" 5. Therefore there must be a source of motion for things that are being moved by things that are being moved, and this source can't be getting moved by something else or else the problem remains.
There is no begging the question." --I'm sorry you are unable to follow logical notation. Haines uses it in order to assert that the argument is logically valid. I have shown how is notation is critically abbreviated and the argument does in fact beg the question.
A modern writer might be able to rephrase the argument into a valid form, but as writing the First Way is logically invalid by begging the question as I have clearly shown.
Here is a more detailed demonstration of how the First Way, as actually written, begs the question. The term "you" refers to David Haines.
In your referenece [8] you provide a link that was a source for your notation. At that link I also found this translation that differs slightly from the translation you use in your analysis above. “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”
You outlined this section as follows
g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another. (3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]. (4) But this cannot proceed to infinity: a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another, b. Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand. (5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
Your notation for these items (neglecting 2g which I included in the text from the Francisco Romero Carrasquillo posted translation) seems to me to be exceedingly abreviatied.
C2) I (premise 4) CC) U (premise 5)
In [8] you cite a reason as “under premises 2 and 4 Aquinas provides support for the content of these premises. Though the support does not belong to the argument as such,” that I must strongly disagree with.
To say Y because X is to say X therefore Y.
The words “because” and “therefore” are inverted forms of each other.
For whatever reason, Aquinas chose the “because” style, which leads to the following relationships: 4 because 4a 4a because 4b
4b is logically prior to 4a 4a is logically prior to 4 4 is logically prior to 5
Put another way: 4b therefore 4a 4a therefore 4 4 threfore 5
Let’s take a closer look at each of these: 4b second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover 4a in the case of intinity, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another 4 (that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]) cannot proceed to infinity
Placing the words in more familiar structure using “therefore” we get: Second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover therefore In the case of intinity, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another therefore (that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]) cannot proceed to infinity therefore It is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved
4b asserts U (since there is a second mover there is a first mover) 4a asserts that there can’t not be U (there can’t not be a first mover else there would be no things moving other things) 4 asserts not I (the series of motions cannot proceed to an infinite regress) 5 asserts U (a first mover is necessary)
4b therefore 4a therefore 4 4 threrfore 5
U therefore ~~U therefore ~I ~I therefore U
Aquinas merely begs the question. The First Way is logically invalid.
Me: "A solid steel rod in space 2 light years in length is moved by Joe Astronaut pushing one end of the rod continuously at a speed of 1 m/s." Dusty: "It will break"
I'm thinking of a very large diameter rod. So no, it wouldn't break. A man cannot apply that much force.
Me: "a)How much time passes before the other end begins to move?" Dusty: "Assuming it didn't break that depends on the compressiblity of the material."
Young's modulus of for most steel is very high. A human hand could not produce the necessary force to deform it.
Me: "b)During that time delay, is the rod being deformed? By how much?" Dusty: "Yes, ask a mechanical engineer to model it for you and you can get a fairly close answer"
I'm a mechanical engineer. Some of your prior statements made me think to ask these questions. I know how this stuff behaves here on earth, but was wondering if space changed anything. Which brings me to my final thoughts.
If the mechanical properties of steel (titanium, etc) are mostly unchanged in space, then the rod will not compress at all because a human cannot generate the necessary force.
Will the rod move as a whole or just deform like a rope? This gets trickier for me. Space supposedly has little to no friction so very little force should be required to move a huge mass (in theory).
If the applied stress is low the rod will not deform. Since it remains rigid and undeformed both ends will start to move at *approximately* the SAME TIME - just like here on earth.
" I pointed out you were inconsistent" --Not substantially. If by "inconsistent" you mean I sometimes choose different words to make the same fundamental statement then you trivialize the word "inconsistent".
Strawdusty to SteveK: "4a therefore 4 4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a) ... Begging the question. " June 28, 2017 9:36 PM
bmiller to Strawdusty: There is no question begging: first mover ≠ first mover put in motion by no other June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
Strawdusty to bmiller: bmiller said... " 4 refers to the first mover being necessary for an essentially ordered series to be in motion. " --That is begging the question, the assumption that every real series of events must have a first member.
June 30, 2017 8:29 AM
Changing your "begging the question" assertion from 5 being a rewording of 4a to somehow 4 itself "begging the question"
Strawdusty to Legion: 4b therefore 4a therefore 4 4 therefore 4b (slightly reworded in 5)
June 30, 2017 5:45 PM:
" Back to making disproven assertion to Legion rather than the new one you made up on June 30, 2017 8:29 AM." --Right. Those are all various ways of saying the same thing. I use some different emphasis and more or less detail, but my statements above are all consistent with each other.
For a more complete analysis you can see the above post. It is lengthy, so I don't post the whole thing every time a make a point about it.
Haines's notation boils it down to just 4 and 5. The more immediate statement beyond the line at 4 is 4a. A more complete look also looks at 4b.
In each assertion of the first mover there is the implicit assertion that there simply must be a first mover in this series, and by placing that assertion into the premise of 4's sub sections the question begging is begun, which is what I summarized in June 30, 2017 8:29 AM.
4b can also be broken down further, although I did not do so in the above post. Here is some more on that issue: One could argue that 4b should be further subdivided due to the statements regarding second and first movers. Here the 2 translations I am references differ somewhat “seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover” “Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover”
This could be summarized as Subsequent movers therefore first mover or Second movers therefore first mover
If we use the word “second” as the antecedent then “first” is not a proper consequent, rather a mere tautology of definition, since “second” is merely defined to be the next thing after “first”.
If we use the word “subsequent” as the antecedent then “first” is again not a proper consequent, merely an assertion of the very thing that the whole argument is attempting to conclude, that a first mover is necessary.
So, by either translation 4b is simply an assertion of the first mover
" I'm a mechanical engineer." --You don't speak like any one I have worked with, thus, I am skeptical of that statement.
" Space supposedly has little to no friction so very little force should be required to move a huge mass (in theory)." --If at one time you do not push on this mass and then you do push on this mass to move the mass we have to use F=ma, at least to a first approximation. The force required to accelerate a huge mass is by definition huge. A mechanical engineer would know that.
" If the applied stress is low the rod will not deform. " --You seem to be confusing "yield" with the more general term "deform". Steel will elastically deform even under low force, but a much higher force is required for plastic deformation. You really do not display the understandings typical of a mechanical engineer.
"Since it remains rigid and undeformed both ends will start to move at *approximately* the SAME TIME - just like here on earth." --A 2 light year long rod in space is not going to be ridgid, ok? Do you really think forces would remain in balance over that distance?
I get the feeling this is a setup for some kind of argument for an essentially ordered series, but the setup is not going well...
>> "The force required to accelerate a huge mass is by definition huge."
Not if the acceleration is extremely small. A person who understands that equation would know this.
>> " You seem to be confusing "yield" with...
No need to lecture me. I know the difference between plastic and elastic deformation and the various points on the curve when that occurs. Both are forms of deformation.
>> A 2 light year long rod in space is not going to be ridgid, ok?
Metal stays rigid under unbalanced forces all the time, so why not? You're assuming stress beyond ultimate yield stress but there's no reason to assume this.
--Right. Those are all various ways of saying the same thing. I use some different emphasis and more or less detail, but my statements above are all consistent with each other.
No. In one instance you deal with 4 and 5 and the other you deal only with 4.
As I've repeatedly pointed out the first mover of 4 could be a first mover that moves. Conclusions reached in 1-4 allow us to reach the final conclusion in 5. Strawdusty to SteveK: "4a therefore 4 4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a) ... Begging the question. " June 28, 2017 9:36 PM
bmiller to Strawdusty: There is no question begging: first mover ≠ first mover put in motion by no other June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
Haines's notation boils it down to just 4 and 5. The more immediate statement beyond the line at 4 is 4a. A more complete look also looks at 4b.
In each assertion of the first mover there is the implicit assertion that there simply must be a first mover in this series, and by placing that assertion into the premise of 4's sub sections the question begging is begun, which is what I summarized in June 30, 2017 8:29 AM.
No. The argument "boils down" to all the premises including 1, 2, 3, 4 concluding in 5. 1: Something moves. 2: Nothing moves itself 3: If something is moving, something is moving it. If that is moving something is moving that. [and so on starting with the last mover toward the first] 4: This can't go on to infinity because then no matter how far back in an infinite series we would then never have a thing that could move the others (the first mover) 5: Since there must be a first mover of this series and since nothing moves itself, the first mover must be unmoved.
Here is the same argument phrased differently and which was referenced in Haines's article: "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."
You can see from the bolded section that the series need only have 1 moving member.
" As I've repeatedly pointed out the first mover of 4 could be a first mover that moves. " --Ok, so the first mover moves.
That gives us a few choices: 1. The first mover has always been moving. 2. The first mover has always existed but was stationary, then began to move. 3. The first mover popped into existence ex nihilo by no cause and has always been moving for all of its existence. 4. The first mover popped into existence ex nihilo by no cause but was stationary, then began to move.
Choose your poison.
All choices violate other principles of the First Way.
Haines's notation boils it down to just 4 and 5. The more immediate statement beyond the line at 4 is 4a. A more complete look also looks at 4b.
In each assertion of the first mover there is the implicit assertion that there simply must be a first mover in this series, and by placing that assertion into the premise of 4's sub sections the question begging is begun, which is what I summarized in June 30, 2017 8:29 AM.
" No. The argument "boils down" to all the premises including 1, 2, 3, 4 concluding in 5." --Read his notation for the section I am analyzing for begging the question and you will only find C2) ~I (premise 4) CC) U (premise 5)
Haines does not include 4a or 4b, possibly because the question begging becomes obvious when one translates that whole section of the argument to notation.
Dusty >> "I get the feeling this is a setup for some kind of argument for an essentially ordered series"
You'd be right. If, in space, the force applied to one end of a metal rod results in a stress less than yield then the rod is rigid and both ends will begin to move at approximately the same time.
