to bend the argument around from what was actually written, or both.
" - all of them are potential states being actualized."
--Inferring the converse is known as the fallacy of confirming the consequent.
M therefore C
C
therefore M
(invalid logic)
" That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around."
--Aquinas opens with the lines
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion."
"It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
Later he defines motion as reduction from potential to actuality.
He does not define reduction from potential to actuality as motion, and to infer such is logically invalid.
He goes on to use the phrase "thereby moves and changes it", clearly distinguishing between the two "move" versus "change". Since he used the word "change" here he could have used the word "change" elsewhere, but he did not. He used the word "move".
If he wanted to say "change" he could have, but he didn't, he said "move".
Yet, despite all this, you are convinced he did not mean "move" when he said "move". Rather, you cling to confirming the consequent, ignoring the fact his examples are of physical positional change, and he distinguishes between "move" and "change" when it suits him.
Aquinas tells us this is an argument from motion, not an argument from change.
Legion: "That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around."
Me: Like...?
Legion: "I just wrote a huge series of quotes answering this. Seriously, Cal, you need to read what I write and respond to it. This is why I can't move on."
A huge series of quotes?
Can you be more specific? Why can't apologist ever actually cite what they claim they said earlier?
Direct question. Should get a direct answer.
Cal blames Legion for Cal's inability to comprehend what Legion wrote, not just once but several times. Sad!
steveK: "Cal blames Legion for Cal's inability to comprehend what Legion wrote, not just once but several times. Sad!"
You're such a sad little creature.
Why don't you cite what you think Legion wrote (several times!) that the First Way does more than merely "describe why things move around"?
Knock yourself, out sport!
Update: Cal blames me for Cal's inability to comprehend what Legion wrote
Cal,
If you can't be bothered to scroll up to read what I wrote on this very subject a few days ago, then you don't deserve my time. The fact that you can't do that much makes it hilarious when you accuse us of not citing our references or giving straight answers - why bother when you just ignore them?
Scroll up and read it. Pay particular attention to the bolded parts. I'll give you a hint - it occurs sometime after May 25 and before May 27. Also, if you again only take partial quotes of what I said in order to twist it into what you want, this discussion is done. Dealing with childishness is not what I signed up for.
Locate my series of quotes. Read the bolded parts. Attempt to comprehend what I said and why I said it, and then respond to what I said. It is incomprehensible that you believe I have not addressed you on this subject yet.
Legion: "Locate my series of quotes. Read the bolded parts."
WTF. How do you propose I do a find on "my series of quotes." How do you propose I do a search on "bolded parts"?
You guys don't actually know how to cite yourselves. Are you truly that clueless?
Or, because you know what you are referring to, and I do not (something than all narcissists have trouble imagining, I know), you could actually just copy it and paste it what should take you about 8 seconds.
Try and understand this: I seriously don't know what you mean by "my series of quotes" that explains what exactly the First Way is really, truly, actually supposed to be about besides describing "why things move around."
If I do a search on "quote", the first one I see in a comment from you on this page is:
Legion (quote?): "The sentence the above quote directly follows is "Nothing in modern physics has refuted act, potency, or an essentially ordered series."
An essentially ordered series is about how things move around. So that can't be it, right?
Or, the next one on this page (closest that I can see):
Legion: "There is no need for you to have issues reconciling what I said, or be confused as to why I said it. I quoted for you why I said it. I shall do so again. / Legion: "I introduced it in response to the attempts to tie the First Way to A-T physics so that if A-T physics is obsolete, then so is the First Way."
This is just vintage Legion -- babbling about your own babbling.
So, the two "quotes" above don't answer my question (at all) -- what example are you thinking of when you wrote, "That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around."
Do you have an inkling now on how utterly feckless your ability to plainly answer simple questions that could actually explain your thinking are? This is why I say that you act like a narcissist -- you seem pathologically incapable of understanding that other people aren't privy to your vantage concerning your own thoughts.
And if you can't learn to actually explain yourself, then no one will ever know what you think is so important.
stevek: "Update: Cal blames me for Cal's inability to comprehend what Legion wrote"
Hey, you're a little bluffing coward. Imagine my surprise.
Leafing through the comments it's obvious the color of the conversation has changed
@SteveK,
Yes, the conversation now has some sour notes. One could say that it had been unmusical but now is musical. ☺
@bmiller
We could try changing the subject but that might actualize a potential problem.
@Gentlemen,
The context for Aquinas's discussion of motion involves Aristotle's list of 10 categories from which Aristotle thought 4 proper to discuss with respect to change/motion for various reasons.
This is from the SEP article on Aristotle's Natural Philosophy, Item#2
"Nevetheless [sic], when making this claim, Aristotle speaks about four kinds of motion and change only—those in substance, in quality, in quantity and in place—whereas the number of the kinds of being should have remained ten.
Wikipedia lists the 10 categories and provides a brief description of each. The 4 of interest are listed as follows:
Substance (οὐσία, ousia, essence or substance).[6] Substance is that which cannot be predicated of anything or be said to be in anything. Hence, this particular man or that particular tree are substances. Later in the text, Aristotle calls these particulars “primary substances”, to distinguish them from secondary substances, which are universals and can be predicated. Hence, Socrates is a primary substance, while man is a secondary substance. Man is predicated of Socrates, and therefore all that is predicated of man is predicated of Socrates.
Quantity (ποσόν, poson, how much). This is the extension of an object, and may be either discrete or continuous. Further, its parts may or may not have relative positions to each other. All medieval discussions about the nature of the continuum, of the infinite and the infinitely divisible, are a long footnote to this text. It is of great importance in the development of mathematical ideas in the medieval and late Scholastic period. Examples: two cubits long, number, space, (length of) time.
Qualification or quality (ποιόν, poion, of what kind or quality). This determination characterizes the nature of an object. Examples: white, black, grammatical, hot, sweet, curved, straight.
Where or place (ποῦ, pou, where). Position in relation to the surrounding environment. Examples: in a marketplace, in the Lyceum.
The last of these (change of place) was referred to as local motion (where the word locomotion comes from). So due to this historical distinction, local motion such as a ball rolling is considered a different type of motion than the quality of a leaf changing color on the same tree.
@SteveK,
We could try changing the subject but that might actualize a potential problem.
Can one potentially change the subject if a potential change is a non-existent change?
Cal: "How do you propose I do a find on "my series of quotes." How do you propose I do a search on "bolded parts"?"
You have several options. If you have a wheel on your mouse, use it to scroll upward. Or perhaps you could hit the "page up" key or the "up" arrow key. If you have no wheel or functional keyboard, click the "up" arrow on the right and scroll upward until you find my posts that are surrounded with quote marks (hence why they are called "quotes") and that contain bolded parts. You need only scroll to the date I indicated, falling somewhere between May 25 and May 27. It's quite simple to find. It took me literally less than 10 seconds to do so just now - it would take me longer to copy paste it all again than it would for you to just put some effort in and scroll up to where it's already at.
And yes, I'm not pasting it for you because I'm tired of you ignoring what I write if you don't find it convenient for your position.
Scroll up. Look between May 25 and May 27. Look for my posts that are surrounded in quote marks and contain bolded sections. If you find that this is too complicated a task, let me know. If you do manage to locate the bolded sections that occurred between May 25 and May 27 in a series of quotes, explain to me how that does not address your "like...?"
Finally, stop projecting your narcissism onto others. It's pathetic.
Okay. Near as I can tell this is what you mean:
Legion: "That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around."
Me: "Like...?"
Legion: "The point of the First Way is not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around. We know this because A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well...Logically, if the First Way was only about how things move around, it would not cover other types of change, which would be irrelevant. So logically, the First Way is not a predecessor to Newton. It does not rise and fall with A-T concepts of movement, but rather with the A-T concepts of change - act and potency. / These days we know that possibly any time something in the universe changes, it involves a physical movement on some level, cellular, subatomic etc. This also does nothing to damage the First Way, as it is not a precursor of Newtonian physics. "
But you (surprise!) don't answer my question there -- you just (surprise!) repeat yourself asserting the same thing ("the First Way is not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around") that led to my last request for an example.
Round and round we go.
bmiller,
As I've mentioned throughout this thread, and you and others may have as well, the First Way was never intended to be a stand-alone argument completely separated from the rest of their works. There are plenty of other writings expanding upon act, potency, and the various types of change, all of which are the reason I've been saying all along that the First Way isn't only about local motion, even though that information is not all contained within the First Way itself.
I'm beginning to wonder, since the First Way is only one part of a larger body of work aimed at theology students, and since there are much larger bodies of work on the terms the First Way touches upon, if it's even possible to defend only the First Way without having to lay the foundation of A-T philosophy in general. It seems that when one approaches the argument with no conception of what Aquinas actually believed, that strawmen are quite easy to build.
Cal: "Round and round we go."
Indeed.
I recommend reading what bmiller posted earlier today at 2:16 for some more depth, but the example I gave is of a leaf changing color, if I recall correctly. Under A-T philosophy, that would not have been considered local motion.
