Monday, October 16, 2017

Why Modern Physics does Not Refute Thomistic Philosophy

Here. 

114 comments:

Callum said...

Meh, it was an ok article. Its broad scope meant that little argumentation was given for each point. It was more cursory.

I like this article defending hylemorphism and modern physics; http://www.thomistica.org/problems/material-substance/hylomorphism-and-modern-physics/

Callum said...

Victor, what are you opinions on Thomism?

Stardusty Psyche said...

OP "No, Thomism is not an archaic philosophy in light of modern physics."
--Modern physics includes the concepts of inertia and conservation of matter/energy.

The plain text of the First Way calls for a consideration of a temporal infinite regress, as in a temporal first cause argument such as the Kalum. However, Feser and other Thomists will tell you that what Aquinas very cryptically meant was that there must be a first mover in the present moment, not only to sustain motion but to sustain material existence itself.

Those absurd notions are quickly dispensed with among rational thinkers.

To persist in uniform motion is no change in matter/energy and therefore calls for no mover at all, much less a consideration of a long regress of movers that cannot go on to infinity and therefore must reach a terminus in the first mover. This was expressed by Newton as he built upon Galileo in what we now call "inertia".

To persist in existence is no change in matter/energy and therefore calls for no changer at all, much less a consideration of a long regress of changers that cannot go on to infinity and therefore must reach a terminus in the first changer. This is known as "conservation of matter/energy" expressed in many ways, perhaps most famously by Einstein with E=mcc.

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

Poor boy. It's been almost a year and you still cannot tell the difference between the First Way and the Kalaam argument.

Rational thinkers know the difference.

Victor Reppert said...

One of my closest friends, before he passed away in 1989, was a Thomist by the name of Joe Sheffer who had a plan to use Thomistic concepts in computer programming. But I myself don't work within a Thomistic framework myself. But he was an intellectual giant, and how one follows a great one is an interesting problem.

Keith Barracks said...

I can understand that your tired of his seemingly long stretch of nothing into nothing, but that remark was uncalled for.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Victor Reppert said.. October 16, 2017 11:48 PM.

" One of my closest friends, before he passed away in 1989, was a Thomist by the name of Joe Sheffer who had a plan to use Thomistic concepts in computer programming."
--??? Aquinas makes arguments laden with logical errors, anti-scientific assertions, and obsolete notions of causality. I shudder to think of a computer run amok with Thomistic programming.

"But he was an intellectual giant, and how one follows a great one is an interesting problem. "
--He was a close friend so I can imagine that he had many fine qualities as a human being, but Thomistic computer programming? I must say, I have never heard of or considered such a thing in the slightest.

A google search did not return much on the subject. This article linked the two but only in a very tenuous way. The programmer used ordinary languages but seemed to feel a sort of spiritual guidance in approach to the overall process.
http://www.loydfueston.com/?p=152

Joe Hinman said...

--??? Aquinas makes arguments laden with logical errors, anti-scientific assertions, and obsolete notions of causality. I shudder to think of a computer run amok with Thomistic programming.

my impression is that the advancements in logic tend toward the notion that logic is reality and not some kind of absolute set of universal truths but a diversity of relative assumptions,thus the assertion that Thomism is an obsolete set of logical assumptions is merely contextual.

Joe Hinman said...

The plain text of the First Way calls for a consideration of a temporal infinite regress, as in a temporal first cause argument such as the Kalum. However, Feser and other Thomists will tell you that what Aquinas very cryptically meant was that there must be a first mover in the present moment, not only to sustain motion but to sustain material existence itself.


that is not based upon his logic, it's obsolete because he's using Aristotelian physics,also the idea that Aquinas may make mistakes in logic of a given argument is not proof that his system of logic is no good,

bmiller said...

@Joe,

it's obsolete because he's using Aristotelian physics

Actually the First Way is valid under both classical and modern physics.
Strawdusty sees no difference between the question of "what is the ultimate source of a man moving a stick?" and "what caused the Big Bang?"

bmiller said...

@Victor,

One of my closest friends, before he passed away in 1989, was a Thomist by the name of Joe Sheffer who had a plan to use Thomistic concepts in computer programming.

Most programming today is based on Object Oriented Programming. If you have a background in Plato and Aristotle, the concepts of classes, objects, instantiation, inheritance and so on used in OOP would already be familiar to you. I wonder is he planned on implementing even more AT concepts into it. That's and interesting idea.

Joe Hinman said...


bmiller says

Actually the First Way is valid under both classical and modern physics.
Strawdusty sees no difference between the question of "what is the ultimate source of a man moving a stick?" and "what caused the Big Bang?"

Back in college days friend atheists,not internet atheists (before the net existed) always attacked that one with garnets from physics,I think If I remember correctly.

btw here is an article on Metacorck's blog about causation my by God arguments based upo mystical expereie, that artument started with the atheist "I am skeptical"


here

Joe Hinman said...

On first way motion right, motion begins from big bag, modern physics, zap! now the Christian will say:what started the BB?" But that means the real argument is about the BB and not motion per se.

bmiller said...

@Joe,

On first way motion right, motion begins from big bag,

No. The First Way addresses what is presently causing a particular motion right now.

See #6 regarding that common misconception of the First Way

Especially this part:
When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said.. October 18, 2017 3:12 AM.
" On first way motion right, motion begins from big bag, modern physics, zap! now the Christian will say:what started the BB?" But that means the real argument is about the BB and not motion per se."
--Joe, you are only reading the plain text of the First Way, so of course you read it as an argument against an infinite temporal regress, because that is what the plain text clearly expresses.

That is why you, a long time Christian blogger, read the First Way like nearly everybody reads the First Way, on its plain text meaning of an argument against an infinite temporal regress of causes.

But Feser and his sycophants have a truly bizarre interpretation to help "correct" your "misunderstanding" of the First Way. Bmiller has gotten to the root of it for you:
What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment,

Here we see the profound ignorance of basic physics and logic that is so manifest in the Thomistic "thinker".

If X persists in existence then later it is still X. X=X. X has not changed. X has stayed the same. To "keep X in existence" means to not change X. This is called conservation of mass/energy.

For the Thomistic "thinker" this somehow calls for a "mover", which the Thomist will quickly tell you means "changer". The Thomist imagines that to account for no change a changer is called for!!!

Seriously folks, whole populations of people actually read and even write books about this and it somehow makes sense them.

To account for X not changing the Thomist insists there must be a changer in the present. So a changer in the present must be continuously changing things so they remain unchanged, the Thomistic "thinker" effectively asserts.

But wait, it gets even more bizarre. One changer to account for no change is not enough for the Thomist, oh no, he imagines a regress of changers who change things. Since this regress is said to not lead to infinity there must be a first changer, this pretzel logic asserts.

So, Feser and his sycophants assert the first changer is continuously changing things that change other things that change other things all in this present moment until we arrive at the thing that is not changing, X as it keeps in existence as X.

So, Joe, you got that all straight now?


bmiller said...

@Joe,

Of course you may have noticed that Strawdusty generally doesn't understand what he's talking about, so it won't surprise you that he misunderstands this too.

So when he asserts things like this:"to account for no change a changer is called for" and this " So a changer in the present must be continuously changing things so they remain unchanged," he is merely demonstrating his own misunderstanding. We've been explaining it to him for almost a year that this is wrong, but, well you know how he is.


This is an especially weird remark and I can't figure out how he comes up with it:
"But wait, it gets even more bizarre. One changer to account for no change is not enough for the Thomist, oh no, he imagines a regress of changers who change things. Since this regress is said to not lead to infinity there must be a first changer, this pretzel logic asserts."

The First Way is basically saying that existing material objects can't move themselves. So if you see one moving, it must ultimately be moved by something that is not itself an existing moving material object. Doesn't matter if that Unmoved Mover is moving it directly or moving it by means of another existing moving material object.

It's really not that difficult

"[3] Of these ways the first is as follows. 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."

Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller said...

@Joe,

" Of course you may have noticed that Strawdusty generally doesn't understand what he's talking about"
--Joe interpreted the First Way the same way most people do, as an argument against a temporal regress of causes that goes back to an infinite past, therefore there must be a first cause, or first mover, or first changer that acted in the distant past.

You correctly quoted Feser:
"What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment,"

When things stay the same then things don't change. To keep things in existence at every moment is no change and calls for no changer at all, much less a first changer.

Feser has it back to front.

Joe Hinman said...


No bmiller current motion isn't a basis for a God argent, lots of things cause motion not the point.

I know the things Feser says,I argue the same all the time when i argue against atheists, I do think the CA is Kalaam. there more CA's than you can shake a stick at and the first way is not strictly speaking the CA. Or should say not the only version.

Joe Hinman said...

tardusty Psyche said...
bmiller said...

@Joe,

" Of course you may have noticed that Strawdusty generally doesn't understand what he's talking about"
--Joe interpreted the First Way the same way most people do, as an argument against a temporal regress of causes that goes back to an infinite past, therefore there must be a first cause, or first mover, or first changer that acted in the distant past.

nope you misunderstood that's not what I think it means,I think the first way is abouit motion, why are things movig?

You correctly quoted Feser:
"What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment,"

When things stay the same then things don't change. To keep things in existence at every moment is no change and calls for no changer at all, much less a first changer.

yes but the BB does account for motion as well as cause--it beg expansion and all things change,I was actually talking about the directions arguments take

Feser has it back to front.

hu?

October 19, 2017 4:31 AM

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

SP Feser has it back to front.

" hu?"
--Feser says a changer is called for to account for the "cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment,"

Just the opposite is true. Feser has it backwards. He has it reversed.

To keep something in existence at this moment is no change, and calls for no changer.

To cause a thing to cease to exist is a change and calls for a changer.

Feser says the thing that calls for no changer, keeping things in existence, calls for a changer.

Feser's postion is that without a changer things would cease to exist, but to cease to exist is what calls for a changer because to cease to exist is a change.

Feser has it backwards. Continued existence is not a change and so calls for no changer, but Feser calls for a changer in this case.

To cease to exist would be a change and would thus call for a changer, but Feser says that absent a changer things would cease to exist.

Joe Hinman said...

here is one version of the first way of course this is distilled by a modern writer. I still take to be a valid interpretation of the first way.


St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2016 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


That's the version I argued, it is about actual motion why do things move,I think. In college various friends would say:the big makes things move." In addition to furnishing cause, then argue about why is there a big bang,my point was modern thinkers will always gravitate toward arguing about modern physics.

Joe Hinman said...

Dusty

Feser says the thing that calls for no changer, keeping things in existence, calls for a changer.

Feser's postion is that without a changer things would cease to exist, but to cease to exist is what calls for a changer because to cease to exist is a change.

Feser has it backwards. Continued existence is not a change and so calls for no changer, but Feser calls for a changer in this case.

(1) are you saying Feser doesn't understand Aquinas? or that Aquinas thinks that too?

(2)that's an old tradition in European philosophy, especially reflected by existentialist and phenomenological philosophers such as Sartre and Tillich. Which is not to say they are right. But everything we know does tend toward decay.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

SP Feser has it backwards. Continued existence is not a change and so calls for no changer, but Feser calls for a changer in this case.

" (1) are you saying Feser doesn't understand Aquinas? or that Aquinas thinks that too?"
--Good question. Nearly everybody takes the argument as you quoted above. This is basically the same as the Kalam, an argument against an infinite regression of motion over time, thus a first mover acted to impart original motion to the universe in the distant past.

However, researchers who study the whole body of work, particular translators from Latin say it is actually an argument in the present moment.

Conservation of mass/energy was not a well formed concept 700 years ago. Even to this day many people simply have the impression that objects would just disappear from existence or perhaps collapse into a tiny pile of stuff if it were not for a divine being holding them up, as it were. Feser puts this view into explicit terms that are actually anti-scientific and completely irrational.

bmiller said...

@Joe,

No bmiller current motion isn't a basis for a God argent, lots of things cause motion not the point.

Current motion is indeed the basis of the First Way.
Watching a series of train cars moving at any particular moment is a common analogy. Each car is pulling the one behind, but none have the ability to move themselves, so there must be a first mover of that series, the locomotive.

If you examine those "lots of things" causing motion closely, you will find none of them can move themselves primarily (since they are existing material things made of parts).

The motion being referred to are all the possible changes that a thing can undergo and still remain the same thing. Today we would call those things an object's properties.

All existing material objects are changing until they cease to exist.

SteveK said...

This 8 minute video explains the basics of the First Way. It's not the cosmological argument. It's not about origins.

If you can't understand the basics then you need to educate yourself.

SteveK said...

Dusty
"Feser says a changer is called for to account for the "cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment,""

Here's where you're wrong. Feser doesn't say this because he thinks this is part of the First Way argument. It's not, so you can stop arguing that it is. Feser says this because it's part of the THIRD WAY argument.

This 3 minute video explains the basics of the Third Way.

Stardusty Psyche said...

SteveK said.. October 19, 2017 4:40 PM .

" This 8 minute video explains the basics of the First Way. It's not the cosmological argument. It's not about origins.

If you can't understand the basics then you need to educate yourself."
--The video is a muddled blubbering of pre-scientific nonsense.

The closest the commentator gets to anything valuable is to consider the train or the biological motor system. Of course he fails, as all A-T proponents fail, to follow through to a scientific analysis of regressing models below the level of subatomic particles to the level of fundamental physics.

It would be laughable if the ignorance displayed by the commentator were not taken so seriously by so many.

He persists in calling clearly temporal processes, such as a locomotive engine powering a train or a biological motor system, "essential" series "now". This stems from the inability of the typical A-T thinker to analyze a system on a timescale of a fraction of a second.

Science has moved beyond such limitations. Periods as short as 10^-30 second are under some circumstances considered to be and epoch or an era in modern science. The notion of an "essential" series is illusory, with every causal series an "accidental" causal series.

The regression in scale the commentator begins is not a causal series, rather, a regression of human abstractions, as series approximation models that are each explained in terms of the properties of smaller constituents on the next level of modeling, until we arrive at the true terminus of this analysis, fundamental physics.

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger SteveK said..
October 19, 2017 4:52 PM.

Dusty
"Feser says a changer is called for to account for the "cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment,""

" Here's where you're wrong."
--Don't be ridiculous, that is what Feser says. That is a direct quote from his own blog

" Feser doesn't say this because he thinks this is part of the First Way argument. "
--I didn't say he justifies that statement with the arguments of the First Way, I said that is a description of what is meant in the First Way by a first mover.

"It's not, so you can stop arguing that it is."
--I didn't. Learn how to read at least well enough to not misrepresent my words.

" This 3 minute video explains the basics of the Third Way."
--The commentator manages to at least get as far as an up quark. But, being an A-T guy he must go irrational from there.

He acknowledges that matter could be an essential being, but then he assumes for some reason a quark cannot be essential. Why he contradicts himself in this way is baffling, but it seems to be a psychological defect of some sort common among all A-T thinkers.

If matter can be essential then some sort(s) of matter can be the essential sort and an up quark might be that sort, or if not then perhaps a string is that sort or a quantum field is that sort. As Feser says "whatever that turns out to be".

There is your first "cause" or first "mover", in the words of Feser "whatever that turns out to be".

Then the commentator skips the last sentence in the Third Way. He just ignores it completely, you know, the one where Aquinas commits several logical fallacies and fails to argue for god at all.

SteveK said...

Dusty
>> "He persists in calling clearly temporal processes, such as a locomotive engine powering a train or a biological motor system, "essential" series "now". This stems from the inability of the typical A-T thinker to analyze a system on a timescale of a fraction of a second."

LOL. This can be shown to be nonsense when we analyze an accidental series on that same fraction of a second timescale.