As I understand your comment below you were disputing this for extremely long lengths - but maybe I am misunderstanding the point of you bringing up the speed of light as it related to a essentially ordered series.
Dusty: "light travels at about 1 foot per nanosecond, and that is a basic speed limit for all conventional physical actions of this sort"
>> A 2 light year long rod in space is not going to be ridgid, ok?
" Metal stays rigid under unbalanced forces all the time, so why not? Y" What is the diameter of this "rod"? An inch? Something really fat, say, a foot? How about a humongous size rod, say 1 meter diameter?
2 light years is about 18922000000000000 meters. How ridged is a steel rod with a 18922000000000000/1 length to diameter ratio?
In that case the diameter is 5.284e-17 of the length.
So if we had a rod stretching from LA to NYC about 4500000 meters that rod if the same ratio would be 2.378e-11 meter in diameter, which is 2/10 of an angstrom.
" No. The argument "boils down" to all the premises including 1, 2, 3, 4 concluding in 5." --Read his notation for the section I am analyzing for begging the question and you will only find C2) ~I (premise 4) CC) U (premise 5)
Haines does not include 4a or 4b, possibly because the question begging becomes obvious when one translates that whole section of the argument to notation.
Please make and effort to show who and what you are quoting. There were not even quote marks on the post I'm responding to. Furthermore you're adding confusion by switching back and forth between the text and logic notation.
The text is clear. But it's no surprise if one won't reach the same conclusion as the author of an argument by only considering a subset of his premises.
1: Something moves. 2: Nothing moves itself 3: If something is moving, something is moving it. If that is moving something is moving that. [and so on starting with the last mover toward the first] 4: This can't go on to infinity because then no matter how far back in an infinite series we would then never have a thing that could move the others (the first mover) 5: Since there must be a first mover of this series and since nothing moves itself, the first mover must be unmoved.
Dusty, I never specified the geometry. You assumed it would fail no matter what the geometry was. I didn't do that.
How about a 3 to 1 ratio of length to diameter, so 2 light years long and .67 light years diameter? It's a thought experiment so I'm being creative.
I haven't run any numbers so maybe it's physically impossible to avoid yielding the material to the point of breaking when motion is attempted, regardless of the material/geometry.
Ironically that would only prove an infinite series is impossible from a physics point of view, which is the same conclusion the FW reaches albeit from the metaphysical view.
Stardusty: "Yes, that is a problem in a discussion about god [sic], or do you suppose god [sic] is limited to the sorts of things that go on at the surface of the Earth?"
" I honestly have no idea how you could possibly conclude discussing a train on the ground is somehow problematic in the manner you are approaching it from, which is a very irrelevant manner." --Yes, I realize that you have no idea about certain things. It isn't a matter of stupidity, rather, perspective.
The First Way is an argument for God. God is considered to be a creative being that brought our observable universe into existence, set existent objects in motion, and is purported to have a whole range of properties.
To argue for God Aquinas in the First Way is focusing on the origin of motion, what causes the motion we observe, what accounts for things that are moving. Aquinas hopes to get to a logical necessity for a coherent first mover, to which he will then attach the label of God.
For the First Way to be valid today it must remain in keeping with modern scientific knowledge.
The First Way must be applicable to all objects of all sizes everywhere in the universe to be of any modern value.
Thus, to focus on medium size objects on the surface of our planet is a hopelessly blinded and minuscule perspective. We cannot possibly hope to analyze the validity of the First Way unless we consider it's validity as it applies from the very smallest things we know (quarks, electrons, neutrinos, photons) up to the largest things we know (astronomical objects, superclusters, the cosmic background radiation, our big bang)
So, you might think it is foolish to consider a caboose in space. I think it is foolish to fail to consider that everything is in space, everything is made up of tiny particles, and causation proceeds between these tiny particles and associated fields in space in an incredibly complex continual multibody interaction process.
That is my perspective, whereas your perspective is very underdeveloped and inadequate by comparison.
Stardusty: "No, they all require time to take their action"
" Haha I am getting a kick out of you and Cal thinking you are refuting us, when you are either missing or intentionally dodging the point." --No, I am calling your analysis hopelessly simplistic and lacking in modern perspective.
" Concurrent in the series means that if the mover is taken away, the moved will not be able to sustain its motion. " --Here you personify or anthropomorphize a thing as a "mover" or a "cause". You have only assigned a title to an object that is a very complex system of continually interacting processes.
When you expand your perspective into the modern era you will be able see how irrelevant to causal analysis your present perspective is.
Stardusty: "Removing a cause after the time delay inherent in its operation will have no effect on operations within that delay window."
" And this defeats the First Way or refutes my point how...?" --As I mentioned elsewhere, here I have slipped into your vernacular just for the sake of a discussion, perhaps an ill advised attempt at communication on my part.
The locomotive is not "a cause" as a personified thing, a title given to an object. Air and fuel are oxidized and energy is converted in a continual process of vast complexity. If you stop that process then the process stops. So, in the end, your false distinction of an essential series is a mere tautology.
Stardusty: "I you remove the fuel pump the engine will continue to run for a short time."
" And then will stop, much like I said." --If you stop the process the process will stop. Fine, that is true, but trivial.
Stardusty: "Removal of each will not cause an instantaneous effect on the caboose."
" Thank you for refuting something I never said. However, very quickly the motion in question will begin tapering off, in some cases so quickly that we could not even perceive the instant in which the motion continued. Which is in accordance with what I have said." --Epicycles are also in accordance with observed planetary motion. They turn out to be false.
Stardusty: "If you remove a cause after the cause then the effect is not changed. If you remove a cause before the effect then you have not really removed the cause except as in your thinking, rather, you have changed the situation to prevent the cause and effect from ever happening."
" Neither of these is an essentially ordered series" --There is no such thing as an essentially ordered series in modern causation, there is just the propagation of causal effects in a mutually interacting multibody process.
I realize you know some fundamental concepts of what inertia is, but you have yet to gain the perspective to realize that motion is inherently self sustaining.
That was one of the great conceptual leaps of Newton. Motion is self sustaining, it does not stop unless something acts to stop it.
In terms of motion as positional change in a frame of reference objects do move themselves once they have been accelerated from a relative rest, in other words, in uniform motion objects move themselves.
I invite you to expand your perspective into the modern day. The notion of assigning the title of "cause" to an object and then distinguishing between an essentially ordered series and any other series is illusory and useless in a serious discussion of causality.
" How about a 3 to 1 ratio of length to diameter, so 2 light years long and .67 light years diameter? " --In that case a human being could not push on it because a 2ly by .67ly solid steel cylinder would have such an enormous gravitational field strength that a human being would be squashed flat against it like a crepe pancake and die immediately.
What does any of this have to do with the First Way?
Stardusty: "A modern writer might be able to rephrase the argument into a valid form, but as writing the First Way is logically invalid by begging the question as I have clearly shown."
Things are rarely as clear as you seem to think about your assertions, but I am content that the actual ideas behind the First Way do not beg the question.
Stardusty: "To argue for God Aquinas in the First Way is focusing on the origin of motion"
No, not in the First Way. "First" is primary in an active series, not original in a past and defunct series. That Aquinas would believe God is the creator of the universe and thus motion in the past is not the focus of the First Way
Stardusty: "The First Way must be applicable to all objects of all sizes everywhere in the universe to be of any modern value."
So relativity and quantum physics are of no modern value? I think you mistake "not comprehensive" with "useless", because neither of those is useless.
Stardusty: "So, you might think it is foolish to consider a caboose in space. I think it is foolish to fail to consider that everything is in space, everything is made up of tiny particles, and causation proceeds between these tiny particles and associated fields in space in an incredibly complex continual multibody interaction process."
A caboose in space is not being subjected to friction like a caboose on earth, so the situations are quite different. Different things are different.
Stardusty: "That is my perspective, whereas your perspective is very underdeveloped and inadequate by comparison"
I literally laughed out loud, thank you for reminding me what skeptics think of themselves.
Stardusty: "Here you personify or anthropomorphize a thing as a "mover" or a "cause"."
You are quite confused.
Stardusty: "You have only assigned a title to an object that is a very complex system of continually interacting processes."
I would not stop with the locomotive itself as the cause, but it is useful as a demonstration of concept to reasonable people.
Stardusty: "If you stop the process the process will stop. Fine, that is true, but trivial."
And science says stuff does stuff.
Stardusty: "There is no such thing as an essentially ordered series in modern causation, there is just the propagation of causal effects in a mutually interacting multibody process."
I don't care if science uses it, I care if it describes what is real.
Stardusty: "but you have yet to gain the perspective to realize that motion is inherently self sustaining."
I do know that. Very easy to disprove, so amusing that you and Cal keep spouting it.
Hint: disagreeing with Stardusty and Cal is not an indication of ignorance.
Stardusty: "Motion is self sustaining, it does not stop unless something acts to stop it."
Indeed. And once something acts to stop it, for the motion to continue will require a sustaining force, which would make it something the First Way analyzes. Note I never used the word "instantaneous" or any synonym of it.
Stardusty: "The notion of assigning the title of "cause" to an object and then distinguishing between an essentially ordered series and any other series is illusory and useless in a serious discussion of causality."
Stardusty: "A modern writer might be able to rephrase the argument into a valid form, but as writing the First Way is logically invalid by begging the question as I have clearly shown."
" Things are rarely as clear as you seem to think about your assertions, but I am content that the actual ideas behind the First Way do not beg the question." --Ok, so Aquinas does beg the question but you can reword the argument to remove some of its glaring defects. Even so, you will not be able argue for a coherent first mover, since the notion of a first mover suffers from its own irrationalities.
Stardusty: "To argue for God Aquinas in the First Way is focusing on the origin of motion"
" No, not in the First Way. "First" is primary in an active series, not original in a past and defunct series." --If the past is eliminated than the first mover is just whatever is presently observed and there is no problem.
In your train example the locomotive just moves the train, problem solved.
Stardusty: "The First Way must be applicable to all objects of all sizes everywhere in the universe to be of any modern value."