Now, the point of me saying this is not to say that A-T is correct that there are types of change that have no physical movement at any level. Nor was it to say that the First Way is dependent upon there being such types of change. Rather, the point is that if they wanted the First Way to be only about local motion, and not all forms of change they held there to be, then they could have done so but did not. So the First Way is not solely about local motion, it is not bound to A-T notions of local motion, and it is not rendered obsolete by Newtonian physics.
If you're getting anything else from what I wrote, it's almost certainly wrong, but point it out to me so I can make sure I didn't forget something.
Legion (in order):
"Scroll up and read it. Pay particular attention to the bolded parts. I'll give you a hint - it occurs sometime after May 25 and before May 27. Also, if you again only take partial quotes of what I said in order to twist it into what you want, this discussion is done. Dealing with childishness is not what I signed up for. "
Locate my series of quotes. Read the bolded parts. Attempt to comprehend what I said and why I said it, and then respond to what I said. It is incomprehensible that you believe I have not addressed you on this subject yet.
And yes, I'm not pasting it for you because I'm tired of you ignoring what I write if you don't find it convenient for your position.
Scroll up. Look between May 25 and May 27. Look for my posts that are surrounded in quote marks and contain bolded sections. If you find that this is too complicated a task, let me know. If you do manage to locate the bolded sections that occurred between May 25 and May 27 in a series of quotes, explain to me how that does not address your "like...?"
I recommend reading what bmiller posted earlier today at 2:16 for some more depth, but the example I gave is of a leaf changing color, if I recall correctly."
---------
The one who seems befuddled here is you.
@Legion,
Rather, the point is that if they wanted the First Way to be only about local motion, and not all forms of change they held there to be, then they could have done so but did not.
Yes, when people hear the word motion today they normally don't associate it with the broader concept of change. The First Way applies to all categories of material change and so it's worth noting. As you've pointed out, most everyone can grasp the 4 categories and how they generally change, while not everyone can grasp Newtoninan physics.
I'm beginning to wonder, since the First Way is only one part of a larger body of work aimed at theology students, and since there are much larger bodies of work on the terms the First Way touches upon, if it's even possible to defend only the First Way without having to lay the foundation of A-T philosophy in general. It seems that when one approaches the argument with no conception of what Aquinas actually believed, that strawmen are quite easy to build.
There are at least 3 versions of the First Way in Thomist works. The particular one in the OP is from the Summa Theologica and yes it is aimed at Theology students.
The one aimed at "non" Theology students is from the Summa Contra Gentiles and is found in the first comment on this thread.
"Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover."
It only has one example, but of course that won't stop one from missing the point of it if one intends to. The post also links to the section of the SCG where the background reasoning is explained in a relatively succinct manner.
I think if one understands that things aren't moving themselves or aren't moving for no reason then it's pretty easy to understand, unless of course you don't want to understand.
Cal: "The one who seems befuddled here is you."
I'm pleased that our discourse has descended to the level of "I am rubber, you are glue".
Was the task too complex?
Me: "The one who seems befuddled here is you."
Legion: "I'm pleased that our discourse has descended to the level of "I am rubber, you are glue." / Was the task too complex?"
I suppose I should have been more explicit.
I quoted you in order to demonstrate that you have slid from:
Legion: "Scroll up and read it. Pay particular attention to the bolded parts. I'll give you a hint - it occurs sometime after May 25 and before May 27."
to
Legion: "Look for my posts that are surrounded in quote marks and contain bolded sections."
to
Legion: "I recommend reading what bmiller posted earlier today at 2:16 for some more depth, but the example I gave is of a leaf changing color, if I recall correctly."
I say that you appear befuddled because you won't answer a direct question (still), and you seem to be backtracking even further from where this supposed answer might lie. Now, it's maybe a leaf (which, as I thoroughly addressed over and over and over, is NOT an example of a change that that occurs without any change in physical position of some component part).
So maybe I should have said "confused handwaving."
Why won't you answer a direct question?
You say you have; I have shown that nowhere does the answer lie according to your direction.
It's dishonest to pretend that you have answered a question, when you have not. And it's dishonest to avoid a question when you have pretended that you are engaged in a frank discussion.
That is the question I think you should ask yourself -- are you engaged in a frank discussion? Do you really, truly, think you are?
Cal: "I have shown that nowhere does the answer lie according to your direction."
Which is why I say you don't read what I write, as it's the only way to hold the position you do.
Cal: "Now, it's maybe a leaf (which, as I thoroughly addressed over and over and over, is NOT an example of a change that that occurs without any change in physical position of some component part)."
Point out where I said that a leaf changing color IS an example of a change that occurs without any change in physical position of some component part.
You can't. Know why you can't? Because I never said that. I clearly said otherwise, in fact, per the quotes with bolded sections.
Here's what I did say. In response to the attempt to make the First Way nothing but an argument about local motion (change in physical location) and thereby synonymous with A-T physics which were rendered obsolete by Newtonian physics, I pointed out that A-T did not believe that some sorts of change involved a change in location, such as a leaf changing color. The First Way was worded in such a way that these other types of change were also covered. If they had wanted it to be about local motion and only about local motion, they could have said so. But they did not. Thus there is no reason to believe that the First Way is only about local motion, and there is no reason to believe that the First Way is a retelling of A-T physics which were replaced by Newtonian physics.
The concepts of act and potency are of all change according to A-T philosophy, not just local motion, and the concepts of act and potency easily withstand Newton when much of A-T physics was rendered obsolete or outright false. They even withstand the knowledge of cellular and subatomic movement which make the A-T categories of change obsolete. Point to take away - the First Way isn't dependent on A-T notions of physical movement.
That was the sole purpose of the leaf example - evidence that the First Way is more than just an A-T physics argument involving local motion. It was not (and I stressed it was not) an example of a type of change that involved no physical movement on any level. In fact, I dismissed your repeated requests for me to provide such an example because it is utterly irrelevant to the First Way (which is why I called it the First Strawman).
So, is your odd request for me to provide some sort of change involving no physical movement on any level finally laid to rest, or are you going to keep asking for one for reasons only you know?
Edit to above: made a typo. I wrote "Here's what I did say. In response to...physics, I pointed out that A-T did not believe that some sorts of change involved a change in location, such as a leaf changing color."
That should have read "I pointed out that A-T believed that some sorts of change did not involve a change in location, such as a leaf changing color."
>> "Now, it's maybe a leaf (which, as I thoroughly addressed over and over and over, is NOT an example of a change that that occurs without any change in physical position of some component part)"
You wanted Legion to give you an example that is not considered local motion (locomotion) according to A-T. The leaf example does that. The musical skills example does that. The examples in the summary bmiller provided do that. Stop asking for more examples.
This is why we can't have nice things. ☺
This is why you seem confused, and to be talking out of both sides of your mouth:
Legion: "That was the sole purpose of the leaf example - evidence that the First Way is more than just an A-T physics argument involving local motion. It was not (and I stressed it was not) an example of a type of change that involved no physical movement on any level. In fact, I dismissed your repeated requests for me to provide such an example because it is utterly irrelevant to the First Way (which is why I called it the First Strawman)."
Nope. You introduced this notion -- that there is more to change than a change in physical position -- and explicitly tied it to the First Way. You are literally calling your defense of the First Way a strawman.
Legion: "Legion: "That's why I've said the First Way is not simply an argument from physical movement - they had other things in mind than merely attempting to describe why things move around."
I asked you what other things you suppose they had in mind.
You reply, "So, is your odd request for me to provide some sort of change involving no physical movement on any level finally laid to rest, or are you going to keep asking for one for reasons only you know?"
You are the one who has introduced the notion above -- that there is more to change than a change in physical position. I pointed out that a leaf change color ONLY because of a change in physical position, so that example can't be what you mean. (Unless you are incapable of processing information.)
You could clear this up for us. But for some reason you refuse. And so that is why I say you seem confused, or to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Legion: "I pointed out that A-T did not believe that some sorts of change involved a change in location, such as a leaf changing color."
Ancient people believed that a whale was a kind of fish, but we now know otherwise. Wrong is wrong, no matter what the reason for the mistake.
Apologist: "Skeptics don't understand the First Way because they think that change only involves some change in physical position."
Skeptic: "What other kind of change is there besides one in which there is some kind of change in physical position?"
Apologist: "Why do you ask that irrelevant question?"
Skeptic: "Because you claimed that it is the reason for your believing the First Way is actually a good argument."
Apologist: "I am not interested in exploring a tangent."
Skeptic: "How can it be a tangent if you introduced it as your supposed defense."
Apologist: "I told you change beyond a change in physical position is not relevant."
Skeptic: "Okay, so why do you think the refutations of the First Way can be answered."
Apologist: "Because you think that change only involves some change in physical position."
Round and round.
The argument is based on A-T METAPHYSICAL principles.
Skeptic: What kind of change is there other than a change in physical position?
FW: Metaphysical change
Why must you make this so difficult?