The son can always move on his own without the father on any time scale you can imagine. The train is different. Without the mechanisms of the train, the train cannot not move. The father is accidental. The mechanisms of the train are essential.

You've learned nothing in nearly one year. That takes work.

SteveK said...

Dusty
>> I didn't say he justifies that statement with the arguments of the First Way, I said that is a description of what is meant in the First Way by a first mover.

Oh, but you did. Not here though. I can find many examples where you think the First Way argument itself argues for this and other things.

biller: "The First Way formally demonstrates that an unchanged changer exists through observation and logic. It just so happens that this being fits as part of the definition of God. You want to claim that the epilogue is a non-sequitur but I’ve shown you how it is relevant to the topic, audience and intent of instruction"

Dusty: "It is relevant because it is a non-seqitur that seeks to fulfill the stated intent of the argument, which is to demonstrate that god is (exists)."

Dusty: "Finally, whatever the audience of Aquinas may have been in the 13th century the last statement is simply false, because I am somebody and I do not understand this to be god."

David Brightly said...

We have been here before, many times, and it's getting tedious. One way of breaking the deadlock without plumping for one side or the other is to note that Thomism and contemporary physics are about rather different things. The former is a theory of the world as filtered through the human mind; the latter a theory of the world as filtered through scientific instruments. For the former the notion of cause is basic; the latter gets by very well without it. We can accept that physics doesn't refute Thomism, though perhaps not for the reasons given in the linked article. But conversely, the claims of contemporary Thomism to 'regulate' physics are empty.

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger David Brightly said...

" We can accept that physics doesn't refute Thomism,"
--I suppose you have what you consider to be some sort of admirable compatibility view.

A-T is anti-scientific. Modern science and A-T are diametrically opposed. It is impossible to reconcile modern science with A-T. A-T and modern science are utterly incompatible.

To assert otherwise is a disservice to the intellectual and scientific advancement of humanity. A-T is a drag on the intellectual and scientific advancement of humanity, as is creationism, Mormonism, Scientology, and most especially that putrid debauchery that is Islam.

grodrigues said...

@David Brightly:

"One way of breaking the deadlock without plumping for one side or the other is to note that Thomism and contemporary physics are about rather different things."

There is no deadlock here (I will refrain to qualify the nothing that is). Thomists have always said that physics, contemporary or not, cannot ever refute Thomistic metaphysics (just as it cannot refute idealism, property dualism, physicalism or what have you), in part precisely because of what you say, they are talking about different things. But the story is a tad more complicated, because there is a hierarchy in the human knowledge, and just as there is a sense in which mathematics is more fundamental than physics, so there is a sense in which metaphysics is more fundamental than physics.

SteveK said...

Dusty: "A-T and modern science are utterly incompatible."

The takeaway here is that when a person hasn't grasped the BASICS of a particular subject, that persons comments on the subject can be ignored.

Stardusty Psyche said...

grodrigues said..
October 20, 2017 3:30 AM.

@David Brightly:

"One way of breaking the deadlock without plumping for one side or the other is to note that Thomism and contemporary physics are about rather different things."

" There is no deadlock here (I will refrain to qualify the nothing that is). Thomists have always said that physics, contemporary or not, cannot ever refute Thomistic metaphysics"
--They are wrong.

There is no such thing as an "essential" causal series of motions. Scientific analysis refutes the notion of an "essential" causal series of motions as shallow pre-scientific mythology.

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said...

SP Feser has it backwards. Continued existence is not a change and so calls for no changer, but Feser calls for a changer in this case.

" (1) are you saying Feser doesn't understand Aquinas? or that Aquinas thinks that too?"
--Good question. Nearly everybody takes the argument as you quoted above. This is basically the same as the Kalam, an argument against an infinite regression of motion over time, thus a first mover acted to impart original motion to the universe in the distant past.

No actually it's very different fro Kalaam. Kalaam goes by cause of all while the Aq. 1 way is about an effect, litter motion. If everything in the universe, was inert and never moved you could still make the Kalaam argumemt but not the Aquinas 1st way.

However, researchers who study the whole body of work, particular translators from Latin say it is actually an argument in the present moment.

Conservation of mass/energy was not a well formed concept 700 years ago. Even to this day many people simply have the impression that objects would just disappear from existence or perhaps collapse into a tiny pile of stuff if it were not for a divine being holding them up, as it were. Feser puts this view into explicit terms that are actually anti-scientific and completely irrational.

well theoretically if the strong force let go everything would cease to be. It was start disolving at the quantum level

Joe Hinman said...

" We can accept that physics doesn't refute Thomism,"
--I suppose you have what you consider to be some sort of admirable compatibility view.

A-T is anti-scientific. Modern science and A-T are diametrically opposed. It is impossible to reconcile modern science with A-T. A-T and modern science are utterly incompatible.

To assert otherwise is a disservice to the intellectual and scientific advancement of humanity. A-T is a drag on the intellectual and scientific advancement of humanity, as is creationism, Mormonism, Scientology, and most especially that putrid debauchery that is Islam.

scientists think in terms very immemorial to Aristotelian modes of causation when they talk about proximate distal cause; what exactly does Thomism say that would retard the development of science?

Stardusty Psyche said...

SteveK said.. October 20, 2017 7:40 AM.

Dusty: "A-T and modern science are utterly incompatible."

" The takeaway here is that when a person hasn't grasped the BASICS of a particular subject, that persons comments on the subject can be ignored."
--Here are a few basics for you. If you cannot grasp them you should be ignored.

Every causal series of motions takes time. Causal influences propagate no faster than c, classically, in what is called a light cone. Since every causal series of motions is temporal they are all "accidental" and none are "essential".

If you wish to consider the word "cause" in the more general sense of "explanation" then there is a regress of human abstractions such as object, molecule, atom, particle, fundamental physics (whatever that turns out to be). There is no call for a regress that goes on and on and on and this is not a causal regress in the sense of a mover that moves things. This is a regress of abstractions, a regress of models, and it terminates at fundamental physics.

To persist in existence of matter is no change. No change calls for no changer, not a regress of changers terminating in a first changer, rather, no changer at all. This is called conservation of mass/energy.

To persist in existence of form is no change. No change calls for no changer, not a first changer. If you wish to seek out the explanation for the form then we employ a regression of models, which are abstractions, and terminate at fundamental physics, not a fantasy of a divine being that nudges every particle in the universe along from moment to moment.

Every example of supposed "essential" series is in fact an "accidental" series when scientifically analyzed in submicroscopic detail. To consider direct contact between atoms in a particular moment the system terminates with the space between molecules in the air, in between which there is no direct contact in a particular moment. Thus the number of elements in this analysis of direct contact in the moment is finite, calling for no first mover.

A-T is similar to young earth creationism in that it is based on ancient mythology and is perpetuated by religiously motivated ignorance. Both A-T and YEC drag humanity down like anchors in a muck of ignorance.

grodrigues said...

@SteveK:

"The takeaway here is that when a person hasn't grasped the BASICS of a particular subject, that persons comments on the subject can be ignored."

By this point, this is just laboring the obvious.

SteveK said...

Dusty
>> "Since every causal series of motions is temporal they are all "accidental" and none are "essential".

And yet the obvious fact is the father isn't essential to the motion of the son, but the mechanism is essential to the motion of the train. Thus proving you are wrong.

I think this has been pointed out to you at least a dozen times, maybe more.

Fortunately I enjoy pointing it out repeatedly if only to publicly embarrass you in the hope that you'll one day learn something.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "Both A-T and YEC drag humanity down like anchors in a muck of ignorance."

In precisely what way is humanity dragged down by these? There must be a specific negative effect you have in mind, perhaps a blocked medical advance or an economic hurdle or violence in their name, etc.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "Both A-T and YEC drag humanity down like anchors in a muck of ignorance."

" In precisely what way is humanity dragged down by these?"
--The drag of perpetuated ignorance.