" So relativity and quantum physics are of no modern value?" --Relativity and QM are applicable everywhere. You seem to think they are not. Why?
" A caboose in space is not being subjected to friction like a caboose on earth, so the situations are quite different. Different things are different." --It's the same physics.
Stardusty: "There is no such thing as an essentially ordered series in modern causation, there is just the propagation of causal effects in a mutually interacting multibody process."
" I don't care if science uses it, I care if it describes what is real." --That's why your perspective is so badly underdeveloped. You prefer folk observations to science when analyzing motion. You have thus doomed yourself to misconception.
Stardusty: "Motion is self sustaining, it does not stop unless something acts to stop it."
" Indeed. And once something acts to stop it, for the motion to continue will require a sustaining force, " --Force is force. There is no such thing as a "sustaining force" outside of your imagination.
" Note I never used the word "instantaneous" or any synonym of it." --You deny an infinity of time is at issue. If the cause and effect are not instantaneous and infinity of them would require infinite time.
You deny the First Way addresses the past, so cause and effect must then be instantaneous.
When you put away your folk reasoning and learn to think scientifically you will bring your underdeveloped concepts out of the middle ages and into the present day.
Stardusty: "The notion of assigning the title of "cause" to an object and then distinguishing between an essentially ordered series and any other series is illusory and useless in a serious discussion of causality."
" So you assert." --In folk reasoning we think of an object as a cause. We assign the title of cause to things in order for us to function at our level. But that is not helpful if we are attempting to account for a first mover as opposed to an infinite regress.
If you want to go about assigning titles and using ordinary observations and only consider the present moment then then there are lots of first movers. The batter is the first mover of the ball. The locomotive is the first mover of the train. The engine is the first mover of the car. The electric motor is the first mover of the blender. And on and on, explaining nothing that can lead to sound argument for God.
Me: “So, either you understand inertia, which would mean that you understand that things in motion in the current reference frame were set in motion in a prior reference frame (in which case your understanding of inertia should reveal to you that the premise of the First Way that states that "ALL that IS moved, is moved by another is false), / or / You don't understand inertia, and think that ALL motion as observed in the current reference frame is the result of a force currently appled within that current frame.”
Legion: “You left out the third and correct option - I understand inertia, and I also understand that what occurred in the past is irrelevant as to whether a motion can be sustained now without being moved by something else, like a caboose rolling over the ground.”
1. It is correct that a caboose traveling at a constant velocity requires a force equal to the friction it encounters to maintain that velocity.
2. It is also correct that an object in motion encountering no friction will continue to maintain its velocity for as long as that scenario remains in effect.
3. It is INcorrect that 2 is irrelevant to the First Way, which states that “But, ALL that IS moved, IS moved by another.” And it is 2 that the First Way appears to violate, thus making the quoted premise unsound. And, as has been pointed out so many times, an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument.
I’ll say this another way because you don’t seem to be absorbing it.
1. The First Way states that ALL that IS moved (“now,” as you say) is being moved by something else. 2. But we observe many things in motion (planets, satellites, etc.) whose constant velocity is clear evidence that their motion was initiated at some point in the past, and that they continue to move at this constant velocity without slowing down or needing something else to propel them (in the current reference frame).
There is no way to reasonably deny that 1 and 2 immediately above are in conflict. And there is no way that one can disagree with 2 immediately above and claim to have a grasp of the implications of how objects in motion operate (as commonly described under the term inertia).
I don't know if he does or not per notation. I'll let the wonks figure that one out, since I have no interest in translating the notation and then deciding whether you were correct in your analysis.
What is much more important to me is, does the conclusion of a first mover depend upon circular reasoning in order to be valid, regardless of how it is worded? For example, "I know God exists because the Bible says he does, and the Bible is the word of God so I trust it" is not salvageable logically no matter how you word it. Even if some notation technicality snagged what is technically begging the question in a technical sense - which again, I'm not going to analyze, but those who know the purpose and meaning of the argument have been disagreeing - the argument does not depend upon begging the question.
Basically, if you can't show me where Aquinas begs the question without "4a therefore 4, 4 therefore 4a", then I'm content that the argument does not beg the question. If it did, it would fall apart were the circular reasoning removed.
Stardusty: "Relativity and QM are applicable everywhere. You seem to think they are not. Why?"
General relativity falls apart at the quantum level. Quantum physics falls apart on larger scales. Neither covers every level, so per your definition, they are useless for modern analysis.
Stardusty: "It's the same physics."
With different variables at play producing different outcomes.
Stardusty: "You prefer folk observations to science when analyzing motion. You have thus doomed yourself to misconception."
You have a misconception that you have demonstrated where science contradicts the idea of an essentially ordered series.
Stardusty: "Force is force. There is no such thing as a "sustaining force" outside of your imagination."
You say this because you don't understand how language works. Words describe things. "Sustaining" has a definition, thus any force that meets that definition is a sustaining force. A "harmful force", an "explosive force", an "adequate force", and a "sustaining force" all exist, by definition. You have quite the task ahead of you if you wish to prove otherwise.
Stardusty: "If the cause and effect are not instantaneous and infinity of them would require infinite time."
The argument denies that there are an infinity of secondary causes at work for a given motion.
Stardusty: "You deny the First Way addresses the past, so cause and effect must then be instantaneous."
I have a generator, a switch, and a light bulb. The generator is producing power, the switch is on, and the light bulb is on. For an essentially ordered series, it does not matter when the generator was turned on. It does not matter when the switch was turned on. It does not matter how long the light bulb has been glowing. All that matters is, if the switch or generator are turned off, will the light remain on? If the answer is "no", then we have something that the First Way would analyze.
Stardusty: "When you put away your folk reasoning and learn to think scientifically you will bring your underdeveloped concepts out of the middle ages and into the present day."
You are obviously fond of saying this, but I hope you realize it doesn't reflect reality and amuses me greatly.
Stardusty: "The batter is the first mover of the ball."
You could try to terminate the series there, but it in fact goes on. The locomotive's ability to pull the caboose is dependent upon fuel, tracks, gravity, numerous other things. The staff and hand, the train, these are illustrations only. All of them are actually secondary, since they owe their causal power to other things.
The First Way proposes that there can't be an infinity of such secondary causes, and that there must be a termination point of an unmoved mover, or else nothing could move.
Cal: "2. It is also correct that an object in motion encountering no friction will continue to maintain its velocity for as long as that scenario remains in effect."
Because gravitational forces are always acting on it. A force acting on a body will produce an effect.
Cal: "But, ALL that IS moved, IS moved by another.”
Correct. Per the argument, motion is a potential state becoming an actualized state - change, basically. So, all that is changed is changed by another.
The premise requires "not X, then X". To be moved is to be changed. Nothing changes itself. All that is moved is moved by another = all that is changed is changed by another.
But, let's take a satellite or something physically moving freely without friction. It is true that it will continue indefinitely until something acts upon it to change it (all that is moved is moved by another). The satellite's physical movement was granted to it by someone launching it - it didn't launch itself. So its physical movement is a state that is granted to it by another - all that is moved is moved by another.
Of course, this is not an essentially ordered series, since the satellite's movement is now independent of the thing that moved it, but it is still true that the satellite's movement was by another, and not itself.
That the satellite keeps moving due to inertia does nothing to damage the First Way - its physical motion is a state that will not change unless moved by another.
Cal Metzger said... " IS moved" --Anybody have Bill Clinton's number handy?
Actually, Cal, you raise a valid point on the insistence of the theists here that IS means in the present moment. That was actually how Clinton avoided a technical purgery, by answering truthfully with respect to the present moment.
Indeed, if an object was at X before and is at Y now then it IS moved, in the sense that it moved very recently. A theist seems to have trouble understanding that even speaking of X before means we are considering the past, yet it's not in the past, yet it's not instantaneous, yet we are kind of crummny people for suggesting theists don't understand the basics of motion and inertia.
An object coasting along in outer space IS moved, yet it IS not being moved by another.
>> "What does any of this have to do with the First Way?"
" It's related to your comment about how long the delay will be before motion occurs on the other end." --Ok, fine, putting aside certain difficulties of the dimensions involved then according to relativity no causal effect can propagate faster than c.
Sound is pressure wave or density wave that propagates, unsurprisingly, at the speed of sound in that medium. So if have a long steel rod and you tap on it on one end you will hear the tapping at the other end according to the speed of sound in steel.
It all takes time.
When I was a little kid I had a toy that was a board with pegs and I could put gears on the pegs such turning one gear made all the other gears turn as in a clockwork. Ideally all the gears turn in the same instant.
So, we can imagine the universe is a rigid clockwork in the notion of an essential series , but that just is not how the universe works.
Causal effects propagate over time, necessarily. The distinction of an essential series breaks down under close analysis of components interacting over time.
Legion: "But, let's take a satellite or something physically moving freely without friction. It is true that it will continue indefinitely until something acts upon it to change it (all that is moved is moved by another). The satellite's physical movement was granted to it by someone launching it - it didn't launch itself. So its physical movement is a state that is granted to it by another - all that is moved is moved by another."
In your example below, the satellite actually WAS launched, and now it IS moving.
The statement imm above is compatible with how we understand motion (inertia).
Or do you mean that when we see a satellite in orbit, that what we observe is the satellite being launched (IS launching) and that it IS moving?
The statement immediately above is not compatible with how we understand motion, but it is compatible with what you said above.
A particular motion has a beginning, middle and end.
When a train begins to move, it is true that the caboose does not move instantaneously as the force of movement is transferred car by car finally to the caboose. This is actually very similar to the example of why Aristotle argues that nothing can move itself if it is made up of parts. The whole does not move instantaneously to begin the motion. However, once each of the cars are in motion, the series as a whole is in motion and the beginning of the motion is over. We are in the middle of the motion as the train moves from one station to the next. When it arrives at the next station and ends the motion, deceleration occurs and the the train slows down reversing the action of the beginning and like the beginning, the deceleration is not instantaneously.