Stevek: "The argument is based on A-T METAPHYSICAL principles. / Skeptic: What kind of change is there other than a change in physical position? / FW: Metaphysical change"
Is metaphysical change like metaphysical dragons? Asking for a friend.
stevek: "Why must you make this so difficult?"
I've said so many times; because I am inexplicably compelled to oppose inconsistency, hypocrisy, and sanctimony.
From the Merriam Webster definition of metaphysics:
Definition of metaphysics
1
a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
You wanted an example and you got several. Can we move on yet?
changing your brain is NOT identical to changing your mind
One is a physical change, the other is not
These are A-T principles like them or not. Both fit equally well under the FW argument.
Can we move on yet?
Cal: "Nope. You introduced this notion -- that there is more to change than a change in physical position -- and explicitly tied it to the First Way. You are literally calling your defense of the First Way a strawman."
Nope. I just told you why I did it, and provided the entire conversation above as context. You are simply wrong. You are the one engaging in strawman arguments. You can continue to engage in your strawman arguments if you desire to continue embarrassing yourself, it doesn't cost me anything.
Cal: "I asked you what other things you suppose they had in mind."
I provided an example, and others did as well.
Cal: "You could clear this up for us."
Already did. The confusion is yours alone, and not based on my failure to provide information. Full context and intent was provided for your consumption, and you refuse to engage with it. You can lead a horse to water, but...
Also, your ridiculous skeptic/apologist conversation has absolutely no bearing on what was actually said. How embarrassing for you.
Here's a link to some of those metaphysical things Cal scoffed at
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
The world isn't limited to only "physical properties". There are essential and accidental properties. Physically you can't tell one from the other. They are indistinguishable. They are not illusions either, despite Dusty's protests that they must be.
The takeaway is that the FW works for both the metaphysical and the physical.
Can we move on yet?
Legion: "Already did. The confusion is yours alone, and not based on my failure to provide information. Full context and intent was provided for your consumption, and you refuse to engage with it. You can lead a horse to water, but... / Also, your ridiculous skeptic/apologist conversation has absolutely no bearing on what was actually said. How embarrassing for you."
In other news, black is white.
Can we move on yet?
SteveK,
Cal has yet to display basic reading comprehension skills, even when his errors are specifically pointed out to him. I see no point in proceeding with the First Way until I see a sliver of evidence that Cal can comprehend what he reads.
If you want to take the mantle and proceed, that's up to you, but I won't be doing so until Cal understands why the First Strawman is the First Strawman.
I agree, Legion. My comment wasn't directed to you. I'm trying to get Cal to FOCUS on the argument itself. This rabbit trail is endless
Yeah, my reading comprehension is the reason why apologists struggle to simply answer these simple questions:
1. Is the First Way about change?
Yes or no.
2. Is the First Way about change other than a change that involves, at some level, a change in physical position?
Yes or no.
3. If the First Way is about something other than a change that involves, at some level, a change in physical position, what other kind of change is there?
4. If an instance of a change that supposedly does not involve a change in physical position at some level is show to actually involve a change in physical position at some level, is it reasonable to continue to believe otherwise?
Yes or no.
Btw, I would love to see Legion do as he promised earlier -- define his terms, and defend the First Way. The only reason I'm pointing out the problems that I have pointed out are because there's nothing else to work with.
I suspect that Legion has looked at the road ahead in the First Way, where the larger problems glare far brighter, and doesn't feel quite as cocky about his earlier promises as he once did. That happens when one has time to become familiar with material that, on closer scrutiny, reveals defects that a more peremptory judgment can easily hide.
1. Yes
2. If speaking about A-T categories of change bases on what they knew, then yes.
3. Qualitative, quantitative, substantive, etc.
4. No.
Your point? Because these answers conform to what I have been saying all along, and likely do not indicate what you think they do.
Cal: "Btw, I would love to see Legion do as he promised earlier -- define his terms, and defend the First Way. The only reason I'm pointing out the problems that I have pointed out are because there's nothing else to work with."
The reason we haven't moved on is the alleged problems you are pointing out aren't problems at all, yet you insist they are. So we have to deal with them until you figure out the difference between the First Way and the First Strawman. I'm not moving on until you agree the First Strawman was a poor attack and should be discarded like the garbage it is.
Cal: "I suspect that Legion has looked at the road ahead in the First Way, where the larger problems glare far brighter, and doesn't feel quite as cocky about his earlier promises as he once did."
You suspect wrong, though I do doubt my ability to overcome the First Strawman in your mind, based on recent experience.
bmiller said...
" We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover."
--This sort of thinking is how Aquinas begs the question in the First Way.
The first mover, an unchanged changer, is just as irrational as an infinite regression.
There is no rational answer.
However, conservation is strong evidence that the infinite regression is somehow the case. We never see evidence of an unchanged changer. We always see evidence of regression.
May 31, 2017 8:02 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" So we have to deal with them until you figure out the difference between the First Way and the First Strawman.
--That's why I like to go back not only to to the OP but the full text referenced in [8] of the OP. See also
May 31, 2017 5:00 AM
The first line written by Aquinas makes clear “The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. “ Motion, not more general change. Motion is, very apparently, a sort of change, but a particular sort of change. All motion may be change, but it does not follow logically all change is motion (it is, but Aquinas did not know that, and his First Way argument does not support this subatomic fact of physics).
Aquinas says “For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.” Your assertion that this definition is a definition of general change calls for the converse wording “the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality is nothing else than motion”, which commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent relative to the actual wording.
The converse does not follow because there could logically be different sorts of potential and corresponding different sorts of actuality. While motion may be one sort of actuality it does not follow as a logical necessity that all sorts of actuality are motion.
Inferring the converse is known as the fallacy of confirming the consequent.
M therefore C
C
therefore M
(invalid logic)
Further, Aquinas clearly differentiates between motion and change when he says “, and thereby moves and changes it”. If move means change then this phrase would read “, and thereby changes and changes it”, which would then suffer from a redundancy.
The fact that the word “change” is used separately from and additionally to “move” shows that Aquinas was quite capable of using the words he meant to use, and has no need of others to say “what he really meant was…”. If he had meant something different he could have said something different. Additionally, Aquinas said “as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand”, clearly using “move” to mean a physical motion, his argument being predicated at the outset on what is “evident to our senses”, and the staff quite evidently is in physical motion.
Thus, what Aquinas himself calls "the argument from motion" is just that, not the converse as you invalidly argue.
June 01, 2017 7:12 PM
Dusty
>> "The first mover, an unchanged changer, is just as irrational as an infinite regression."
You'd have to explain how this is true because I don't see it.
We know what inanimate objects are because we have direct experience with them. Whether it's 1 object or an infinite array of them it's rational to think they will behave in the same way - as inanimate objects.
We don't have any direct experience with an unchanged changer. There's nothing obviously contradictory about it so it's not irrational to think an unmoved mover can move inanimate objects.
Blogger SteveK said...
" We know what inanimate objects are because we have direct experience with them. Whether it's 1 object or an infinite array of them it's rational to think they will behave in the same way - as inanimate objects."
--Which do not change themselves or suddenly start changing without being changed either.
We have no experience with an infinity of change or a spontaneous beginning of change. Our only experience is with a finite series of changes.
However, an unbounded series of changes is perfectly rational. We can easily conceive of an unlimited future of changes, but that is not an infinity of changes, only an unbounded finite series of changes.
To imagine a series of changes ever achieves infinity is irrational.
To imagine a spontaneous change is irrational.
" We don't have any direct experience with an unchanged changer."
--Hence the utter lack of evidence for it.
" There's nothing obviously contradictory about it so it's not irrational to think an unmoved mover can move inanimate objects."
--Perhaps not "obvious" at first, but apparent upon examination.
First, we need to clarify "unchanged". Like so many words, it is ambiguous and needs to be expanded upon to be dealt with clearly.
When we say something is "unchanged" we might mean that it is the same as it was, it has not altered in any way, and presumably the unchanged changer in this sense has always been and will always be in the same state, never altering any of its properties in any way.
Or, "unchanged" can be taken to mean that nothing else changed it. In this sense the unchanged changer is changing, but nothing else changed it. This opens up two more possibilities
1. The unchanged changer has always been changing.
2. The unchanged changer was not changing, and then it began to change, but was not changed by anything else.
Restating the previous possibility
3. The unchanged changer never has and never will have any of its properties altered in any way, and will thus never itself change.
All 3 so called possibilities are irrational.
In the case of 1. if the unchanged changer was always changing then an infinity of change is possible after all and there is no need for a first mover in the first instance, yet the irrationality of a real infinity remains and this violates the assertion against infinity in the First Way making the First Way self contradictory.
In the case of 2. if the unchanged changer began to change then it violates the assertion of Aquinas that nothing moves itself, which would be irrational and would make the First Way self contradictory.