" There must be a specific negative effect you have in mind, perhaps a blocked medical advance or an economic hurdle or violence in their name, etc."
--No, there need not be a particular event that has been identifiably blacked to assert that perpetuated ignorance is a drag on humanity. Consider the paucity of contributions the Islamic world has made in the last 500 years. When whole populations are taught that ancient religious books answer scientific and analytical questions it deadens the progress of that population.

There are important social reasons to push back against the false assertions of A-T and YEC, especially in our schools, but importantly wherever these ancient myths are perpetuated.

Stardusty Psyche said...

SteveK said.. October 20, 2017 9:20 AM.

Dusty
>> "Since every causal series of motions is temporal they are all "accidental" and none are "essential".

" And yet the obvious fact is the father isn't essential to the motion of the son, but the mechanism is essential to the motion of the train. "
--Air and fuel are moved into and out of the cylinders of the train in a temporal process, which is not "essential".

Each molecule of air is just like the father, it causes its effect and after that its fate is irrelevant to future events in the ongoing temporal process.

At any particular moment we can consider the molecules in contact with the piston. Regressing from there is space, the space between the molecules of air in the cylinder, thus terminating the regress of atoms on contact with each other, making that number finite, and not calling for a first mover.

Your "analysis" is simplistic, naked eye, and hopelessly incomplete, therefore anti-scientific, as A-T is to its core.

Joe Hinman said...

--No, there need not be a particular event that has been identifiably blacked to assert that perpetuated ignorance is a drag on humanity. Consider the paucity of contributions the Islamic world has made in the last 500 years. When whole populations are taught that ancient religious books answer scientific and analytical questions it deadens the progress of that population.

There are important social reasons to push back against the false assertions of A-T and YEC, especially in our schools, but importantly wherever these ancient myths are perpetuated.

you have to point to something for a reason, you are just using the yea-boo theory,I don't lke God,therefore, belief in God is dragging us down,

SteveK said...

Dusty,
>> Each molecule of air is just like the father, it causes its effect and after that its fate is irrelevant to future events in the ongoing temporal process.

The molecule of air is essential to its effect. Hey look, you just said Aquinas is correct.

Given the existence of the train, the effect of the molecule is necessary to produce the motion of the train. By contrast - given the existence of the son, the effect of the father is NOT necessary to produce the motion of the son.

At some point the embarrassment will hit you.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said.. October 20, 2017 10:32 AM.

" you have to point to something for a reason, you are just using the yea-boo theory,I don't lke God,therefore, belief in God is dragging us down,"
--You are using the strawman theory, assign to me words I did not utter.

Learn how to have a conversation.

Stardusty Psyche said...

SteveK said...

Dusty,
>> Each molecule of air is just like the father, it causes its effect and after that its fate is irrelevant to future events in the ongoing temporal process.

" The molecule of air is essential to its effect."
--In the same sense as the father produced an effect at some time in the past.

" Given the existence of the train, the effect of the molecule is necessary to produce the motion of the train."
--Then it is gone, just like the father.

" By contrast - given the existence of the son, the effect of the father is NOT necessary to produce the motion of the son."
--Just like the molecule that is gone and is not necessary to further effects.

Each individual molecule is just like the father. If the father is part of an "accidental" series then so is each individual molecule of air.

SteveK said...

*facepalm*

>> "Then it is gone, just like the father."

Notice the father is not, at any time, used to move the existing son whereas the molecule is used to move the existing train. Are you truly this dense?

Stardusty Psyche said...

"Notice the father is not, at any time, used to move the existing son whereas the molecule is used to move the existing train."
--The father moves the existing mother, who in turn moves a son.

The air molecule moves a piston, which in turn moves parts of the train which in turn move molecules that were not a part of the train at the time the air molecule moved the piston.

Both are examples of a temporal and thus "accidental" series.

I had never encountered an "engineer" who so stubbornly insists on a shallow simplistic analysis when so frequently led to a detailed scientific analysis. Every mechanical engineer I have worked with employs finite element analysis and detailed modeling techniques in their design work. In fluid dynamics the specifics of flow are studied at the minute element level. Forces are modeled not as ridged bodies but with realistic models of mass-spring-damper characteristics in a dynamic process.

With your level of analysis I suppose you could design a simple metal box, or a non-optimized casting or something very basic. You could certainly never design any dynamic optimized mechanical system using your level of analysis.

You did not advance beyond introductory statics diagrams. When you learn how to analyze mechanical systems using the modern tools of science and computerized engineering you will be able to move beyond your sophomoric concepts of mechanical systems.

SteveK said...

The *existing* son
The *existing* train

The son doesn’t exist in your example. It’s not the same kind of series. Again you’re proving Aquinas correct.

Stardusty Psyche said...

SteveK said...

The *existing* son
The *existing* train

" The son doesn’t exist in your example."
--The matter of the son exists at the time of the father's causal influence but has not yet come in contact with the mother, or at least most of the matter is not yet in contact with the mother.

The matter of the tracks and the air exist at the time the molecule impacts the piston, but have not yet come in contact with the train. (Recall that the effect does not end at the caboose, rather, all the energy of combustion is transferred off the train as heat, vibration, air flow, and radiation).

Both are temporal processes.

But even supposing there were some idealized notion of direct contact all the way from the molecule hitting the piston to the caboose, so what? How does that call for a divine first mover?

Work backwards from the caboose, to the next car and next, the motor, generator, crankshaft, piston, molecule touching the piston, end.

That's it. The next thing is space. no further contact. Even ignoring all the dynamic realities of a train and sophomorically considering it as a statics model the "series" starts at the molecule and ends at the caboose, that's it. No call for anything more in the present moment. That is a finite number of objects, so no consideration of an impossible infinite and no call for a first mover, just a bunch of atoms.

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said.. October 20, 2017 10:32 AM.

" you have to point to something for a reason, you are just using the yea-boo theory,I don't lke God,therefore, belief in God is dragging us down,"
--You are using the strawman theory, assign to me words I did not utter.

the problem is what you did not say like an argument

Learn how to have a conversation.

Learn what a straw man is because that's not one

Joe Hinman said...

Dusty when you make a claim,like X is dragging us down: you must prove it. Asserting that it's proven because it's your opinion is not argument, pouting that out is not a straw man,

SteveK said...

>> "The matter of the son exists at the time of the father's causal influence but has not yet come in contact with the mother, or at least most of the matter is not yet in contact with the mother."

That's a different series. In my example the train and the son exist, and are then caused to move. Same with hand/stick/rock series - they all exist and are then moved.

Are you embarrassed yet? You should be.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "No, there need not be a particular event that has been identifiably blacked to assert that perpetuated ignorance is a drag on humanity."

In other words, real-world effects need not be present for there to be a "drag on humanity". It seems, with there being no evidence that YEC or A-T beliefs cause actual harm to humanity, that this is an appropriate time to quote Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence..."

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said.. October 20, 2017 1:17 PM.

Stardusty: "No, there need not be a particular event that has been identifiably blacked to assert that perpetuated ignorance is a drag on humanity."

" In other words, real-world effects need not be present for there to be a "drag on humanity"."
--Those are indeed words other than what I expressed. You and Joe are on a roll with the strawman method.

I said "particular event that has been identifiably blocked". Do you understand the meaning of that phrase?

Stardusty Psyche said...

SteveK said..
October 20, 2017 1:17 PM.

>> "The matter of the son exists at the time of the father's causal influence but has not yet come in contact with the mother, or at least most of the matter is not yet in contact with the mother."

" That's a different series."
--So what? Different accidental series details are different.

" In my example the train and the son exist, and are then caused to move. Same with hand/stick/rock series - they all exist and are then moved."
--And they are accidental because they consist of temporal elements.

" Are you embarrassed yet? You should be."
--Am am embarrassed for you. I wince at the ongoing ignorance of your posts. Learn how to think.

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

--And they are accidental because they consist of temporal elements.