Causal effects propagate over time, necessarily. The distinction of an essential series breaks down under close analysis of components interacting over time.
No, because if the caboose is not moving due to the propagation of the motion along the cars, it is not moving and so is not yet part of the series. This is easily seen because, theoretically, I could unhook the caboose once the engine started to pull and the caboose would not even start to move...therefore it is not part of the moving series.
Indeed, if an object was at X before and is at Y now then it IS moved, in the sense that it moved very recently. A theist seems to have trouble understanding that even speaking of X before means we are considering the past, yet it's not in the past, yet it's not instantaneous, yet we are kind of crummny people for suggesting theists don't understand the basics of motion and inertia.
Strawdusty:"--Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
I don't consider it "crummny", I just consider it "funny" that you can talk about things moving in the present tense while telling your opponents they can't.
An object coasting along in outer space IS moved, yet it IS not being moved by another.
Dusty: "Causal effects propagate over time, necessarily."
I'm not denying this. I'm challenging the accuracy of your statement by comparing it to what we know about material science and the behavior of materials.
If a continuously applied force doesn't yield the material to the point of it breaking then we know the "spring" compression slows down on a relative scale to prevent yielding.
Somewhere along the length of the material the rate of compression becomes LESS than the velocity of the end that is moving. At that point the velocity of the end in motion becomes faster than the rate of compression and the entire object is in motion from beginning to end.
I'm suggesting that this transition occurs SOONER than it takes for light to reach the end of the rod. I don't know this for a fact because I have not run the test. I would be interested in seeing this test if you happen to have a link.
Well given the quality of the objections being raised now - mostly revolving around inaccurately telling me I don't understand science when I do - and the fact that we have exceeded 2000 posts, I'm going to conclude that if serious objections to the First Way exist, they will not be presented here.
Thank you, bmiller and SteveK, for your lessons on A-T philosophy and the First Way. It is an interesting argument.
Thank you, Stardusty and Cal, for reinforcing bmiller and SteveK, albeit unknowingly and unwillingly.
" I'm suggesting that this transition occurs SOONER than it takes for light to reach the end of the rod. I don't know this for a fact because I have not run the test." --That seems intuitively the case. We tend to think of hard steel as a rigid mass. When we push on one end the other end seems to immediately move.
If I line up 10 solid cubes tight against each other and push on one end it stands to reason the last cube will move instantaneously.
That turns out not to be precisely the case. The problem is that humans can perceive perhaps 10ms. Light travels the distance from Mexico to Canada in that amount of time.
Thus, (3) of the OP requires time at every iteration. In (4) an infinity of such iterations is considered, which necessarily requires consideration of an infinity of time, past time, a very long time ago indeed.
Thus, the notion of an essential series is a perceptual artifact, like instantaneous action at the other end of the rod.
Causation happens in a continual mutual interactive process between a humanly uncountable number of small bodies. Yes, of course, if you take away some part of the process the process stops, but so what?
Cause and effect require time, so an infinity of causes and effects necessarily would require an infinity of time, which is denied as being possible in the First Way, so very obviously the First Way is about the very distant past and the assertion that the distant past cannot extend to an infinite past.
The only way to say the First Way is not addressing the infinite past is to claim cause and effect happen in precisely zero time, such that an infinity of causes and effects would not reach into the past at all.
Perhaps Aquinas had some notion of a perfectly rigid clockwork universe where cause and effect extend in space in zero time to form a universal essential series, but if so, that would only show how utterly useless the First Way is as a modern argument.
Well given the quality of the objections being raised now - mostly revolving around inaccurately telling me I don't understand science when I do - and the fact that we have exceeded 2000 posts, I'm going to conclude that if serious objections to the First Way exist, they will not be presented here. March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM May 11, 2017 9:00 AM June 30, 2017 7:08 AM June 30, 2017 5:45 PM
I still haven't seen anything from Legion to show" 1. Why an assertion of human understanding is somehow not a non sequitur argument for the existence of God. 2. Why an statement of what "everyone" understands is somehow not a false premise. 3. How the U therefore ~~U therefore ~I therefore U sequence of the first way is somehow not begging the question. 4. How an infinity of cause an effect can be anything other than an infinity of past time unless cause and effect happen in precisely zero time.
Legion, you never got through your step by step. Your excuse? We atheists just would not be able to understand. In truth, we have presented a very detailed linguistic, logical, and demonstrable refutation of this deeply flawed medieval argument.
My best guess is that faced with such strong evidence against your faith you have exercised some sort of personal defense mechanism, unable to confront the possibility of being so fundamentally wrong, your instinct is to plug your ears before you hear the truth so many times you can no longer avoid acknowledging it.
You may possibly know that W L Craig has called the Thomistic god "unintelligible" and does not employ the First Way in his approach of so called "Reasonable Faith". Even Craig realizes the First Way is unsound.
Dusty, >> "If I line up 10 solid cubes tight against each other and push on one end it stands to reason the last cube will move instantaneously. That turns out not to be precisely the case."
I'm not arguing for instantaneous. I'm saying that I'm not convinced that your time delay statement is true. If I'm understanding your statement correctly you're saying the other end of a rod 2LY in length would take 2 years before it would move, regardless of the material and geometry.
I'm saying that would NOT be true IF the rate at which the material is compressing falls below the velocity of the moving end before 2 years have passed. When that occurs depends on the material and the geometry. The more rigid the material the less time it takes for this to happen and the sooner the opposite end will move. In theory it can be instantaneous, but I don't think such a material exists.
Of course, if I'm misunderstanding your time delay statement about motion and the speed of light then I stand corrected.
Cause and effect require time, so an infinity of causes and effects necessarily would require an infinity of time, which is denied as being possible in the First Way,
This is one of the reasons there cannot be an infinite number of moving movers. The other is that as we see something moved, and check what it moving it and see that it is being moved and check each mover from the last in the series to earlier in series, if it goes to infinity we will never find the thing that is actually responsible for the motion....the first mover.
so very obviously the First Way is about the very distant past and the assertion that the distant past cannot extend to an infinite past.
Nonsense. It is not about the distant past nor the "origin of motion because:
1) Aristotle did not believe the universe had an origin 2) Therefore the "first mover" refers to present motion, not the origin of motion 3) All knowledgeable scholars and commentators agree with 1) and 2) 4) Relevant passages of Physics were quoted to confirm 2) 5) The English and Latin verbs of any version of the First Way confirm 2)
The only way to say the First Way is not addressing the infinite past is to claim cause and effect happen in precisely zero time, such that an infinity of causes and effects would not reach into the past at all.
Nonsense. Read the July 02, 2017 12:29 PM post.
Perhaps Aquinas had some notion of a perfectly rigid clockwork universe where cause and effect extend in space in zero time to form a universal essential series, but if so, that would only show how utterly useless the First Way is as a modern argument.
No need to guess. You have the links to the original sources.
Wouldn't the force travel at the speed of sound in the material? If you tap a beam with a hammer on one end, you won't hear the hum till the speed of sound ends up at the other end, right?
" In theory it can be instantaneous," --I don't know of any such theory, but you might be speaking more generally as in "ideally".
" Of course, if I'm misunderstanding your time delay statement about motion and the speed of light then I stand corrected." --Well, there is a delay between cause and effect in the real world. So in (3)and (4) an infinity of elements in this causal sequence is considered, therefore an infinity of time is considered.
The only way around this is to assert instantaneous (zero time) causal propagation. So the first way must be about the past series of causes, and must consider the first mover as having acted in the very distant past.
Clearly, a first mover must have acted prior to any motion, else it is not first. Things have been moving for a very long time, so the first mover must have imparted the fist motion before any other motion. How is this not glaringly obvious?
@bmiller >> "Wouldn't the force travel at the speed of sound in the material?"
I'm not sure that is the relevant question to ask. With a perfectly rigid material there is no compressibility due to force so both ends begin to move simultaneously no matter how long it is. I know that no such material exists but in that situation the speed of sound or light have nothing to do with it as far as I can tell - unless those things put a limit on material rigidly.
Thank you for engaging and trying to help our atheist friends understand the First Way.
You've diligently recorded the list of inanities you've encountered. I think I can bring the list to an even 100 with the ones I have. Future anthropologists will find it valuable when researching the extinct gnu's.
I'll try to make a recording of the simian hoots we encounter now that you've announced you're leaving the thread. I see one has started already ☺
Clearly, a first mover must have acted prior to any motion, else it is not first. Things have been moving for a very long time, so the first mover must have imparted the fist motion before any other motion. How is this not glaringly obvious?
The booster rocket for the Voyager is not now causing the capsule to move although it once did. Gravity and inertia are presently the cause of Voyager's motion. How is this not glaringly obvious?
Dusty: "I don't know of any such theory, but you might be speaking more generally as in "ideally".
The speed of light is not a cause, it's an observed reality. If something is limiting how rigid and incompressible a physical material can be, it's not the speed of light. If there is no known thing limiting material rigidity, then in theory it can be perfectly rigid.
I'm not sure that is the relevant question to ask. With a perfectly rigid material there is no compressibility due to force so both ends begin to move simultaneously no matter how long it is. I know that no such material exists but in that situation the speed of sound or light have nothing to do with it as far as I can tell - unless those things put a limit on material rigidly.
Quantum entanglement appears to show that things can cause effects faster than the speed of light, so there may be other instances out there also.
You MUST explain how inertia proves the FW false in terms of the argument itself. I specifically referred you to 2a-2f. This is where you are claiming inertia proves the argument wrong. Spell it out. How?
Let's look at 2a only and focus on "in potency".
2a Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency[9] to that towards which it is moved.
The object moving under inertia is in potency, but how do YOU mean that? You'll need to be specific. For example...
Is it in potency toward moving? No, it actually is moving. The FW doesn't apply. Is it in potency toward moving in the opposite direction? Yes. The FW applies. Is it in potency toward being 3 inches to the right? If it is actually moving to the right unopposed, no. The passing of time is all it takes to realize this so nothing requires changing. If nothing is changing the FW doesn't apply.