In the case of 3. if the unchanged changer never alters and at one time there was not change in our universe and then the unchanged changer imparted the first change then at one time the unchanged changer was potentially imparting change and then later it was actually imparting change, and thus it satisfies the definition of change put forward variously, making the changer not unchanging, rather, changing, thus a self contradictory assertion in the First Way.
Further, in the case of 3. it is absurd to think a thing could impart change without itself being changed. To impart change is a time sequence of events, at one time doing one thing, and at another time doing something different. A changer is always itself changed in the process of changing something else, to consider otherwise is preposterous.
By any notion of the words, "unchanged changer" is irrational.
Stardusty: "The first line written by Aquinas makes clear “The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. “ Motion, not more general change. Motion is, very apparently, a sort of change, but a particular sort of change. All motion may be change, but it does not follow logically all change is motion"
I might agree with you, if the First Way was the only sample of A-T philosophy I had.
Even ignoring that most, if not all, A-T philosophers equate motion with change in general in A-T thought, but here we have the writings of Aquinas himself regarding Aristotle:
Aquinas on Aristotle: "That which is being moved is midway between the potential and the actual, being partly in potentia and partly in actu: and this is evident in alteration. For water, when hot in potentia only, is not yet moved or changed. When already hot, the movement of heating is ended. But if it participate of heat imperfectly, it is then moving towards being hot; for that which is becoming hot participates of heat gradually by little and little. Therefore that imperfect act of heat in the thing that is being heated is motion, not as actual only, but inasmuch as, being an act, it has a disposition for a further act, because, if that disposition were taken away, the act, however imperfect, would terminate the motion, instead of being motion, as when anything is incompletely heated. But the disposition for a further act belongs to what is potentially that further act."
Note that here Aquinas, in describing the philosophy of Aristotle, has used a type of change called alteration, and uses the example of water heating. Throughout, he calls it motion and even uses "move and change" again. It is described in terms of act and potency, just like the burning wood example in the First Way.
But there's more:
Aquinas on Aristotle: ""He (Aristotle) begins by laying down what he means to show: and he says that, of the three species of motion -- one according to quantity, which is called increase and decrease, another according to quality, which is called alteration, and another according to place, which is called change of place -- the last-named must be the first of all. And secondly, he proves this by the fact of its being impossible that increase can be the first of motions, because it cannot take place without a previous alteration. For that by which anything is increased is in a way similar and in another way dissimilar. It is evidently dissimilar: for that by which anything is increased is nourishment, which at first is different from what it nourishes; but when it does nourish, it must be similar. Now it cannot pass from dissimilarity to similarity without alteration. Increase, therefore, must be preceded by alteration, through which the nourishment passes from one disposition into another. Thirdly, he shows that every alteration is preceded by local motion. When anything is altered, there must be something that alters it, making (for instance) actually hot that which before was potentially so. But if that which causes the alteration were always equally near to the altered thing, it would not cause the heat now rather than sooner. Evidently therefore the mover of the alteration is not always at the same distance from that which is altered, but sometimes nearer and sometimes further. This cannot happen without change of place."
Here Aquinas clearly distinguishes burning as an alteration and not a change of place. Burning wood is not an example of local motion according to Aquinas or Aristotle, thus the First Way is not only about local motion.
There are other snippets throughout the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas, not to mention the commentaries of those who have spent a career studying them, that also support my contention that burning is not local motion according to A-T thought. Hence why I say the First Way covers all change - one of the two examples in the argument is itself illustrative of this.
Dusty
You'll need to show your homework. The default position is that inanimate objects remain inanimate. I don't need to imagine that reality. You'll need to explain how they become animated. Develop an argument for your claim and we'll look at it.
Legion: "There are other snippets throughout the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas, not to mention the commentaries of those who have spent a career studying them, that also support my contention that burning is not local motion according to A-T thought."
Right. A-T physics didn't understand that all change is motion. A-T physic was wrong about this.
Just because ancient people thought that whales were a kind of fish doesn't make a whale a kind of fish.
You seem reluctant or incapable of focusing on THE ARGUMENT per se, not the argument as historically justifiable. They are two different things, but the first is what I thought you set out do to.
>> Just because ancient people thought that whales were a kind of fish doesn't make a whale a kind of fish."
This is an empty statement without any historical citations. Tell us WHY they though whales were a kind of fish. Was it because they lived in the water or was it because they laid eggs? One "whales are a kind of fish" statement stands up to time, the other does not. Historical citations, please.
Cal,
THE ARGUMENT does not depend upon there being kinds of change that have no physical movement on any level. You are complaining about nothing.
Legion of Logic said...
" he calls it motion and even uses "move and change" again. It is described in terms of act and potency, just like the burning wood example in the First Way."
--And thus differentiates between "move" and "change".
Whatever Aquinas may have written about Aristotle at some point the fact remains that there is no definition that motion means change in the First Way, only that motion is a sort of realizing a potential.
The word "change" was undeniably in the vocabulary of Aquinas. If he had meant change he could have called it the argument from change.
June 02, 2017 10:08 AM
SteveK said...
" Dusty
You'll need to show your homework."
--Done, June 02, 2017 9:29 AM
" Develop an argument for your claim and we'll look at it."
--Done, June 02, 2017 9:29 AM
June 02, 2017 10:37 AM
Stardusty,
He called qualitative change "motion" and intentionally distinguished it from physical movement. I see no reason to accept your interpretation based upon that. In the excerpt I provided he listed three types of motion, so the First Way as an argument from motion would include all of them, not just physical location, unless he was to specify otherwise. The burning wood is an example of a qualitative change, and not a physical movement change, so there is every reason to believe the First Way means motion in the broader A-T sense, and not just physical movement.
Any meaning you get out of "moves and changes" has to accommodate his calling a qualitative change "motion" and distinguishing that motion from physical movement, while still referring to it as motion. Whatever his motivation for using both words, it was clearly not to narrow the First Way down to only being about local motion in A-T thought.
I have trouble imagining a potential state being realized that would not involve a change of some sort. They may not be strictly synonymous, but motion as the realization of a potential state would seem to necessitate a change on some level.
Legion of Logic said...
" Stardusty, He called qualitative change "motion" and intentionally distinguished it from physical movement."
--Perhaps elsewhere, but both examples provided were of physical motion, and he further based his argument on what is "evident to the senses".
" The burning wood is an example of a qualitative change, and not a physical movement change, "
--Wrong, a flame moves necessarily and evidently, as does the wood while it burns, as is evident simply by watching a wood fire.
" Whatever his motivation for using both words, it was clearly not to narrow the First Way down to only being about local motion in A-T thought."
--He made a series of 5 arguments, thus each one could well have been intended to be quite narrow in anticipation of the whole set of arguments to be presented. Further, general change is a much more difficult concept to illustrate convincingly and with which to demonstrate necessity. Motion is something we all observe and grasp, hence the example of a hand moving a staff, clearly an example of physical positional change.
You are estimating intent by your own lights, by implying what Aquinas meant to say.
I am reading the words as they are written in the argument itself.
" I have trouble imagining a potential state being realized that would not involve a change of some sort. They may not be strictly synonymous, but motion as the realization of a potential state would seem to necessitate a change on some level."
--Right, Aquinas defines motion as a sort of realizing a potential, but to assert the converse, to assert that realizing a potential is necessarily motion is to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
June 02, 2017 12:01 PM
Stardusty: "Perhaps elsewhere, but both examples provided were of physical motion"
Not according to A-T philosophy, of which he was a proponent. He distinguishes it from local motion as a category, so obviously he did not present the burning wood as an example of physical movement.
Now before Cal comes gleefully charging in, the point here isn't to say that A-T philosophy was correct in their concepts of change. Rather, it is simply evident that the First Way is not only about physical movement according to A-T physics, but all types of change according to A-T philosophy. The First Way isn't rendered obsolete by Newton the way A-T physics are.
Stardusty: "Wrong, a flame moves necessarily and evidently, as does the wood while it burns, as is evident simply by watching a wood fire."
I think I'll trust Aquinas about what he believed. He obviously did not provide burning wood as an example of the A-T category of change involving local motion, since he makes a clear distinction. If he did not believe burning wood was an example of physical movement, then obviously the First Way is not intended to only address physical movement within A-T philosophy. Your interpretation is incompatible with A-T thought.
Stardusty: "Further, general change is a much more difficult concept to illustrate convincingly and with which to demonstrate necessity. Motion is something we all observe and grasp, hence the example of a hand moving a staff, clearly an example of physical positional change."
Both Aristotle and Aquinas tackle the concepts of change in greater detail than the First Way. They seemed to not be baffled by their own categorizations, so I don't see why their own beliefs would make them struggle. Plus, Aquinas clearly differentiates burning wood from the category of change dealing with local motion, so obviously the burning wood is not provided as an example of physical movement since that would contradict his own beliefs. Neither of them were that dumb.
Stardusty: "You are estimating intent by your own lights, by implying what Aquinas meant to say."