This is a basic misunderstanding of yours. Yes, of course anything that is moving is moving in time.
But a man moving a stick in time involves only the man, the stick, and anything else that we discover existing during the time of this movement involved in this movement.

Most people I know would consider the propoition that ancient deceased relatives that procreated throughout the course of human history are all now physically applying a "particular amount" of force to the movement of that stick as anti-scientific. Do you?

So either :ancient deceased relatives that procreated throughout the course of human history are all now physically applying a "particular amount" of force to the movement of that stick

Or they are not.

I maintain that they are not.

If I am right, then the question is "what is causing the motion of man moving the stick" boils down to what exists during this time (1 second max maybe?) that could be causing it?
If all the existing material things involved in this movement are all incapable of self-movement then there must be something that is extra-material involved.
But of course for materialists, this is a stumblng block.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty,

Unless you can explain precisely how YEC and A-T are dragging down humanity, then my characterization of your position as a baseless assertion looks to be spot-on. That's why I asked for clarification, so you can demonstrate there is something of substance that can be considered or discussed. Can you do that?

Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller said...

" But a man moving a stick in time involves only the man, the stick, and anything else that we discover existing during the time of this movement involved in this movement."
--Ok, ignoring for the moment the fact that the man/stick/rock system is actually a vastly complex system of dynamic elements that interact temporally let's just go along with your simplified model of the man/stick/rock as a rigid link system such that an application of force inside the man is instantaneously transmitted to the rock. That isn't true, of course, but just as an approximate analytical model let's suppose that is how causal effects propagate.

The rock is moved
The stick moved the rock
The hand moved the stick
The heart pumped the blood
The lungs breathed the air
The brain sent the signal
Done.

" a man moving a stick in time involves only the man, the stick, and anything else that we discover existing"
--Ok, on our simplified rigid model, supposing for the moment that is true. We have done our causal regression analysis starting at the rock and working backwards to the internal organs of the man. Done.

We discover nothing more existing that is in direct rigid contact in this simplified model system.

We are done. No further causes are called for, on this rigid body model.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty,

" Unless you can explain precisely how YEC and A-T are dragging down humanity, "
--I did that by example, perhaps you missed it, tut tut, shame on you for not hanging on my every word...

" Consider the paucity of contributions the Islamic world has made in the last 500 years. When whole populations are taught that ancient religious books answer scientific and analytical questions it deadens the progress of that population."
October 20, 2017 9:56 AM

By analogy it's like malnourishing a person by feeding them food that satisfies their feeling of hunger but in fact lacks vital nutrients, such as vitamin C, leading to scurvy.

"can demonstrate there is something of substance that can be considered or discussed. Can you do that?"
--Actually it's not my primary point. If you wish to think that teaching nonsense is perfectly OK and has no negative social impacts that is up to you.

SteveK said...

Me: "That's a different series."
Dusty: "--So what?"

That's a really, really good question. Let me give you a few answers.

1) Aquinas is correct and you are wrong
2) You were wrong to think the father caused the son to move
3) You are being anti-scientific when you do that
4) You've learned nothing the past 10 months
5) You ought to be embarrassed

Dusty: "The brain sent the signal. Done"

6) Brains don't move themselves. You're not done being embarrassed.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "Consider the paucity of contributions the Islamic world has made in the last 500 years. When whole populations are taught that ancient religious books answer scientific and analytical questions it deadens the progress of that population"

Doesn't seem to apply to Christianity or the United States, so I'm going to remain skeptical that there's a link between A-T thought and the backward Islamic world.


Stardusty: "Actually it's not my primary point."

That's good.


Stardusty: "
If you wish to think that teaching nonsense is perfectly OK and has no negative social impacts that is up to you."

Depends on who is defining what is and is not nonsense.

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

We are done. No further causes are called for, on this rigid body model.

Are the internal organs of the man in motion? Are they moving themselves?
Have you ever seen a heart on a table moving itself? I haven't.

Inanimate material objects cannot move themselves according to science. If you disagree, then you disagree with science.

Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty, We are done. No further causes are called for, on this rigid body model.

" Are the internal organs of the man in motion? Are they moving themselves?
Have you ever seen a heart on a table moving itself? I haven't."
--I would say your lack of scientific knowledge is stunning but by now I have gotten somewhat accustomed to it.

Human heart beats outside of the body by itself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM5B-ujvDUk

bmiller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

Human heart beats outside of the body by itself

The heart is not moving itself. This movement, like all movement of all material objects is due to the form and matter of that existing material object. If the heart was moving itself, it could stop itself and start itself.

Bioenergetics can explain that ATP and oxygen fuel the heart's cells for a time, but it's really the particular arrangement (form) of the matter that allows the motion. As long as the form is maintained the motion can continue. Once the form is substantially changed, the motion ceases.

Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

Human heart beats outside of the body by itself

" The heart is not moving itself. "
--Do you suppose angels are moving it? It is on the table, outside the body, with no stimulus, moving itself.

"This movement, like all movement of all material objects is due to the form and matter of that existing material object."
--Right, its own form and matter is moving its own form and matter.

" Bioenergetics can explain that ATP and oxygen fuel the heart's cells for a time,"
--Right, for a time, a temporal causal system. Not essential, rather "accidental".


" but it's really the particular arrangement (form) of the matter that allows the motion. "
--Ok, its own form is changing its own form. The arrangement is continuously changing, obviously, its shape is continuously changing. So if its form is the cause and its form is changing then its form is changing its form, thus it is changing itself.


" Once the form is substantially changed, the motion ceases."
--Right, a temporal process, not "essential", rather, "accidental".

Miguel said...

>October 2017
>arguing with Strawdusty
>expecting Strawdusty to understand your points

The man doesn't even believe in the principle of non-contradiction, he just takes it as a working postulate. He has no idea what he's falking about, trying to explain things to him only gets him more and more confused. Leave him be.

SteveK said...

@Miguel
Good point. Dusty is contradicting himself now. In his causal series he says the brain is necessary, but we just heard him say it’s not.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Miguel said...

>October 2017
>arguing with Strawdusty
>expecting Strawdusty to understand your points

" The man doesn't even believe"
--Define "belief".

" in the principle of non-contradiction, he just takes it as a working postulate. "
--Please provide the proof for the principle of non-contradiction. Hints:
Failure to provide a disproof is not a proof.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy that flows from the principle of non-contradiction, so if you beg the question to prove the principle of non-contradiction you contradict the principle of non-contradiction in the act of proving it, thus contradicting the principle of non-contradiction.

SteveK said...

There’s surely a special place in hell for morons that rely on logic to argue that it doesn’t exist.

Stardusty Psyche said...

SteveK said...

" There’s surely a special place in hell"
--Please prove hell exists.

" for morons that rely on logic to argue that it doesn’t exist."
--Yes I argue that logic is not proved, that argument being founded on provisional postulates, with no assertion of a proof, and therefore not self contradictory, thus maintaining the provisional postulate of the principle of non-contradiction, but proving nothing, since science and scientifically minded people don't do proof.

Does that bother you? Tough luck for you. The universe doesn't give a damn about what bothers you.

Miguel said...

It's not about "proving logic", you moron; the PNC is self-evident, it requires no proof or that we contingently can't imagine it being contradicted (tee-hee) and take it as a "working postulate". It is a self-evident truth that we know with complete, 100% certainty and is in a completely differet category from natural science. Without PNC there is no natural science and no probabilities even, your view is nonsensical. Just by knowing what PNC means we know that it's true and could never be false. Your "argument" that presupposes what you're trying to doubt or destabilize only makes you look retarded.

But it's Strawdusty, so whatever. Have a good day, I'm outta here

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,


"This movement, like all movement of all material objects is due to the form and matter of that existing material object."
--Right, its own form and matter is moving its own form and matter.


If it was moving itself it could stop the movement and start it again. It cannot. Therefore something else must be moving it.