In summary, you'll need offer details as to what it in potency. Without that we have no idea what you are attempting to argue.
" You MUST explain how inertia proves the FW false in terms of the argument itself. " --Fair enough, but the problem is that seemingly simple words can be interpreted in different ways. By one interpretation, there might not be a problem, by another interpretation there might be.
Cal recently brought up the seeming simple word "is". I mentioned Bill Clinton as a famous example of the ambiguity of that word.
Does "is" refer to this instantaneous moment, or a perceived ongoing event in the recent past that is expected to continue, or an existence irrespective of time?
Another word is "moved". Do that mean presently moving, or does it mean something moved in the past but is now stationary, or does it mean a cause of motion, or does it mean a thing that was caused to move?
Another word is "act". Is that a mere state of material existence, or does it mean that a material object is doing some specific thing, or does it mean that a material object is in a particular state?
There is the further question of whether one can properly consider a potential to exist in any sense outside of human imagination.
One can doubt, further, that objects somehow possess properties, as the notion of a property can be considered to be a human analytical tool and not an existent object, rather, an abstraction.
"I specifically referred you to 2a-2f." --Ok, but given all these ambiguities I just kind of moved on to some other points I thought were more tractable. It's not that your outline is unimportant, it's just that I don't really feel like engaging in talking past each other. I prefer to make sure we are speaking the same language first.
The reason for the ambiguities is that Aquinas used very few words, and he did not follow a modern format for construction of a clear logical argument. If he had considered all possible misinterpretations of his words, and used longer sentences with more qualifiers then all this effort spent on clarifications would not be needed.
But Aquinas wrote in the style of the day, which is just one long run on tersely worded paragraph for the whole argument.
So, considering 2 b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.[10] --Here we need to know what "is" means, and moves means. If moves means that a thing is moving and act means that a thing is changing then under the concept of inertia that doesn't work because an object that is moving is not itself changing, rather, it is only moving to another location according to some reference frame, the reference frame being arbitrary, such that one could define a reference frame wherein the object is stationary.
Under inertia an object in uniform motion is not changing its intrinsic properties.
But "moves" can be used in other senses, so I am not drawing any particular conclusions yet.
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act. --So here "to move" seems to mean to be a cause of motion in something else. "To move" means to bring some other thing from a potential to an actual state.
Or maybe Aquinas means that to move is to bring that thing to an actual state, so in that case something else is the cause of this change.
In ordinary language "to move" means "to change position within a reference frame", which would be incompatible with 2c under inertia, because the object does not change its intrinsic properties when in uniform motion so it isn't realizing a potential as 2c calls for. So there is a conflict between 2c and inertia, on that definition set.
There is no conflict with 2c under Aristotle, because in that case "to move" is a process of continually realizing new potentials. Since Aquinas was Aristotelian in his thinking it is reasonable to conclude Aquinas fashioned 2c to be compatible with Aristotle and it is now incompatible with Newton.
However, if you go through the argument and pay very close attention to all the tenses and objects you might be able to massage the interpretation into a form that is fully compatible with inertia.
>> "Fair enough, but the problem is that seemingly simple words can be interpreted in different ways."
That's why we look at the way Aquinas intended the terms. If you argue against the FW using some other understanding, you're not arguing against the FW. If you're asking what these terms mean, you must not understand the argument enough to declare that you've rebutted it.
I admit that it's not an easy topic to understand. Metaphysics is not physics. I can't point to the essence of a rubber ball and expect you to easily grasp what I mean by 'essence'. It must be described and explained.
For an object under inertia, what potential are YOU talking about such that it is being reduct to act? That object is in potential toward MANY things. If you don't know which potential is being reduced to act, then you can't successfully argue that one of the 2a-2f statements is false.
Inertia cannot be an object being reduced from potential to actual in the same sense because that sets up a logical contradiction in the FW that is impossible. See statements 2e and 2f below.
We need to understand in what sense YOU mean. YOU tell us in what sense the object is being reduced from potential to actual.
2e "But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in act and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense."
2f "It is therefore impossible that, in the same way and same sense, a thing is moving and is moved,[12] or in other words, that it moves itself."
A body at rest is the mirror image of inertia. Like a body under inertia, no obvious potentials are being actualized. The body isn't changing shape, becoming heavier, smaller, etc. A body at rest is already at rest so you cannot say it's 'in potency' towards being at rest. The FW doesn't apply. No change is occurring.
Likewise a body in motion is already in motion so what potential are YOU talking about?
So, considering 2 b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.[10] --Here we need to know what "is" means, and moves means. If moves means that a thing is moving and act means that a thing is changing then under the concept of inertia that doesn't work because an object that is moving is not itself changing, rather, it is only moving to another location according to some reference frame, the reference frame being arbitrary, such that one could define a reference frame wherein the object is stationary.
It is true that local motion at a constant velocity is relative to the inertial reference frame. So something can be said to be moving or not moving depending on their inertial reference frame. If there is no perceived motion, then there is no motion to explain is there? It's not like Aristotle was not aware of this since he describes the situation of a passenger on a ship going down the river and how the passenger is not in motion wrt the ship, but is wrt to the river bank. Depending whether you are considering motion wrt to the ship or the bank you will either have motion to explain or not.
The reason for the ambiguities is that Aquinas used very few words, and he did not follow a modern format for construction of a clear logical argument. If he had considered all possible misinterpretations of his words, and used longer sentences with more qualifiers then all this effort spent on clarifications would not be needed.
The version of the argument from the ST is for students who already understood the terminology. That's why the OP added footnotes, to help those who had not completed the course to understand. Maybe it would have been better if he had presented the version from the SCG for those who had not done the studies.
Does this help you understand the argument better?
"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."
stevek: "A body at rest is the mirror image of inertia."
Sigh. A body at rest has inertia the same as a body in motion has inertia. Inertia is an object's resistance to a change in its state of motion. Inertia is related proportionally to an object's mass. "A body at rest is the mirror image of inertia" makes no practical sense, and reveals yet again that you don't understand very basic physics.
You would have learned this if you had ever taken a real physics course. Which is a basic requirement before taking more advanced mechanical engineering courses.
Where did you get your mechanical engineering degree exactly?
Or did you mean something else when you claimed earlier that you were a mechanical engineer?
What does it say about someone who feels that lying is the best chance he has to argue a point?
Is someone who lies while arguing a point more likely to be on the right side or the wrong side of an argument?
But "moves" can be used in other senses, so I am not drawing any particular conclusions yet.
In ordinary language "to move" means "to change position within a reference frame", which would be incompatible with 2c under inertia, because the object does not change its intrinsic properties when in uniform motion so it isn't realizing a potential as 2c calls for. So there is a conflict between 2c and inertia, on that definition set.
Aquinas following Aristotle listed 3 specific categories in his discussion of "motion/change" which Legion listed some time back. Quality, quantity and local motion. The version of the First Way from the ST uses changes of quality and local motion. The fact is that when the category under discussion it local motion rather than quality, qualitative changes are not under discussion. While a thing is under local motion it may or not be experiencing qualitative change at the same time. Discussing one category does not mean the other categories do or do not change also, it merely means they are not the subject of a particular discussion.
In other words, you could be driving down the road singing "Proud Mary" with your hair on fire. Because your hair is on fire doesn't mean someone along the side of the road won't perceive both things as well as being able to form an opinion on your singing ability. ☹
" We need to understand in what sense YOU mean. YOU tell us in what sense the object is being reduced from potential to actual." --I don't mean actual and potential. To me those are just archaic and useless terms. It is true that physicists still refer to potential energy in a system where work has been done against a field to in effect store energy, but that sense of potential means a real storage of energy sort of like your bank balance is a potential withdrawal.
Physicists who study causation simply do not employ A-T language.
So, the only reason I use A-T language is because it is used in the First Way and that is the topic of the OP. Translating A-T language to modern language is problematic because the A in A-T was simply wrong.
I don't understand why you are focusing on my understanding of the words. If you think you know the sense and tense Aquinas meant, fine, perhaps you can expand his sentences to remove the ambiguity, although doing so is an implicit admission that Aquinas was at best a very bad writer who was incapable of presenting an argument unambiguously.
" If there is no perceived motion, then there is no motion to explain is there?" --So, if we don't feel ourselves moving there is no need to explain our rotational, orbital, galactic, or cosmic motion in that case.
Any assertion of a first mover that fails to account for all these motions, perceived or not, is a failed assertion.
--So, if we don't feel ourselves moving there is no need to explain our rotational, orbital, galactic, or cosmic motion in that case.
Any assertion of a first mover that fails to account for all these motions, perceived or not, is a failed assertion.
No. If you want to discuss local motion, you have to specify what the local motion is in relation to. So if you are sitting in a chair, you are not in motion with respect to the chair. You are however in motion with respect to the moon, and in a different respect in motion to the sun, and in another different respect to a particular star.
So if you are not moving wrt to something, then there is no motion in this respect. If you want to choose a different set of referents where motion is present between/among them, then an explanation is needed as to why and how these things are in motion wrt each other.
So discussing rotational motion is different than discussing orbital motion and so on, as is evident as you acknowledged by listing different speeds for each while discussing the caboose.
One can discuss the qualified cause of rotational motion without referring to the qualified cause of orbital motion etc. However, while discussing each of these motions we must come to a first mover.
" One can discuss the qualified cause of rotational motion without referring to the qualified cause of orbital motion etc. However, while discussing each of these motions we must come to a first mover." --What is the first mover for the orbital motion of the Earth?
Legion: "Well given the quality of the objections being raised now - mostly revolving around inaccurately telling me I don't understand science when I do..."
That's a pretty shabby characterization.
The OBJECTIONS have overwhelmingly specified flaws found in the First Way -- flaws that violate the rules of good argument. These have been described in detail and with rigor (including frequent citation of previous unanswered criticisms) by Stardusty, and they have often been reiterated less formally by me.