I quoted what Aquinas said. Feel free to provide other thoughts by Aristotle or Aquinas that support your interpretation, but at this point it seems decisively refuted. Burning wood was not offered as an example of the A-T category of change dealing with physical movement, thus the First Way is not only about that category.
Stardusty: "I am reading the words as they are written in the argument itself."
As am I. Mine is the only reading that is true to the other writings of what they believed regarding categories of motion, so I have every reason to suspect mine is the correct interpretation of the First Way.
Stardusty: "Right, Aquinas defines motion as a sort of realizing a potential, but to assert the converse, to assert that realizing a potential is necessarily motion is to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent."
All I know is the three categories of motion that Aquinas referred to in the quote were, according to him, transitions between potential and actual. Burning wood is a qualitative motion according to A-T, and not an example of local motion. Thus we know that the burning wood example in the First Way was not provided as an example of local motion, thus we know the First Way deals with, at the very least, both local motion and qualitative change. And since quantitative motion (increase and decrease) is also described with act and potency, the First Way would easily cover it, as well - though an example of such is not provided in the argument itself, unlike qualitative and local motion.
It seems rather straightforward, according to A-T thought, that the First Way was not intended to only be about the A-T category of motion dealing with physical movement.
Money quote:
"Rather, it is simply evident that the First Way is not only about physical movement according to A-T physics, but all types of change according to A-T philosophy."
>> " Your interpretation is incompatible with A-T thought."
Quality was not thought to be merely physical and it still isn't to this very day. Value is a quality characteristic that is metaphysical.
A wood log has whatever quality of value before it is burned (ex: valuable for producing heat) and another after it is burned. The change is one of the things that the FW describes. Yes, it correlates with the physical change but it's not identical to it.
Why skeptics cannot understand this is beyond me. It's those atheist-colored glasses I suppose.
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" It seems rather straightforward, according to A-T thought, that the First Way was not intended to only be about the A-T category of motion dealing with physical movement."
--That is an implication based on works outside of the First Way argument you assume you can apply in the manner that seems to make sense to you, not the words found in the argument itself.
But, it really doesn't matter for most of the invalid and unsound aspects of the First Way. The First Way fails for a variety of reasons whether motion means motion as both examples clearly show and the language clearly states, or if you bring in other works to infer a broader meaning of "change" for the word "move".
June 02, 2017 1:39 PM
Stardusty: "The First Way fails for a variety of reasons whether motion means motion as both examples clearly show"
I see you prefer pretzel logic to admitting when you are obviously wrong. When Cal admits the First Strawman is garbage, I'm ready to move on and see if the rest of your post holds up.
Pretzel Logic
--That is an implication based on works outside of the First Way argument you assume you can apply in the manner that seems to make sense to you, not the words found in the argument itself.
Some people prefer to research the background of an argument while others prefer to make things up.
Legion: "I see you prefer pretzel logic to admitting when you are obviously wrong. When Cal admits the First Strawman is garbage, I'm ready to move on and see if the rest of your post holds up."
Yes, I agree that the "defense" you have assembled so far is garbage -- a round and round motte and bailey routine that seems like either an endless stalling routine or preparation for another return to the notion that your task is to rationalize and excuse primitive understanding rather than demonstrate an actually good argument.
Have you clarified what the actual difference is between change and motion in the argument yet? I don't mean in a vague "different for them" kind of way, I mean with simple assignment of semantic values that clarify the terms as they should be understood. Also, going forward, please be clear about what you mean if you are going to use the term "move" (see below):
motion = a change in position
change = ?
move = to move oneself
move = to be moved
move = to move something else
Do you know how fast I could have done all this if I was trying to defend an argument?
Why does it take you so long to do something like just assign semantic values to the terms you are gong to use?
@Legion, btw, I still don't know what you mean by "First Strawman."
Since you seem to think that my criticism of the First Way is somehow NOT my understanding of the First Way, why don't you write out what you think the First Strawman is? Because it seems to me that it's not going to be the same as my criticism has been.
Cal Metzger said...
motion = a change in position
change = ?
move = to move oneself
move = to be moved
move = to move something else
June 03, 2017 7:29 AM
Yes, I have been wondering much the same sort of thing, hence my assertion the First Way is so tersely worded that ambiguities arise. LoL did not agree, thinking meanings are clear.
From http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html "move" appears 27 times in some form
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
motion
move
move
moved
mover
mover
mover
mover
mover
movers
moves
moves
moves
"changes" appears just once.
Indeed, what do all these forms of the word mean exactly?
"Moves" can mean that an object changes position by design even though it is not presently changing position. Or it can mean that an objects imparts motion to something else. Or it can mean that an object moves in the present, and is thus moving right now.
"Moved" is similarly ambiguous. If an object moved it changed position, or it moved something else, or it was moved by something else.
And so on for the other forms...
Indeed, what is "motion"? The First Way defines it as actualizing a potential. It would be a fallacy to infer the converse, that actualizing a potential is therefore necessarily motion.
I think the simplest explanation is to take "move" in all its forms at face value, as we all commonly consider it, to change location relative to some frame of reference.
Trying to read the intent of an author of 700 years past is risky business. Assertions as to what the author must have had in mind are unjustifiably arrogant.
It seems to me that other sorts of change, say change in color, or volume of a puddle would have been very difficult to argue with respect to an infinite versus finite causal series. If a puddle evaporates how does that require a finite causal series or even any apparent external cause at all? Such effects were mysterious at that time.
But motion, the positional change of objects, was indeed "manifest" and "evident to the senses" so I think it likely Aquinas simply chose the sort of change that was manifest and evident as one push leads to another and another and another.
It doesn't much matter for the rest of the argument to fail. On some general notion of change, or change of position, the First Way fails in numerous ways.
@Strawdusty,
Indeed, what do all these forms of the word mean exactly?
Are you really saying you don't understand how the various tenses of a verb work? Or that you don't understand how nouns can be the subject or object in a sentence? Or are you looking for a discussion of how these distinctions are made in Thomist works? Because the way you phrased it I can't tell. Perhaps you understand the various forms of the word the same way as Aquinas.
Indeed, what is "motion"? The First Way defines it as actualizing a potential. It would be a fallacy to infer the converse, that actualizing a potential is therefore necessarily motion.
Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy applying to arguments formed of premises and conclusions. Definitions are not arguments and don't have the form of premises and conclusions. So this fallacy cannot apply to definitions.
I think the simplest explanation is to take "move" in all its forms at face value, as we all commonly consider it, to change location relative to some frame of reference.
Trying to read the intent of an author of 700 years past is risky business. Assertions as to what the author must have had in mind are unjustifiably arrogant.
It certainly is if one doesn't research the historical context and scholarship related to a topic or simply ignores it. But good news for you, Legion has provided that context. There is no need to guess what Aquinas intended when his writings explaining the background are HERE. Books 3-5 go into excruciating detail on the subject of change and motion as well as the notion of 'per se' and how it is distinguished from 'per accidens'. Now of course I don't expect you to read any of that, but I've linked it for Legion and SteveK in case they hadn't found it yet.
bmiller said...
" are you looking for a discussion of how these distinctions are made"
--The usages of the various forms in the argument are ambiguous due to the paucity of words in the argument itself.
"So this fallacy cannot apply to definitions."
--How stupid.
Blue is a color.
thus
All colors are blue.
(can you find the error?)
June 03, 2017 2:22 PM
"A geometric square is defined as a rectangle with all four sides equal"
Works in the reverse too so it's not always a fallacy. You'll have to show us that it actually is a fallacy.
SteveK said...
"A geometric square is defined as a rectangle with all four sides equal"
" Works in the reverse too so it's not always a fallacy. You'll have to show us that it actually is a fallacy."
--Basic logic 101. It's called affirming the consequent.
M therefore C
C
therefore M
(invalid logic)
Motion is only the realization of a potential.
The realization of a potential.
Therefore motion.
(invalid logic)
Motion therefore change (true premise)
Change (valid assertion)
Therefore motion (invalid logic)
June 03, 2017 6:05 PM
@Strawdusty,
Blue is a color.
thus
All colors are blue.
(can you find the error?)
Yes I see the error. You added "All" thus changing the definition from the first example to the second.
Your example should have been:
Blue is a color
A color is blue
Or more precisely:
Blue is a species of color.
A species of color is blue.
--Basic logic 101. It's called affirming the consequent.
M therefore C
C
therefore M
(invalid logic)
In this case you are right, because affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy of arguments. Definitions are not arguments.
@Strawdusty,
--The usages of the various forms in the argument are ambiguous due to the paucity of words in the argument itself.
Here is a succinct version of the argument. Please point out what you consider ambiguous. I can help you.
"Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover."
To clarify, when I posted this:
In this case you are right, because affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy of arguments. Definitions are not arguments.
I was referring to Strawdusty's use of an actual argument to demonstrate the fallacy.
SteveK posted a definition to which the fallacy does not apply.
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
Blue is a color.
thus
All colors are blue.
(can you find the error?)
" Yes I see the error. You added "All" thus changing the definition from the first example to the second."