Since it's form and matter is responsible for the motion then whatever is responsible for continuing that particular arrangement of form and matter is ultimately responsible. Ultimately something that itself is not moving. The Unmoved Mover.

" Bioenergetics can explain that ATP and oxygen fuel the heart's cells for a time,"
--Right, for a time, a temporal causal system. Not essential, rather "accidental".


All motion of existing material objects take place in time. You continue to misunderstand the definitions of essential causal series and accidental causal series. But inventing straw man arguments is your thing.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Miguel said.. October 22, 2017 7:31 AM.

" It's not about "proving logic", you moron;"
--Tut tut, you are unable to prove your logical assertion, making my statement that PNC is not proved correct. That seems to bother you so you resort to a personal attack, which is typical of a theist apologist.

" the PNC is self-evident, it requires no proof"
--To be rationally accepted yes, to be certain of, no.

" or that we contingently can't imagine it being contradicted (tee-hee) and take it as a "working postulate"."
--That's why they are called axioms. We cannot prove they are true, but we cannot imagine any way they could be false. Perhaps you have the feeling of 100% certainty on this basis but such certainty is not rationally justified.

" It is a self-evident truth that we know with complete, 100% certainty"
--Only if "we" is irrational.

" and is in a completely differet category from natural science. Without PNC there is no natural science and no probabilities even,"
--Hence the need to accept axioms even though they are not proved.

" your view is nonsensical."
--Actually, my view is rational and yours is overconfident.

" Just by knowing what PNC means we know that it's true and could never be false. "
--If you define "truth" as a "justified true belief" your reasoning becomes circular.

"Your "argument" that presupposes what you're trying to doubt or destabilize only makes you look retarded."
--You don't understand the nature of provisionality. The assertion of provisionality breaks the circle of self contradiction. Apparently you have never considered this fact. The first step is to put aside your overconfidence and learn to question even the most fundamental and seemingly self evident notions. Then you will be on a path to free yourself from your present irrational state.

But it's Strawdusty, so whatever. Have a good day, I'm outta here

Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller said.. October 22, 2017 8:07 AM.

@Strawdusty,

" If it was moving itself it could stop the movement and start it again. "
--Ad hoc non-sequitur. Causing motion does not require that a thing be able to stop and start. You just made that up out of nothing.


" Bioenergetics can explain that ATP and oxygen fuel the heart's cells for a time,"
--Right, for a time, a temporal causal system. Not essential, rather "accidental".

" All motion of existing material objects take place in time. "
--All temporal processes are "accidental"

"You continue to misunderstand the definitions of essential causal series"
--There is no such thing, theists just made that up by naked eye observations and muddled thinking.

The heart is moving itself, obviously, it is on the table with no outside stimulus.

You got caught out making an ignorant statement about a heart not being able to do what a heart obviously does do.


No change in matter calls for no changer.
No change in form calls for no changer.
Therefore to merely persist in existence calls for no changer.

All motion occurs over time.
All change occurs over time.
Every causal series of changes is a temporal series calling for a temporal regress, not a hierarchical regress.

Form calls for a hierarchical regress.
That hierarchical regress is a regress of abstractions, of human models.
The deepest level of abstraction in principle describes the deepest level of material existence, which terminates the hierarchical regress.

Therefore no first mover, no first changer, and no divine first cause is called for by persistence of the material from moment to moment, or by motion, or by change, or by form.


The title of the OP
"Why Modern Physics does Not Refute Thomistic Philosophy"
is false.

Modern physics utterly refutes A-T. A-T is diametrically opposed not only to modern physics but rationality itself.

SteveK said...

I've never seen a proponent of science throw science under the bus as quickly as Dusty

- Objects move themselves
- No objects are required (essential) for change

Hal said...

Just want to say I appreciate all the Herculean efforts that have been taken to keep SP posting in this thread resulting in his temporary absence in the other ongoing discussions.:-)

SteveK said...

Axioms:
Applicable to logic but not applicable to causality. Because naturalism.

bmiller said...

@Hal,

Just want to say I appreciate all the Herculean efforts that have been taken to keep SP posting in this thread resulting in his temporary absence in the other ongoing discussions.:-)

Shhhhh! Don't say that so loud that he figures out what's going on.
We've got Cal confined to a single thread 😉

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

" If it was moving itself it could stop the movement and start it again. "
--Ad hoc non-sequitur. Causing motion does not require that a thing be able to stop and start. You just made that up out of nothing.


No, I did not make that up out of nothing. A rabbit moving toward a fox can and will change it's motion. A bullet will cannot.
Most people recognize the difference between animate and inanimate objects. I'm the first genius to recognize this :-)

The heart will not change stop or start it's motion, so it is classified as inanimate.

--All temporal processes are "accidental"
No they are not.

"You continue to misunderstand the definitions of essential causal series"
--There is no such thing, theists just made that up by naked eye observations and muddled thinking.

You are still mistaken. The notion is confirmed no matter how it is measured.

Modern physics utterly refutes A-T. A-T is diametrically opposed not only to modern physics but rationality itself. utterly refutes A-T. A-T is diametrically opposed not only to modern physics but rationality itself.

You have not provided a single instance from "modern physics" that "refutes" anything. In fact you have demonstrated no evidence of knowledge of even classical physics. As far as your commentary on rationality is concerned, the fact that you do not even grasp the PNC is evidence that you don't grasp rational discourse either.

But you are a prolific assertion machine, I'll give that to you.

Joe Hinman said...

Modern physics utterly refutes A-T. A-T is diametrically opposed not only to modern physics but rationality itself.

say Dusty weren't the one who says the mental is a representation of the physical and reason is deterministic and illusion?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said..
October 24, 2017 11:57 PM.

" say Dusty weren't the one who says the mental is a representation of the physical and reason is deterministic and illusion?"
--What's your point?

Joe Hinman said...

when you assert deterministic notions you lose the ability to base your position upon reason because is opposed to determinism,since reason requires conscious thought and is porpoised to underwritten conclusions,

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said.. October 25, 2017 9:28 AM

" when you assert deterministic notions you lose the ability to base your position upon reason because is opposed to determinism,since reason requires conscious thought and is porpoised to underwritten conclusions,"
--You post is nearly incoherent. I know you are capable of making an argument when you put your mind to it.

Your statement breaks down at the ad-hoc assertion of purpose, and some vague notion you call "underwritten" that you have somehow confused yourself with in considering the vastly complex workings of the brain.

bmiller said...

We never observe inanimate things start or stop their motion.

Animate things seem to do so. For instance a rabbit will move toward a food source or away from a predator.

But an animal is made of parts and if we analyze the motion we see that one part of the animal moves another part. So only part of the animal is in motion while another is not. In this case it cannot be said that animal is motion per se as a mobile.

More generally in this example, we notice that if there was no food source, the animal would not move in that direction and similarly if there were no predator, the animal would not move the direction away from it. Now it is obvious that the animal is drawn toward what is good for it as well as drawn away from what is bad (not good) for it. So the animal is moved toward the good.

Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller said.. October 26, 2017 7:13 PM.

" We never observe inanimate things start or stop their motion."
--Everything is always in motion.

" But an animal is made of parts and if we analyze the motion we see that one part of the animal moves another part. So only part of the animal is in motion while another is not."
--False, all of the animal is in motion just as all non-living things are always in motion.

Try to think of some ways to increase your capacity to analyze things in general and motion in particular.

Newton is always paraphrased, typically dumbing down to the point of significant conceptual losses, but this version is better than most
http://plaza.obu.edu/corneliusk/ps/phys/nls.pdf

Then study a bit of particle physics, biology, astronomy and whatever physical sciences might interest you. Take some calculus courses.

After you do these things you will better able to avoid further analysis that falls flat immediately such as your previous post here.

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

--False, all of the animal is in motion just as all non-living things are always in motion.