The SPECULATIONS about the understanding and psychology of all participants in this discussion is tangential, but it deserves consideration. After all, anyone who thinks in today’s world that people change their minds based solely on the presentation of rational argument has revealed themselves to be a kind of fool.
Legion: “… - and the fact that we have exceeded 2000 posts, I'm going to conclude that if serious objections to the First Way exist, they will not be presented here."
This statement reminds me of another farewell address.
Emperor Hirohito, in his surrender address to the Japanese people: “Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to insure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.”
Legion: “Thank you, Stardusty and Cal, for reinforcing bmiller and SteveK, albeit unknowingly and unwillingly.”
bmiller and stevek are pretty relentless liars, among other things. That you would join forces with them speaks volumes about your character and acumen.
@Cal If you cannot understand what I meant by "mirror image" - it's right there in my comment- then I suggest signing up for a high school English class.
Dusty >> "I don't understand why you are focusing on my understanding of the words."
I explained that an object is in potency toward many things. I gave a few example statements to get you thinking. As it applies to inertia, which potential and in what sense are you talking about?
--What is the first mover for the orbital motion of the Earth?
Per Newtonian mechanics the Earth is held in orbit around the sun due to the force of gravity. Gravity is considered a natural motion under A-T metaphysics and so it is due to the nature of material bodies as opposed to violent or forced motion. Whatever is responsible for the nature or form of the thing being the kind of thing it is the first mover.
The last time this was discussed was here: May 18, 2017 8:37 PM.
--What is the first mover for the orbital motion of the Earth?
Per Newtonian mechanics the Earth is held in orbit around the sun due to the force of gravity. Gravity is considered a natural motion under A-T metaphysics and so it is due to the nature of material bodies as opposed to violent or forced motion. Whatever is responsible for the nature or form of the thing being the kind of thing it is the first mover. --So what is the first mover of the orbital motion of the Earth, specifically?
I believe that is discussed in the Second Way, the cosmological argument. Is that correct bmiller?
I'm not sure what you're referring to. If it's what is the ultimate cause of motion, then the First Way has this covered. The Second Way deals in efficient causes, which with material causes, is what moderns think they deal in exclusively. But I would argue that they implicitly embrace the other 2 causes.
--So what is the first mover of the orbital motion of the Earth, specifically?
" Per the First Way, the Unmoved Mover. Per the First Way, the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate thing that moves all moved movers." --Then, what specifically moved the Earth such that it began its orbital motion? Was that the first mover, or something else, say mover X1?
Did the first mover move mover X1 or was it another mover, say mover X2?
How many movers must we consider before we get to the first mover? X1, X2, X3...Xn
Since the First way states this cannot go on to infinity n would then be a finite number.
How big in n?
How many of these movers can you identify, specifically, by name?
stevek: "@Cal If you cannot understand what I meant by "mirror image" - it's right there in my comment- then I suggest signing up for a high school English class."
Ha.
stevek's entire comment: "A body at rest is the mirror image of inertia. Like a body under inertia, no obvious potentials are being actualized. The body isn't changing shape, becoming heavier, smaller, etc. A body at rest is already at rest so you cannot say it's 'in potency' towards being at rest. The FW doesn't apply. No change is occurring. / Likewise a body in motion is already in motion so what potential are YOU talking about?"
Your words reveal that you have no basic science understanding, let alone the technical expertise of a mechanical engineer.
Where did you get your mechanical engineering degree exactly?
Or did you mean something else when you claimed earlier that you were a mechanical engineer?
What does it say about someone who feels that lying is the best chance he has to argue a point?
Is someone who lies while arguing a point more likely to be on the right side or the wrong side of an argument?
--Then, what specifically moved the Earth such that it began its orbital motion? Was that the first mover, or something else, say mover X1?
Did the first mover move mover X1 or was it another mover, say mover X2?
How many movers must we consider before we get to the first mover? X1, X2, X3...Xn
The First Way is silent about what may or may not have caused motion in the past. It only addresses the present motion.
Since the First way states this cannot go on to infinity n would then be a finite number.
The First Way does not address motions of the past. An example I mentioned earlier was the booster rocket for the Voyager capsule. The booster could now be scrap metal or in a museum so it is not now causing the capsule to move so is not part of the essentially ordered series presently causing the motion, the booster not being essential for the present motion to continue.
At one point in time, the booster was essential to the motion of the capulse and so was once part of the essentially ordered series responsible for the movement. Once it ran out of fuel and separated, it was no longer essential to the motion, so no longer part of the essentially ordered series. It then became part of an accidentally ordered series that could be considered responsible for the motion. But accidentally ordered series are not under consideration in the First Way. Aquinas following Aristotle considered it theoretically possible for such a series to be infinite, but again, the First Way considers only the essentially ordered series.
How big in n?
How many of these movers can you identify, specifically, by name?
Since the First way states this cannot go on to infinity n would then be a finite number.
To be very explicity about things. The First Way does not state that the series you're referring to "cannot go on to infinity" because it is not discussing that type of series. It is discussing what is causing present movement.
From the SCG version: 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.
Notice that the question is "what causes the sun to move", not what has caused the sun to move.
Dusty >> "I don't understand why you are focusing on my understanding of the words."
" I explained that an object is in potency toward many things. I gave a few example statements to get you thinking. As it applies to inertia, which potential and in what sense are you talking about?" --By certain usages 2a through 2f is invalid under inertia.
To illustrate any particular interpretation of Aquinas requires the addition or substitution of words, since his original words were so very terse and ambiguous.
2b. But, a thing moves (is presently in motion) only insomuch as it is in act (presently has kinetic energy after having been acted upon by a force over time). 2c. In fact, to move (to be changing position continuously, to be in motion) is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act (to impart kinetic energy in a thing by applying a force over time).
2b by this wording is compatible with inertia, but 2c is incompatible with inertia in the case of uniform motion.
So, Steve, choose your poison. Try to expand the ambiguous words of 2a through 2f such that they are clear and unambiguous, yet they appear in the same order as the original argument, adding nothing, subtracting nothing.
Further, it is necessary in this effort to be consistent. If you change the meaning of the same word to be different meanings in different sentences that would be the fallacy of equivocation.
Also, the expanded or explained argument needs to be meaningful and sensible and lead in to the rest of the First Way.
And, crucially, all your expansions need to be fully compatible with modern science.
@Strawdusty, How many of these movers can you identify, specifically, by name?
" These questions are irrelevant to the First Way." --So, the first way is unable to identify any movers, and unable to connect the asserted first mover with any observed motion.
" To be very explicity about things. The First Way does not state that the series you're referring to "cannot go on to infinity" because it is not discussing that type of series. It is discussing what is causing present movement." --What is presently causing the present orbital movement of the Earth?
Is it the first mover moving the Earth in its orbit in the present?
If not the first mover, then some other mover is moving the Earth in the present, say mover X1?
Is the first mover moving X1 in the present, or is X2 moving X1 that moves the Earth, all in the present?
How many members are there to this set moving things in the present? X1, X2, X3...Xn, Xfm
How many of these movers acting in the present can you specifically name, or in some way specifically and explicitly identify?
--So, the first way is unable to identify any movers, and unable to connect the asserted first mover with any observed motion.
No, as I posted previously:
Per Newtonian mechanics the Earth is held in orbit around the sun due to the force of gravity. Gravity is considered a natural motion under A-T metaphysics and so it is due to the nature of material bodies as opposed to violent or forced motion. Whatever is responsible for the nature or form of the thing being the kind of thing it is the first mover.
I later clarified that as the Unmoved Mover.
It seems that what you define as "first mover" is different from what Aquinas defines as the Unmoved Mover, and hence the confusion.
How many of these movers acting in the present can you specifically name, or in some way specifically and explicitly identify?
If any particular X is in motion, it is not the Unmoved Mover. Per Newtonian physics, the earth moves due to gravity in orbit due to gravity. Per A-T, this is considered a natural motion, due to the sun and earth having the particular form of material bodies. As such, the cause of the form is the ultimate cause of the motion, that being the Unmoved Mover.
If you want to propose another theory than gravity, we can discuss that. But it should be apparent from this quote from the First Way, that the particular mechanism of a particular motion must ultimately trace back to the Unmoved Mover. See how it is agnostic as to what moves the sun?
From the SCG version: 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.
I'm not the one who is attempting to critique the argument. If you don't understand it, do some research. Perhaps when you do that you can explain how inertia proves 2a-2f false.
@Strawdusty, How many of these movers acting in the present can you specifically name, or in some way specifically and explicitly identify?
" If any particular X is in motion, it is not the Unmoved Mover. " --So, the motion of the Earth in orbit is not due to the first mover, it just is, all on its own, and always has been, simply natural, and does not require a first mover, now, or ever.
" From the SCG version: 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." --So the sun moves, evidently, presently. Yet this is somehow not the sort of natural motion that requires no first mover? Something must be moving the sun in the present because it is in some sense non-natural motion?
I must admit I am flabbergasted you would choose this example.
The evident motion of the sun. Really? You are arguing from the evident motion of the sun? Seriously? Wait a second, hold on, the phone is ringing, it's the dark ages calling...
This is what it comes down to for you, the sun is evidently moving in the present, so its motion in the present must be caused by something.
Is X1 moving the sun with the first mover moving X1? If so, and you name or specifically identify what X1 is?
Or is the first mover directly moving the sun in the present such that we see the sun rise in the east, get moved along by the first mover as it arcs across the sky throughout the day very evidently, and then sets in the west?
" If any particular X is in motion, it is not the Unmoved Mover. " --So, the motion of the Earth in orbit is not due to the first mover, it just is, all on its own, and always has been, simply natural, and does not require a first mover, now, or ever.
No. Please reread what I wrote. If any particular X is in motion, it is not the Unmoved Mover. Per Newtonian physics, the earth moves due to gravity in orbit due to gravity. Per A-T, this is considered a natural motion, due to the sun and earth having the particular form of material bodies. As such, the cause of the form is the ultimate cause of the motion, that being the Unmoved Mover.
The Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of the present motion.
--So the sun moves, evidently, presently. Yet this is somehow not the sort of natural motion that requires no first mover? Something must be moving the sun in the present because it is in some sense non-natural motion?
All motion requires the Unmoved Mover ultimately, whether the motion is considered natural or violent.
This is what it comes down to for you, the sun is evidently moving in the present, so its motion in the present must be caused by something.
Yes.
Is X1 moving the sun with the first mover moving X1? If so, and you name or specifically identify what X1 is?
As I mentioned: If you want to propose another theory than gravity, we can discuss that. But it should be apparent from this quote from the First Way, that the particular mechanism of a particular motion must ultimately trace back to the Unmoved Mover. See how it is agnostic as to what moves the sun?
From the SCG version: 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.
Or is the first mover directly moving the sun in the present such that we see the sun rise in the east, get moved along by the first mover as it arcs across the sky throughout the day very evidently, and then sets in the west?
Seriously? The sun?
As we previously discussed relative motion, it is apparent that the sun moves wrt the earth. Both the earth and sun move wrt the moon and so on. Only from the inertial reference frame of center of rotation of the sun does the sun appear not to move and even then one would observe the surface moving.
When discussing the motion of the sun wrt the earth's reference frame, we can refer to the motion as the sun moves in relation to the horizons on a daily basis or to the annual position of the sun in the sky. According to Newtonian physics, the rotation of the earth on it's axis accounts for the former and the earth's orbit around the sun accounts for the later. Gravity and inertia. The Unmoved Mover ultimately being responsible for both, whether considered natural motion or violent motion.
" All motion requires the Unmoved Mover ultimately, whether the motion is considered natural or violent." --So, the Earth is in natural motion now, so the first mover is not moving it now, but its motion requires a first mover "ultimately".
What are the specific causal links between the first mover and the present motion of the Earth in orbit?
Xfm, X1, X2, X3...Xn, Enm
Xfm first mover X1 1st subsequent mover Xn nth subsequent mover Enm Earth in natural motion
Can you name and specifically describe X1, Xn, and as many intermediate movers as you know of and can specifically identify and name?
" All motion requires the Unmoved Mover ultimately, whether the motion is considered natural or violent." --So, the Earth is in natural motion now, so the first mover is not moving it now, but its motion requires a first mover "ultimately".
That is incorrect. For the sake of argument, let's consider that the earth is moved around the sun due to gravity.
The Unmoved Mover is ultimately responsible for natural motion of existent material things. In the present case, the earth is moved by gravity due to it's form. The form exists due to the Unmoved Mover.
stevek: "I'm not the one who is attempting to critique the argument."
You are attempting to defend the argument from the criticism offered -- pointing out the many ways in which the First Way obviously violates the rules of good argument.
You have failed. Thoroughly.
stevek: "If you don't understand it, do some research."
We do understand the argument -- that's why we can recognize the many ways in which it violates the rules of good argument. We also understand how to consistently apply the rules of good argument, basic science, history, etc. These are all fields in which the apologists here have demonstrated that they are witless.
stevek: "Perhaps when you do that you can explain how inertia proves 2a-2f false."
Because you are too witless to understand a criticism doesn't mean that it hasn't been explained.
stevek: "I will leave you to your studies. I'm out."
If I were a sincere apologist (I know, absurd), I would do everything I could to dissociate my apologetics from the kind of behavior and ignorance you have displayed here throughout.
Yes, you should stay away, until you have learned to think as an adult. I would start with trying to take and pass a basic science course.
" The Unmoved Mover is ultimately responsible for natural motion of existent material things. In the present case, the earth is moved by gravity due to it's form. The form exists due to the Unmoved Mover."
What are the specific causal links between the first mover and the present motion of the Earth in orbit?
Xfm, X1, X2, X3...Xn, Enm
Xfm first mover X1 1st subsequent mover Xn nth subsequent mover Enm Earth in natural motion
Can you name and specifically describe X1, Xn, and as many intermediate movers as you know of and can specifically identify and name?
What are the specific causal links between the first mover and the present motion of the Earth in orbit?
This was my previous response: For the sake of argument, let's consider that the earth is moved around the sun due to gravity.
The Unmoved Mover is ultimately responsible for natural motion of existent material things. In the present case, the earth is moved by gravity due to it's form. The form exists due to the Unmoved Mover.
Why do you think this does not answer your question?
Earth in natural motion due to earth's form due to Unmoved Mover.
" Why do you think this does not answer your question?" --Because you are evading a specification of the causal chain.
Earth in natural motion --What events of the form of Earth give it motion? due to earth's form --What events created or imparted this form? due to Unmoved Mover. --What did the unmoved mover do specifically to shape this form?
Was there a single event, say, the big bang at which time the first mover imparted form to all things, and has been hands off since?
Was it the formation of our galaxy that gave form to the Earth, with the first mover imparting form in that process?
Was it the formation of our solar system that gave form to the Earth, with the first mover imparting form in that process?
Are all these scientifically evidenced processes illusory and the first mover actually imparted form to the Earth an instant ago?
" Why do you think this does not answer your question?" --Because you are evading a specification of the causal chain.
I am giving you the AT account of how the Unmoved Mover of the First Way keeps things in existence and changing. I can tell from some of your questions you want an answer about how things happened in the past. The First Way is not a discussion about how things happened in the past, only about what is causing change now.
Let me address your specific response one by one"
Earth in natural motion --What events of the form of Earth give it motion?
I can't tell what you're asking. What does the phrase "events of the form" mean? Aristotle has 2 basic explanations for motion; natural and violent. Basically (and not exhaustively) 1) Violent motion is when a material thing collides with another is pushing, pulling, twisting etc another. 2) Natural motion is what happens when nothing impedes a material object from the type of motion it will naturally do as being the type of thing it is.
due to earth's form --What events created or imparted this form?
The First Way does not discuss the creation of a particular thing. It only assumes that material things exist and that they move.
due to Unmoved Mover. --What did the unmoved mover do specifically to shape this form?
The First Way does not discuss the creation of a particular thing. It only assumes that material things exist and that they move.
Was there a single event, say, the big bang at which time the first mover imparted form to all things, and has been hands off since?
Was it the formation of our galaxy that gave form to the Earth, with the first mover imparting form in that process?
Was it the formation of our solar system that gave form to the Earth, with the first mover imparting form in that process?
The First Way does not discuss the creation of a particular thing. It only assumes that material things exist and that they move.
As you can see, I am giving a consistent answer to all questions related to past events, origins of motion etc. That is not because I am evading your questions, but because the First Way is the topic of discussion and the First Way is not a discussion of what motion happened in the distant past but only about present motion.
Are all these scientifically evidenced processes illusory and the first mover actually imparted form to the Earth an instant ago?
No, the First Way does not say past events were illusory. It doesn't address past events at all. Once more for the record, Aquinas thought it not possible to prove the universe had a beginning by science alone. Aristotle argued that the universe always existed and has always been in motion so it would be absurd to think that he argued for a "first mover" that caused a "first motion" because he thought no such thing as a "first motion" ever happened.
AT philosophy discusses 4 ways of explaining how things exist called the 4 causes. 1) The material cause 2) The formal cause 3) The efficient cause 4) The final cause
The material cause is the stuff material things are made from. The formal cause is the nature or essence of the particular material thing. The efficient cause is how the material thing came into existence. The final cause is what the material thing tends to do.
bmiller: "The First Way is not a discussion about how things happened in the past, only about what is causing change now."
Nope.
One CANNOT observe motion in a current given reference frame without referring to the change in position prior, and one can't refer to a prior position without involving time.
Your version of the First Way would fail on soundness; all present change involves prior events. Necessarily.
One CANNOT observe motion in a current given reference frame without referring to the change in position prior, and one can't refer to a prior position without involving time.
Then complain to Strawdusty.
Strawdusty:"--Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
Was there a single event, say, the big bang at which time the first mover imparted form to all things, and has been hands off since?
Let me try this.
When the past was the present, the Unmoved Mover was then, as now, the ultimate mover for motion and has been continuously for each moment of time (if you consider time composed of moments).
bmiller: "The First Way is not a discussion about how things happened in the past, only about what is causing change now." Me: "Nope. / One CANNOT observe motion in a current given reference frame without referring to the change in position prior, and one can't refer to a prior position without involving time. bmiller: "Then complain to Strawdusty. / Strawdusty:"--Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion." "
Yup. Moving at 1,300,000 mph (even in orbital motion!) means referring two at least two reference frames, one of which is necessarily prior.
Your interpretation of the First Way (as has been pointed out to you so many times now) fails on soundness.
bmiller: "When the past was the present, the Unmoved Mover was then, as now, the ultimate mover for motion and has been continuously for each moment of time (if you consider time composed of moments)."
This fails on Occam's razor (a principle of good argument).
We observe objects moving now without an invisible extra ultimate mover (motion can be explained entirely without need for an invisible, undetectable ultimate mover).
Yup. Moving at 1,300,000 mph (even in orbital motion!) means referring two at least two reference frames, one of which is necessarily prior.
Then I really don't know what you are complaining about. The First Way discusses things changing in the present, just like a caboose moving at 1,300,000 mph, not the origin of all motion in the universe.
We observe objects moving now without an invisible extra ultimate mover (motion can be explained entirely without need for an invisible, undetectable ultimate mover).
The Unmoved Mover is necessary to ultimately explain motion and so is detectable. As for being invisible, what color is gravity and inertia?
Then I really don't know what you are complaining about. The First Way discusses things changing in the present, just like a caboose moving at 1,300,000 mph, not the origin of all motion in the universe.
Should have been all motion in the universe in the distant past
bmiller: "Then I really don't know what you are complaining about. The First Way discusses things changing in the present, just like a caboose moving at 1,300,000 mph, not the origin of all motion in the universe."