Motion is said to be realizing a potential.
It does not follow that all cases of realizing a potential are motion.
June 03, 2017 7:55 PM
bmiller said...
" Here is a succinct version of the argument. "
--Those are your words, not the words of Aquinas. Aquinas did such a bad job choosing his words that even you can write points more clearly and unambiguously than he did.
June 03, 2017 8:09 PM
@Strawdusty,
--Those are your words, not the words of Aquinas. Aquinas did such a bad job choosing his words that even you can write points more clearly and unambiguously than he did.
Those are not my words. They were written by Aquinas and are from his Summa Contra Gentiles. Maybe you didn't read the very first response in this thread where it was first posted along with a link to the section in the SCG where it came from.
I'm pleased to see that you now find the argument (from the same author intended for a different audience) more clear and unambiguous.
See. I told you I could help. ☺
@Strawdusty,
Blue is a color.
thus
All colors are blue.
(can you find the error?)
Me:
"Yes I see the error. You added "All" thus changing the definition from the first example to the second.
Your example should have been:
Blue is a color
A color is blue
Or more precisely:
Blue is a species of color.
A species of color is blue."
Motion is said to be realizing a potential.
It does not follow that all cases of realizing a potential are motion.
This just repeats our disagreement. You've added "all" again when it was not in the first statement. This is simply not reversing the order of the subject and predicate of the statement.
But there is more I disagree with. "Motion is said to be realizing a potential" is not an accurate restatement of the AT philosophical position.
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
" They were written by Aquinas and are from his Summa Contra Gentiles. "
--So not the first way.
Here is the First Way. That is the subject of the OP.
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. 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, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
June 03, 2017 9:39 PM
bmiller said...
" This just repeats our disagreement. You've added "all" again when it was not in the first statement. "
--That's the point. It's not in the First Way. The reverse is not in the first way.
Motion is realizing a potential (this is in the First Way)
Realizing a potential is motion (this is not in the First Way)
June 03, 2017 10:06 PM
@Strawdusty,
" They were written by Aquinas and are from his Summa Contra Gentiles. "
--So not the first way.
Here is the First Way. That is the subject of the OP.
Well yes, the original post is the Thomist version from the ST, but that does not mean the version from SCG is not the same argument rephrased.
For evidence one can do a quick google search that will bring you to this Wikipedia article.
Here is the relevant quote:
Five Ways (Aquinas)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also Aquinas' Five Ways and onward links in Existence of God
The Quinque viæ (Latin, usually translated as "Five Ways" or "Five Proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica. They are:
the unmoved mover;
the first cause;
the argument from contingency;
the argument from degree;
the teleological argument ("argument from design").
Aquinas expands the first of these – God as the "unmoved mover" – in his Summa Contra Gentiles.[1] He omitted those arguments he believed to be insufficient, such as the ontological argument due to St. Anselm of Canterbury.
Cal: "Yes, I agree that the "defense" you have assembled so far is garbage"
Like someone with no taste buds criticizing my brand of ketchup, but okay.
Cal: "Have you clarified what the actual difference is between change and motion in the argument yet?"
As has been pointed out since January, the two are functionally equivalent in the First Way.
Yes, Aquinas uses both words, in the First Way and then again in another writing (the two times I know of). I also know that Aquinas plainly stated that neither he nor Aquinas view something becoming hot as physical movement, but rather the category of change they called alteration. And both alteration and physical movement (along with quantitative change) are referred to as motion, and all three are referred to as the actualization of a potential.
So knowing that A-T did not hold burning to be a physical movement sort of change, whatever explanation you come up with as to why Aquinas used both words has to incorporate the fact that all of their categories of motion were described as the actualization of a potential, and only one of those categories was physical movement - which did not include burning.
Cal: "Why does it take you so long to do something like just assign semantic values to the terms you are gong to use?"
Well I've learned that clear definitions and illustrations don't work, so my arsenal is being depleted.
Cal: " btw, I still don't know what you mean by "First Strawman."
Way back in January and February (which was a continuation of the LLL and Aswedenism threads), there was an objection being brought to bear against the First Way which was based upon not understanding the difference between the term "in act" and the meaning of "motion". It turned into "only a thing that is moving can make something move", which is not a premise of the First Way, and then it turned into repeated demands to provide an example of movement that is caused by something stationary. We continuously pointed out that this idea was not a premise of the First Way, but the demands kept coming. I first called the imaginary premise behind this demand the First Strawman on Feb. 16. It has now slightly morphed into wanting an example of change that does not involve physical movement on any level, but it's still the same basic demand for something that the First Way isn't even proposing. Change without movement is not a premise of the First Way.
And I suspect you still don't understand why I keep talking about A-T categories of change. We know for a fact that the First Way is not just a treatise on physical movement, but rather a broader metaphysical argument about the nature of change in general. Thus, the First Way is the same whether or not there are examples of change that have no physical movement. The First Way is the same whether or not general relativity replaced Newtonian physics or whether a possible future grand unified theory replaces general relativity - and this is because the First Way is neither synonymous with nor dependent upon A-T concepts of how things move around or the physical mechanisms behind changes.
Stardusty: "The First Way defines it as actualizing a potential. It would be a fallacy to infer the converse, that actualizing a potential is therefore necessarily motion."
Perhaps, but know what we do know about Aristotle and Aquinas' beliefs?
Aquinas: "That which is being moved is midway between the potential and the actual, being partly in potentia and partly in actu: and this is evident in alteration. For water, when hot in potentia only, is not yet moved or changed. When already hot, the movement of heating is ended. But if it participate of heat imperfectly, it is then moving towards being hot; for that which is becoming hot participates of heat gradually by little and little. Therefore that imperfect act of heat in the thing that is being heated is motion, not as actual only, but inasmuch as, being an act, it has a disposition for a further act, because, if that disposition were taken away, the act, however imperfect, would terminate the motion, instead of being motion, as when anything is incompletely heated. But the disposition for a further act belongs to what is potentially that further act."
Takeaway: Alteration such as water heating or wood burning, which is not physical movement according to A-T, is called motion and is described with act and potency.
Know what else we know about what they believed?
Aquinas: "of the three species of motion -- one according to quantity, which is called increase and decrease, another according to quality, which is called alteration, and another according to place, which is called change of place"
Takeaway: There are three separate categories of changes he lists, all of which are called motion, and only one of which involves local motion.
Know what else they believed?
Aquinas: "Thirdly, he shows that every alteration is preceded by local motion. When anything is altered, there must be something that alters it, making (for instance) actually hot that which before was potentially so."
Takeaway: The burning wood is specifically called NOT an example of local motion.
Your attempt at defining what the First Way is about ignores all of these things, so it is clearly false.
Stardusty: "Trying to read the intent of an author of 700 years past is risky business. Assertions as to what the author must have had in mind are unjustifiably arrogant."
Agreed, so why are you ignoring what they obviously believe in order to make the First Way what you want it to be? For over 1600 posts now (counting other threads) we have been trying to explain what motion was according to A-T, and I and others have been quoting Aristotle and Aquinas, who are the experts on Aristotle and Aquinas respectively, and you are choosing to ignore the original sources. That does seem unjustifiably arrogant.
Quite simply, for 1600 posts we have been clashing over the meaning of the argument. One of our "versions", if you will, is in full accordance with the other writings of Aquinas and Aristotle that show what they believed. The other blatantly contradicts the larger body of writings.
Which to believe?
Legion of Logic said...
" One of our "versions", if you will, is in full accordance with the other writings of Aquinas and Aristotle that show what they believed. The other blatantly contradicts the larger body of writings.
Which to believe?"
--Mine, of course!
But seriously folks..."contradicts" is not accurate, rather "is a subset of" your assertions from other writings made at different times, even by different people.
The fact you bring in so many other writings goes to one of my points, that the First Way itself is so tersely worded as to be ambiguous.
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
The plain reading of those two sentences is that motion is positional change, since positional change is so certain and evident to our senses, whereas the subtler sorts of "motion" imagined by Aristotle and Aquinas are not certain and evident to our senses, requiring a substantial amount of rather dubious argumentation to assert, much less confirm.
Further, even if "motion" is meant in several general senses the argument must still hold up for "motion" meaning positional change. This leads to some further ambiguities as to what sense "moves" and "moved" are employed, again owing to the paucity of words provided.
But, those structural and linguistic defects aside, the rest of the argument fails by begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false premise, and non-sequitur irrespective of the sense in which "move" is defined.
June 04, 2017 11:33 AM
Stardusty: "The plain reading of those two sentences is that motion is positional change, since positional change is so certain and evident to our senses, whereas the subtler sorts of "motion" imagined by Aristotle and Aquinas are not certain and evident to our senses, requiring a substantial amount of rather dubious argumentation to assert, much less confirm."
This contradicts their other writings. Something burning, for example, is highly evident to the senses yet is demonstrably not considered physical movement by them.