You are a living contradiction. Sometimes you claim that there are existing material things that are not changing and so there is no need of an Ultimate Changer to keep things sustained in existence. Other times, like now, you claim that everything is always changing. Don't worry, I don't expect too much in the way of consistency from you by now.

When we see an animal move one leg and not the other, sane people understand the sense of movement under discussion and agree that part of the animal is moving and another is not. Sorry that you don't have that capacity.

Then study a bit of particle physics, biology, astronomy and whatever physical sciences might interest you. Take some calculus courses.

How hilarious that you're suggesting this! I doubt you took even high school physics and I'm sure you've never taken a calculus course from our past discussions. Looks like you're projecting your ignorance on others.

I expect you chose this tactic as a distraction and as a dodge to engage the subject. As usual.

Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller said...


:" When we see an animal move one leg and not the other, sane people understand the sense of movement under discussion and agree that part of the animal is moving and another is not."
--A great many sane people agreed for thousands of years that the Earth stands still and the sun and moon and stars circle around the Earth. They were not stupid, because ordinary naked eye observation leads to that obvious conclusion.

We know better now, thanks to science.

Study the link I provided and a bit of biology. All of every animal is always in motion, the general impression of simple naked eye observations notwithstanding.

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

--A great many sane people agreed for thousands of years that the Earth stands still and the sun and moon and stars circle around the Earth. They were not stupid, because ordinary naked eye observation leads to that obvious conclusion.

We know better now, thanks to science.


Some of us know the latest theory, yes. Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory. Observations depend on where you take your point of reference. Consider yourself instructed now.

But I assess that non-sequitor tactic as an attempt to dodge the topics I've brought up.

Inanimate existing material things cannot start and stop their movement by themselves.
Animate things appear to start and stop their motion.

The principle of motion for animate things is different than for inanimate things. Inanimate things cannot start or stop their motion, but are drawn toward all other things. Animate things can start and stop their motion toward what is good for them.

You equivocate when a particular sense of motion is discussed. When you want to argue that an Unchanged Changer is not needed to sustain things in existence, you claim that things are not changing (even though they are living and have a particular velocity). Now you want to claim that *all* parts of an animal are *all* responsible, simultaneously for an animal walking (just when I thought you opposed essentially ordered series)


Regarding your advise that I read your link:
I doubt you took even high school physics and I'm sure you've never taken a calculus course from our past discussions. Looks like you're projecting your ignorance on others.

Let me know if I'm wrong about your level of study. I don't think I am from what I've seen, thus your posturing.

Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller said.. October 27, 2017 8:54 PM.


" Some of us know the latest theory, yes. Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory."
--Truly stunning. You either enjoy making up bizarre lies or you are the most uneducated individual I have encountered on a forum.

" Observations depend on where you take your point of reference. Consider yourself instructed now."
--A geocentric view of the universe would require the stars to be moving at thousands of times the speed of light.


" The principle of motion for animate things is different than for inanimate things. "
--Huh? Please find Newton's laws for animals and Newton's laws for other stuff. Are you intoxicated when you write this stuff?

bmiller said...

@Joe Hinman,

Are you following? I think you will find this interesting.

Things that are moving at this present moment, are moving due to other existing things.

In a way, all material things are moving toward each other due to what we call gravity. But animate things move in an additional way. Plants grow roots in the direction of nutrients, animals move toward food sources and men pursue knowledge.


Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller said.. October 28, 2017 10:39 AM.


" In a way, all material things are moving toward each other due to what we call gravity."
--Some things are moving away from other things, duh.

" But animate things move in an additional way. Plants grow roots in the direction of nutrients, animals move toward food sources and men pursue knowledge."
--Hydrogen moves toward a star. So what?

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

--Truly stunning. You either enjoy making up bizarre lies or you are the most uneducated individual I have encountered on a forum.

I used to think your ignorance of science was truly stunning, but now I'm not surprised. But I am still surprised that you so loudly and proudly demonstrate that ignorance.

I don't have the time nor the inclination to bring you up to speed on classical physics, much less general relativity especially when you can't even trouble yourself to google topics yourself. You'd have to actually start with those high school science and math classes you skipped.

There simply is no preferred reference frame according to general relativity. The reference frame chosen for any particular analysis will yield the same results, but one frame may make the calculations easier.


What the principle of relativity points out is that correct mathematical calculations can be made regardless of the reference frame chosen, and these will all agree with each other as to the predictions of actual motions of bodies with respect to each other. It is not necessary to choose the object in the solar system with the largest gravitational field as the center of the coordinate system in order to predict the motions of planetary bodies, though doing so may make calculations easier to perform or interpret. A geocentric coordinate system can be more convenient when dealing only with bodies mostly influenced by the gravity of the Earth (such as artificial satellites and the Moon), or when calculating what the sky will look like when viewed from Earth (as opposed to an imaginary observer looking down on the entire solar system, where a different coordinate system might be more convenient).


--Huh? Please find Newton's laws for animals and Newton's laws for other stuff. Are you intoxicated when you write this stuff?

OK, I'm now just as sure you are ignorant of Newton's opinion of animal motion as you are of physics. Newton's laws of motion were meant to explain the motion of simple bodies having simple motion, ie. inanimate objects. That you are astounded by these facts is really funny, but also kind of pathetic.

Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller

"Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory."

You then provide a link to a wikipage on geocentric theory and proceed to confuse the arbitrary choice of geometric origin with geocentric theory.

In geocentric theory the Earth stands still and all the heavenly bodies orbit the Earth. This theory has no validity under modern science and leads to innumerable absurd results.

Do you take some perverted pleasure in continually posting such conflated stupidity just to watch everybody else do facepalms, as it were, or are you really this clueless?

Nor do astronomers choose the largest object in the solar system as being the center of the solar system, rather the common center of mass which is not the same as the center of mass of the sun.

Yes, in principle, any point in space can be chosen as the geometric coordinate origin and all cancellations can be done from there in Cartesian, cylindrical, or spherical coordinates by applying the appropriate transforms.

Choosing a geometric coordinate origin at the center of the Earth is vastly different than a geocentric theory.

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

I explained exactly what I meant and provided an example to illustrate what I meant.

There is no preferred frame of reference.

You did not read and/or understand the quote of mine you posted and indeed you left off the very next sentence:
"Observations depend on where you take your point of reference."

So instead of asking for clarification or rebutting, you accuse me of being or being uneducated. Your habit of flinging those particular insults look like thin-skinned projection to me.

Stardusty Psyche said...

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

" I explained exactly what I meant"
--You said "theory". That is not a "frame of reference".

At least learn the meanings of basic terms before you employ them, OK?

bmiller said...

@Strawdusty,

Someone familiar with general relativity would have had no trouble understanding what I meant. Don't blame me when you bring up the topic of physics and don't have enough background to understand the response.

I recall grodrigues had brought up a similar point in a different thread and you had a similar dumbfounded reply. Nothing's changed.

grodrigues said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grodrigues said...

bmiller said this:

"Some of us know the latest theory, yes. Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory."

To which Stardusty Psyche, who thinks himself knowledgeable in physics (fall off the chair laughing), responded thus:

"Truly stunning. You either enjoy making up bizarre lies or you are the most uneducated individual I have encountered on a forum."

Now, everybody who knows physics knows that bmiller is completely correct and that it is Stardusty that is an incorrigible ignorant buffoon. Pointing to a textbook in General Relativity would be useless, so let's try something easier shall we? Here it is: Does the Earth move around the Sun?. The author is Sean Carroll, an expert in GR and a well-known atheist apologist.

edit: now with the correct link.

Stardusty Psyche said...

grodrigues said.. October 29, 2017 7:31 AM.

bmiller said this:

"Some of us know the latest theory, yes. Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory."

To which Stardusty Psyche, who thinks himself knowledgeable in physics (fall off the chair laughing), responded thus:

SP "Truly stunning. You either enjoy making up bizarre lies or you are the most uneducated individual I have encountered on a forum."