Stardusty: "Further, even if "motion" is meant in several general senses the argument must still hold up for "motion" meaning positional change. This leads to some further ambiguities as to what sense "moves" and "moved" are employed, again owing to the paucity of words provided."
I've not seen that it would be harmed even with the modern knowledge of cellular and subatomic movement.
Stardusty: "But, those structural and linguistic defects aside, the rest of the argument fails by begging the question, ad hoc assertion, false premise, and non-sequitur irrespective of the sense in which "move" is defined."
Such has been asserted.
>> "The fact you bring in so many other writings goes to one of my points, that the First Way itself is so tersely worded as to be ambiguous."
I hear physics classes rely heavily on subjects taught and explained elsewhere.
Legion:
The other blatantly contradicts the larger body of writings.
Strawdusty:
But seriously folks..."contradicts" is not accurate
I'm afraid I will have to side with Strawdusty as far as his quote goes.
In order to contradict something, you have to know what it is and then state the opposite. Missing the point completely and making stuff up out of thin air isn't really a contradiction.
Cal: "Have you clarified what the actual difference is between change and motion in the argument yet?"
Legion: “As has been pointed out since January, the two are functionally equivalent in the First Way.”
Except that you’ve confused the issue by subsequently saying that the argument holds that there are other types of change BESIDES motion.
So, on one one hand, you say that with regard to the argument, change = motion (above).
And then subsequently, with regard to the argument motion = subset of change / not all change involves motion (multiple instances below):
Legion: “The point of the First Way is not just a proto-scientific explanation of how things move around. We know this because A-T held that there were types of change that did not involve physical movement, and the First Way covers those types of changes as well.”
Legion: “According to A-T, there were different kinds of change other than physical location change, since atomic movement and things of that nature were impossible to know at the time.”
Legion: "Too bad the First Way isn't an A-T physics argument, as it accounts for all change and not just physical movement."
So, let’s be clear; you have not been clear on this topic. But I will ignore your later writings regarding change and motion, and understand you henceforth be arguing that change = motion wrt to the First Way.
Cal: "Except that you’ve confused the issue by subsequently saying that the argument holds that there are other types of change BESIDES motion."
While it's possible I may have slipped occasionally, I have been careful to use "physical movement" or perhaps "local motion" to describe the change of physical location, rather than "motion". Because "motion" in A-T can refer to any of their categories of change, only one of which is the change in physical location, it muddies the waters to use "motion" to describe the change in physical location in this discussion, since in modern English "motion" has a much more specific connotation in most circumstances.
Cal: "So, let’s be clear; you have not been clear on this topic."
I have been consistent that the A-T term motion is pretty much synonymous with change, and that the modern English definition of motion is only one category of motion in A-T.
Me from January 27: ""Motion" in Aquinas' usage is akin to "change", which can include but is not dependent on the modern usage of the word "motion"."
But yes, as the First Way has examples of two of the categories of motion from A-T thought, there is no evidence it is only about physical change of location.
Legion: “So knowing that A-T did not hold burning to be a physical movement sort of change, whatever explanation you come up with as to why Aquinas used both words has to incorporate the fact that all of their categories of motion were described as the actualization of a potential, and only one of those categories was physical movement - which did not include burning.”
Okay Aquinas didn’t know that burning involves a chemical reaction in which molecules combine (move), and (more oddly) doesn’t seem to allow that burning wood displaces the wood (where’d it go?). But, so long as we understand that arguments are tested against reality, not against the justifiable limitations of prior understanding, then, this is just a curiosity.
Me: "Why does it take you so long to do something like just assign semantic values to the terms you are gong to use?"
Legion: “Well I've learned that clear definitions and illustrations don't work, so my arsenal is being depleted.”
Okay. I will point out that the terms of the argument are, to say the least, vague and very much in need of clarification, and that (per my earlier comment), your attempts to clarify how these terms are to be understood in the argument have extended this problem (change = motion, then change = more than motion).
Legion: “Way back in January and February (which was a continuation of the LLL and Aswedenism threads), there was an objection being brought to bear against the First Way which was based upon not understanding the difference between the term "in act" and the meaning of "motion". It turned into "only a thing that is moving can make something move", which is not a premise of the First Way, and then it turned into repeated demands to provide an example of movement that is caused by something stationary. We continuously pointed out that this idea was not a premise of the First Way, but the demands kept coming. I first called the imaginary premise behind this demand the First Strawman on Feb. 16.”
Hmmm. What you call a strawman is actually a test for soundness.
You really have two choices:
- Either come up with an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move (thus making the premise sound)
or
- Accept that a motionless thing isn’t sufficient to cause another motionless thing to move and incorporate that into your interpretation of what Aquinas intended with the regards to the First Way .
The above isn’t turning the First Way into a strawman — it’s pointing out that what you and the other apologists proposed makes it unsound.
Legion: “It has now slightly morphed into wanting an example of change that does not involve physical movement on any level, but it's still the same basic demand for something that the First Way isn't even proposing. Change without movement is not a premise of the First Way.”
Same problem as above. If you want your premise to be accepted, it has to be acceptable. Normally, an example suffices.
This is not turning the argument into a strawman; it’s pointing out that unsupported premises are unsound, and unsound premises make for bad arguments. This is very simple stuff.
Legion: “And I suspect you still don't understand why I keep talking about A-T categories of change. We know for a fact that the First Way is not just a treatise on physical movement, but rather a broader metaphysical argument about the nature of change in general.”
If the argument wants to be considered a good argument, it must abide by the rules of good argument. Saying that it’s not to be constrained by the rules of good argument (that it need not be sound, because it’s metaphysical, e.g.) is just an attempt to avoid what you said you would do — show how the First Way is actually a good argument.
Good arguments are good because, in part, they are tethered to reality. When your argument seeks to take flight from reality, that’s a sure-fire sign that your argument can’t fufill its obligations to abide by the rules of good argument.
Legion: “Thus, the First Way is the same whether or not there are examples of change that have no physical movement.”
Yes. If it has no examples of what it includes in its premise, then it remains unsound, and it remains a bad argument.
Legion: “The First Way is the same whether or not general relativity replaced Newtonian physics or whether a possible future grand unified theory replaces general relativity - and this is because the First Way is neither synonymous with nor dependent upon A-T concepts of how things move around or the physical mechanisms behind changes.”
If the First Way is in conflict with or takes flight from reality (and reality is more or less accurately described by modern physics), then it relies on premises that are unsound. And arguments with unsound premises are bad arguments.
@Cal,
- Either come up with an example of a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move (thus making the premise sound)
There is no premise in the First Way that states that there is " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move". If you think there is, please quote it.
Yes. If it has no examples of what it includes in its premise, then it remains unsound, and it remains a bad argument.
Of course one could argue that an unmusical man becoming musical involves change of physical location in some sense, but that is not all it involves. This is one reason music theory is not taught in physics courses.
bmller:"There is no premise in the First Way that states that there is " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move". If you think there is, please quote it."
Okay, then you agree that a motionless thing doesn't cause another motionless thing to move.
@Cal,
Okay, then you agree that a motionless thing doesn't cause another motionless thing to move.
No, it simply is not a premise so why discuss it?
Do you agree?
@Cal,
There is a reason that this is not a premise.
Both versions of the argument point out that it is evident that there are at least some things moving. Moving in the present sense. It is motion in the present sense that is the point of the argument, not the beginning or end of that motion.
bmiller said...
" There is no premise in the First Way that states that there is " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move". If you think there is, please quote it."
*Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another*
*Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God*
By the words of Aquinas the first mover must be a motionless thing causing motion in a motionless thing.
The first mover cannot be in motion because whatever is in motion is put in motion by another. All things that are in motion, according to Aquinas, were put in motion by another. But the first mover cannot have been put in motion by another, so must therefore be motionless.
June 05, 2017 7:11 PM
bmller:"There is no premise in the First Way that states that there is " a motionless thing causing another motionless thing to move". If you think there is, please quote it."
Me: "Okay, then you agree that a motionless thing doesn't cause another motionless thing to move."
bmiller: "No, it simply is not a premise so why discuss it?"
then...
bmiller: "There is a reason that this is not a premise."
I know.
@Strawdusty,
The first mover cannot be in motion because whatever is in motion is put in motion by another. All things that are in motion, according to Aquinas, were put in motion by another. But the first mover cannot have been put in motion by another, so must therefore be motionless.
No, all things that are in motion are put in motion by another, present tense, not past tense. Aristotle explains motion as having 3 parts, a terminus of motion being the beginning, a terminus of motion being the end of motion and the motion itself happening between the 2 termini. The explanation can be found at the Commentary on Physics link provided: Book 5 in the vicinity of #642.
This quote is from that particular discussion:
He says therefore (468) that whatever is being moved directly and per se is distinct from the terminus into which the motion tends and from the terminus from which the motion begins, as is evident in these three things: wood, hot and cold. For in the motion called heating, the wood is the mobile subject, whereas the hot which is the terminus into which, is something else, as is the cold, which is the terminus from which.
bmiller said...