" Now, everybody who knows physics knows that bmiller is completely correct"
--Hilarious. You don't know the difference between a "geocentric theory" and a "geocentric reference frame" either.

Your claim to be a mathematical physicist is a transparent lie.

grodrigues said...

@Stardusty Psyche:

"Your claim to be a mathematical physicist is a transparent lie."

Since you are not competent judge of those things, your charge of lie is moot. The graduate advisors, the graduate jury, journal peer-revierwers, etc. are the competent judges of that and they say otherwise.

Stardusty Psyche said...

grodrigues said...

@Stardusty Psyche:

"Your claim to be a mathematical physicist is a transparent lie."

" Since you are not competent judge of those things, your charge of lie is moot. The graduate advisors, the graduate jury, journal peer-revierwers, etc. are the competent judges of that and they say otherwise."
--Doubling down on your lie, I see.

No physicist would mistake "geocentric theory" for "geocentric reference frame". Those 2 things are vastly different.

If you had ever had a graduate review of your work and you stated "Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory" you would be denied graduation.

No accredited university would award an advanced degree in physics to a student who made such a stunningly preposterous assertion.

grodrigues said...

@Stardusty Psyche:

"Doubling down on your lie, I see."

You do realize that it is very easy to produce proof that I have a phd in mathematics, that I have published in peer-reviewed journals, etc., don't you?

Here is the citation for my published paper that was part of my phd work:

Homotopy Quantum Field Theories and The Homotopy Cobordism Category in dimension 1+1, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications, vol 12, nr. 3, 287-319, 2003.

And I will stop here. Like Jesus said of Satan, you will believe whatever your whim fancies, regardless of the evidence that is brought forward. That you call me a liar, is itself a lie, but honestly I couldn't care less. Go in peace and may God have mercy on us all.

Stardusty Psyche said...

grodrigues said.. October 29, 2017 9:53 AM.

@Stardusty Psyche:

"Doubling down on your lie, I see."

" You do realize that it is very easy to produce proof that I have a phd in mathematics, that I have published in peer-reviewed journals, etc., don't you?"
--That proves somebody published a paper, not that you have a PhD in physics.

" Here is the citation for my published paper that was part of my phd work:
Homotopy Quantum Field Theories and The Homotopy Cobordism Category in dimension 1+1, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications, vol 12, nr. 3, 287-319, 2003."
--A paper published as part of one's PhD work is written before one is awarded the PhD. Since you have apparently published nothing in the 14 years since your alleged publication as a student it appears you were not granted a PhD, possibly because you told the reviewers " "Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory" ", and they decided such a crackpot would be an embarrassment to the university.

grodrigues said...

"That proves somebody published a paper, not that you have a PhD in physics."

Just for the record, and because accusations of lying are being thrown about (serious accusations), I never said I have a phd in physics.

ficino4ml said...

Lots of the same people as on other blogs; first time I've been here. Salvete, omnes.

Stardusty Psyche said...

ficino4ml said..
October 29, 2017 10:40 AM.

" Lots of the same people as on other blogs; first time I've been here. Salvete, omnes."

Hi ficino4ml.

I can't get anybody here, just like on the Feser blog, to explain to me
1.Why would a change of the material blinking out to nothing happen absent a changer?
2.Why does the continued existence of mass/energy and form call for any changer at all?

Crickets.

As a side issue, grod has a tiresome history of showing up to hurl insults, imply he has great knowledge in physics, state he does not have the time to actually enumerate his argument and then leave. In the past he has called himself a "mathematical physicist"

Yet he went out of his way to agree with and even attempt to justify the statement "Since Einstein's theory of General Relativity people favoring the geocentric theory can no more be considered incorrect than those favoring the heliocentric theory". Obviously, any working physicist knows that statement is absurd and that a "geocentric theory" is vastly different than a "geocentric reference frame".

So, on that basis alone, grod is an obvious liar regarding his asserted physics background.

But, he decided to double down

grodrigues said.. October 29, 2017 9:53 AM.
" You do realize that it is very easy to produce proof that I have a phd in mathematics, that I have published in peer-reviewed journals, etc., don't you?

Here is the citation for my published paper that was part of my phd work:

Homotopy Quantum Field Theories and The Homotopy Cobordism Category in dimension 1+1, Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications, vol 12, nr. 3, 287-319, 2003."

--So, clearly grod increased his claim to being a published physics PhD, in addition to being a "mathematical physicist".

But lies are difficult to keep straight. Trump has that problem. He tweets out a lie, but then he realizes that lie does not fit with some other story so he deletes it. Unfortunately for Trump various news organization archive every tweet he sends the moment it posts, so even if he deletes it immediately it is already captured and will be criticized in the news, and fairly so, because he wrote it.

Note, grod deleted a message above. It read:
grodrigues

10:26 AM (42 minutes ago)

to me
grodrigues has left a new comment on the post "Why Modern Physics does Not Refute Thomistic Philo...":

"That proves somebody published a paper, not that you have a PhD in physics."

Just for the record, and because accusations of lying are being thrown about (serious accusations), I never said I have a phd in physics.

--There you see grod now forgetting he just claimed to have a PhD, and now he backtracked and claimed he never said any such thing.

It is unfortunate that these issues arise but grod is a tiresome sort who offers no rational arguments of merit in support of A-T.

In my service for Truth, Justice, and the American Way I sometimes take the time to expose that sort of dishonesty.

Victor is, on the other hand, obviously an experienced academic. I always enjoy engaging with him, even though I disagree with him, because he writes in a scholarly manner.

Have you read the Feser book? Can you find anything in it, or any other A-T source that addresses my points 1. and 2. above directly and specifically?






grodrigues said...

"Note, grod deleted a message above."

The reason I deleted the message was because it had a typo, something I positively hate. More specifically, it missed the closing parenthesis.

bmiller said...

@ficino4ml,

Welcome.

Would you like to answer Strawdusty's questions we've answered numerous times but denies it?

I can't get anybody here, just like on the Feser blog, to explain to me
1.Why would a change of the material blinking out to nothing happen absent a changer?
2.Why does the continued existence of mass/energy and form call for any changer at all?

Crickets.


Of course you yourself, mentioned the musician and the movement of the quantum components that partly constitute material objects. I've answered a couple times also over the last year. I suspect that he doesn't recognize it when he's been given an answer due to a lack of background.

But as a warning, be prepared for equivocations once you start discussing particular motions.

If you want to talk about the movement of an animal in the sense that one leg of an animal is moving and another is not, he will claim that every part of the animal is actually moving in some way. In that sense, every material object is in motion continuously and so must ultimately lead to an Unmoved Mover.

But of course that contradicts his assertion that (his understanding of) conservation laws imply no change is taking place when he desires to deny the need for that Unmoved Mover.

bmiller said...

@grodrigues,

I don't think it's a good policy to share personal information with internet cranks. It could be harmful.

I notice when Strawdusty is stumped and wants to distract we get personal insults related to education and intelligence, probably 2 things he feels he lacks. He didn't understand my reference to general relativity so he felt he had to fling insults to divert the conversation. Looks like it worked for him this time.

But the real problem is that if we really want to discuss how Thomism relates to science today the parties in discussion need to know the concepts used in both fields. So for instance when I brought up how instantaneous velocity is calculated or how free body diagrams are used in physics Strawdusty and Cal did not and still do not understand the concepts.

Neither of them will read a book and expecting combox discussions to give one an competent education in physics or metaphysics is not a very promising expectation. The odds get even lower when you claim you know the topic and ignore the explanations given by those who actually do know the topic.

grodrigues said...

@bmiller:

"I don't think it's a good policy to share personal information with internet cranks. It could be harmful."

True enough, but believe me when I say that there is very little a putative internet stalker could do to really hurt me.

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger ficino4ml said...

" Lots of the same people as on other blogs; first time I've been here. Salvete, omnes."

BTW, this thread is somewhat parallel to a much older, yet current, thread:

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html

Come on over if you want to get into hot water :-)