" No, all things that are in motion are put in motion by another, present tense, "
--Here again we see how badly worded and ambiguous the First Way is due to its paucity of words.
As detailed June 03, 2017 11:13 AM and elsewhere the tense of the forms of the word "move" are not made clear in the argument itself.
But suppose we use the principle to apply to the moment the the first mover imparted the first motion to the previously motionless thing. At that moment the first mover must have been motionless, because at that moment if the first mover was in motion it would have been put in motion by another, and then not actually the first mover.
Every scenario of sequence for the first mover leads to an irrationality when the entire sequence is carefully analyzed. Apologists then play whack a mole, only looking at one part of the sequence and declaring "see it works!"
I have examined all the possibilities many times above.
1.The first mover was always moving.
2.The first mover was motionless and then began to move.
3.The first mover has always been motionless.
Taken together, these 3 possibilities in combination with the First Way always lead to self contradictions when thoroughly examined against the principles of the first way.
If you want to play whack a mole go to the arcade. If you demonstrate a capacity for a thoroughly rational argument from start to finish of these 3 possibilities against all the principles of the First Way consistently and thoroughly applied I will consider that you might not be the liar I think you are.
Else, go play whack a mole at the arcade.
June 06, 2017 6:00 AM
@Strawdusty,
Every scenario of sequence for the first mover leads to an irrationality when the entire sequence is carefully analyzed. Apologists then play whack a mole, only looking at one part of the sequence and declaring "see it works!"
I have examined all the possibilities many times above.
1.The first mover was always moving.
2.The first mover was motionless and then began to move.
3.The first mover has always been motionless.
It's been your opponents' point all along that you're analyzing an argument different from the First Way.
You've just demonstrated it again as highlighted by the bolded text above. You keep insisting that it is refers to the beginning of motion of some sort while your opponents insist it is not.
That the argument is not about the beginning of motion has been consistently argued and supported with links to scholarly works as well as primary sources. I think you will continue to be frustrated until you can grasp what it means to analyze motion as it exists between it's starting point and ending point, which is the subject of the First Way.
bmiller: "You keep insisting that it is refers to the beginning of motion of some sort while your opponents insist it is not."
Without a beginning frame, there is no motion. Insisting otherwise is like denying existence.
bmiller: "That the argument is not about the beginning of motion has been consistently argued and supported with links to scholarly works as well as primary sources."
You are evidently both a) so stupid that you don't understand that all motion must have a beginning (else there can be no motion), and b) so aggressively gullible that you think that "scholarly works as well as primary sources" could somehow alter this unalterable fact.
All motion must have a beginning. This is an unalterable fact. Unalterable facts are not the subject of scholarly debate. That you would repeat your mistake so many times indicates that you are a kind of moron.
bmiller: "I think you will continue to be frustrated until you can grasp what it means to analyze motion as it exists between it's starting point and ending point, which is the subject of the First Way."
Stupid, gullible, and mendacious. Ah, but you are an apologist. And once again, I repeat myself.
@Cal,
Without a beginning frame, there is no motion. Insisting otherwise is like denying existence.
No one has insisted that motion does not have a beginning. If you think I or anyone else has said anything about motion not having a beginning, then please quote it. It's just that the First Way does not address this question, so it is irrelevant to the First Way.
All motion must have a beginning. This is an unalterable fact. Unalterable facts are not the subject of scholarly debate. That you would repeat your mistake so many times indicates that you are a kind of moron.
The fact that I quoted from the commentary that mentions motion has both a beginning and end as well as the motion between both termimi should alert you to the fact that no one has denied it.
Once more here is the quote:
He says therefore (468) that whatever is being moved directly and per se is distinct from the terminus into which the motion tends and from the terminus from which the motion begins, as is evident in these three things: wood, hot and cold. For in the motion called heating, the wood is the mobile subject, whereas the hot which is the terminus into which, is something else, as is the cold, which is the terminus from which.
The bolded parts show that motion moves from the beginning to the end.
Both the beginning and ending of motion is discussed by Aristotle in great detail and so is motion between the 2 termini. It is the discussion of motion between the 2 termini that the First Way is about.
bmiller: "You keep insisting that [the First Way] refers to the beginning of motion of some sort while your opponents insist it is not."
Me: "Without a beginning frame, there is no motion. Insisting otherwise is like denying existence."
bmille: "No one has insisted that motion does not have a beginning. If you think I or anyone else has said anything about motion not having a beginning, then please quote it. It's just that the First Way does not address this question, so it is irrelevant to the First Way."
Okay. I'll quote you.
bmiller: "You keep insisting that [the First Way] refers to the beginning of motion of some sort while your opponents insist it is not."
@Cal,
I am not following your complaint.
Motion has
1: A beginning
2: A middle
3: An end
A discussion about only 1 does not mean that 2 and 3 don't exist.
A discussion about only 3 does not mean that 1 and 2 don't exist.
A discussion about only 2 does not mean that 1 and 3 don't exist.
You seem to imply that a discussion about only 2 is the same as saying that 1 and 3 don't exist.
Is that right?
bmiller: "You seem to imply that a discussion about only 2 is the same as saying that 1 and 3 don't exist.
Is that right?"
I guess you just can't come to this on your own.
There is no talk of motion from a single reference frames. EVERY discussion about motion entails at least two reference frames. A discussion of motion from a single reference frame is, by definition, incoherent concerning a discussion about motion.
As I've said before, I don't mind ignorance, nor stupidity. But when they're combined with a Dunning-Kruger arrogance I lose all sympathy.
Cal Metzger said...
" All motion must have a beginning. This is an unalterable fact. "
--Yes, as we ordinarily observe objects bouncing off each other. And Aquinas bases his argument on this fact that is "evident to our senses".
Particularly in the days of Aquinas this was apparently true. Ordinary objects were stationary, then were moved by something else, and then stopped. The various assertions in the First Way describe this simple set of observations.
But this does indeed lead to the question of how motion began. There seem to be only 2 choices, at least 1 thing was always moving, or something began to move without being moved by anything else. Both options lead to irrationalities, so this problem, the origin of motion, like the problem of the origin of existence, remains unsolved.
In an effort to solve this problem Aquinas asserts a first mover. but the first mover fails because we must apply the same questions to it.
Suppose:
1.The first mover was always moving.
Then motion can proceed to infinity after all and there is no need for a first mover. This violates the First Way prohibition of motion regressing to infinity.
2.The first mover was motionless and then began to move.
Then something can move itself after all, another violation of the First Way.
3.The first mover has always been motionless.
Not only does this violate the examples of the First Way, but it violates the notion put forth that the realization of a potential is motion. If the universe was motionales and then the first mover moved something in the universe then the first mover was first potentially going to move something and then the first mover actually moved something, and thus satisfies the very definition of change and motion put forth variously here. Thus, to change something else a thing must itself change.
Further, the First Way merely asserts ~I in order to prove U. But U=~I and ~U=I. So to use the premise ~I to prove U is the same as using the premise U to prove U, clearly begging the question.
As for bmiller and his/her disjointed whack a mole sputterings your attribution of the word "mendacious" sums it up.
June 06, 2017 12:51 PM
stardusty: "But this does indeed lead to the question of how motion began. There seem to be only 2 choices, at least 1 thing was always moving, or something began to move without being moved by anything else. Both options lead to irrationalities, so this problem, the origin of motion, like the problem of the origin of existence, remains unsolved."
Why superstitious thinkers can't resolve to this obvious conclusion remains inexplicable.
stardusty: "In an effort to solve this problem Aquinas asserts a first mover. but the first mover fails because we must apply the same questions to it."
Rather than "fail" I'd say doesn't resolve the dilemma. Fail makes it seem as if the first mover is ruled out, and maybe this is a misunderstanding that the superstitious minded have so much trouble processing -- the fact that some questions aren't resolvable in the ways that we currently understand resolution, and that framing a dilemma doesn't mean that a choice can or should be made.
Anyway, it looks like the only one (Legion) who thought he could put forward a real defense eventually has lost the time or inclination to address his assigned task.
@Cal
While you are entitled to your opinion about what can be and cannot be talked about, the fact is that the First Way talks about motion as it exists after it starts and before it ends but does not talk about it's start nor it's end.
The examples from the argument mention fire changing wood, a hand moving a stick and the sun moving in the sky. All of them refer to things happening in the present sense, not the past tense nor the future sense. This is not a point of dispute of scholars who have studied the argument and it's background. I am merely reporting the facts.
You may want to argue that this particular aspect of motion shouldn'/can't be studied and that would actually be addressing the argument as it stands. However, it is not addressing the First Way argument to insist that it discusses either or both of the 2 termini of motion. It simply doesn't.
You may recall early on that defenders of the argument told you and Strawdusty that you were confusing a 'per se' essential series with a 'per accidens' series. This is what they were talking about.
@Legion,
I apologize for the many posts recently, but it seems that if what motion means in the First Way is under dispute, then that must be the first topic in a line by line discussion.
Also, we're at 1600 :-)
Post a Comment