You seem incapable of grasping that any change in which the current reference frame is the present (the latest reference frame) NECESSARILY involves a prior (in the past ) reference frame.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to talk about change without reference to the past. If the First Way pretends otherwise, then the First Way fails to be sound. And arguments that fail on soundness are bad arguments.
Then I really don't know what you are complaining about. The First Way discusses things changing in the present, just like a caboose moving at 1,300,000 mph, not the origin of all motion in the universe.
You seem incapable of grasping that any change in which the current reference frame is the present (the latest reference frame) NECESSARILY involves a prior (in the past ) reference frame.
I don't know where you get that I deny past motion. We've all been able to discuss a caboose traveling at a certain velocity rationally without referring to the "first motion" of the universe.
bmiller: "Then I really don't know what you are complaining about. The First Way discusses things changing in the present, just like a caboose moving at 1,300,000 mph, not the origin of all motion in the universe."
then...
bmiller: "I don't know where you get that I deny past motion. We've all been able to discuss a caboose traveling at a certain velocity rationally without referring to the "first motion" of the universe."
We get that you're denying past motion when you say that the First Way discusses things changing in the present.
Motion in the present = reference to a prior reference frame (past).
ANY attempt to trace back to a First Mover NECESSARILY goes back into the past.
NO discussion of a First Mover is possible without going back and back and back all the way to the beginning.
Because that is how motion works. It goes back, and back, and back, in space (which is also time).
Your contuned inability to grasp this simple fact invalidates any supposed defense you might have purported of the First Way, because one has to understand the paradox itself before one can hope to offer an explanation (which, in the case of the First Way, fails in a virtual buffet of violations of good argument).
Me: "By invisible I mean undetectable (and extraneous). What use is an explanation that explains nothing?"
bmiller: "How did you detect gravity? Was it a certain size and shape?"
Nope. But it has a testable effect.
What test do you use to detect the First Mover? How should we be able check for ourselves that there is a first mover, in the same what that we can examine for ourselves that there is a thing like gravity?
We get that you're denying past motion when you say that the First Way discusses things changing in the present.
No I'm not denying it. It's simply not what the First Way discusses.
ANY attempt to trace back to a First Mover NECESSARILY goes back into the past.
It doesn't go into the ancient past as was explained here: July 04, 2017 6:25 PM Once more for the record, Aquinas thought it not possible to prove the universe had a beginning by science alone. Aristotle argued that the universe always existed and has always been in motion so it would be absurd to think that he argued for a "first mover" that caused a "first motion" because he thought no such thing as a "first motion" ever happened.
bmiller: "How did you detect gravity? Was it a certain size and shape?"
Me: "We get that you're denying past motion when you say that the First Way discusses things changing in the present. bmiller: "No I'm not denying it. It's simply not what the First Way discusses."
Which is what "deny" means. Denying that a prior (past) reference frame is NECESSARY when discussing motion with a current (present) reference frame is IMPOSSIBLE. To express otherwise is to confess to being a kind of idiot, or, in the case of an argument, to indicate that you are unsound.
Sic.
bmiller: "It doesn't go into the ancient past as was explained here: July 04, 2017 6:25 PM / Once more for the record, Aquinas thought it not possible to prove the universe had a beginning by science alone."
Irrelevant. The First Way discusses motion, which requires two reference frames, one of which NECESSARILY refers to the past. You are denying that the First Way involves prior (past motion) -- which ANY discussion of motion NECESSARILy does. Claiming that Aquinas's First Way somehow denied this premise either makes that argument unsound or you appear to be a kind of fool.
bmiller: "Aristotle argued that the universe always existed and has always been in motion so it would be absurd to think that he argued for a "first mover" that caused a "first motion" because he thought no such thing as a "first motion" ever happened."
By Aristotle above I take you to mean Aquinas, as we are talking about the First Way. If Aquinas did as you say then he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Because in the First Way, which we are discussing, it says, "But [a series in motion] CANNOT proceed to infinity."
So, on the one hand, we have Aquinas writing, "But [a series in motion] CANNOT proceed to infinity." and on the other hand we have you saying, bmiller: "[Aquinas] argued that the universe always existed and has ALWAYS BEEN IN MOTION..."
These two sentences contradict one another. Directly.
" Aristotle argued that the universe always existed and has always been in motion so it would be absurd to think that he argued for a "first mover" that caused a "first motion" because he thought no such thing as a "first motion" ever happened."
--I was not aware of those specific points. Do you have any references handy for that by any chance? What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?
Which is what "deny" means. Denying that a prior (past) reference frame is NECESSARY when discussing motion with a current (present) reference frame is IMPOSSIBLE. To express otherwise is to confess to being a kind of idiot, or, in the case of an argument, to indicate that you are unsound.
Here are 3 statements. 1) The earth moved in the ancient past. 2) The earth has been moving since the ancient past. 3) The earth is now moving.
Each are intelligible to English speakers. The first talks only about motion in the past without mentioning present motion (past tense). The second refers to motion in the past continuing into the present (present perfect tense). The third refers to motion in the present without referring to past motion (present tense).
You seem to be telling me that people who use present tense statemeNts are idiots or deny there can be past tense statements or present perfect tense statements. Is that right?
Which is what "deny" means. This is a present tense statement. Does it mean that "deny" only now has a meaning and did not in the past?
Denying that a prior (past) reference frame is NECESSARY when discussing motion with a current (present) reference frame is IMPOSSIBLE.
Do you mean that "denying that a prior (past) reference frame is NECESSARY...." actually means that your statement is impossible since the statement does not refer to denial in the past. Is this what you actually mean?
So, on the one hand, we have Aquinas writing, "But [a series in motion] CANNOT proceed to infinity." and on the other hand we have you saying, bmiller: "[Aquinas] argued that the universe always existed and has ALWAYS BEEN IN MOTION..."
These two sentences contradict one another. Directly.
That's my point (present tense). If Aquinas and Aristotle were arguing for an infinity of time sequenced events stretching back to the ancient past then it would be a direct contradiction. The infinity they were referring to was an infinite series of moving movers simultaneously in motion and therefore is not a contradiction. I've posted the relevant quotes before, from Physics. Should I do it again?
bmiller: "The earth is now moving... refers to motion in the present without referring to past motion (present tense)."
No. The earth cannot now be moving without it having a prior reference frame against which it's motion is registered. All prior reference frames regarding motion are necessarily in the past.
The fact that we use the shorthand present tense to describe motion in the present DOES NOT alter the fact that the present tense, NECESSARILY, involves a prior reference frame (past) with regard to present motion.
Language DOES NOT trump physics. (Language is an imperfect tool that we use to describe physics. More precise terms get us closer to approximating the description of physical events. Your insistence that grammar alters the facts of physics is one of the stupider things I've come across in these discussions.)
bmiller: "The infinity they were referring to was an infinite series of moving movers simultaneously in motion and therefore is not a contradiction."
Which fails because it is unsound. If that's what they argued for, then they did not understand the relationship between space and time (motion). And any argument built on their misunderstanding would be a bad argument, because they would be operating from an unsound premise.
You seem to not be able to grasp a simple fact about arguments, or reality, or both.
--I was not aware of those specific points. Do you have any references handy for that by any chance? What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?
Wikipedia has a summary with footnotes indicating where in Physics to look.
bmiller: "The earth is now moving... refers to motion in the present without referring to past motion (present tense)."
No. The earth cannot now be moving without it having a prior reference frame against which it's motion is registered. All prior reference frames regarding motion are necessarily in the past.
The fact that we use the shorthand present tense to describe motion in the present DOES NOT alter the fact that the present tense, NECESSARILY, involves a prior reference frame (past) with regard to present motion.
I don't think I've ever met anyone who insisted that all present tense action verbs are really present perfect tense. But yet you "have been using" (present perfect) present tense all throughout this discussion. Curious.
Language DOES NOT trump physics. (Language is an imperfect tool that we use to describe physics. More precise terms get us closer to approximating the description of physical events. Your insistence that grammar alters the facts of physics is one of the stupider things I've come across in these discussions.)
The language of physics uses the present tense all the time without referring to the ancient past. We've already discussed things being at rest or in motion while discussing inertia, gravity and instantaneous velocity. We can also talk past motion referring to the present and physics does that also.
bmiller: "The infinity they were referring to was an infinite series of moving movers simultaneously in motion and therefore is not a contradiction."
Which fails because it is unsound. If that's what they argued for, then they did not understand the relationship between space and time (motion). And any argument built on their misunderstanding would be a bad argument, because they would be operating from an unsound premise.
It is meant in this sense: When a locomotive engine is pulling a train, each car experiences tension which causes the following car to move. There cannot be an infinite number of train cars experiencing tension unless there is a locomotive to provide the source of all the cars.
"" Aristotle argued that the universe always existed and has always been in motion so it would be absurd to think that he argued for a "first mover" that caused a "first motion" because he thought no such thing as a "first motion" ever happened."
--I was not aware of those specific points. Do you have any references handy for that by any chance? What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?"
To show what autistic morons we have here, I will quote *myself* from *way* *way* back in the thread:
"that is, he is *still* laboring under the idea that the First Way is concerned with temporal beginnings. When this was explicitly denied by everyone here, is explicitly denied by St. Thomas and all his commentators. All, without exception. St. Thomas even wrote a little tract explicitly arguing that it is *impossible* to prove that the universe was *not* infinite in the past. And Aristotle (you know, the inventor of the First Way) actually held that the universe was indeed infinite in the past. And *then* he writes to bmiller such stuff as:
"Like a child, you seem to think that implying that I am as confused as you are (if that's what I am, then what are you!) should distract from your patent ignorance. I don't think you're fooling anyone."
I have met my share of delusional morons haunting the internet, but man..."
Me: "The fact that we use the shorthand present tense to describe motion in the present DOES NOT alter the fact that the present tense, NECESSARILY, involves a prior reference frame (past) with regard to present motion." bmiller: "I don't think I've ever met anyone who insisted that all present tense action verbs are really present perfect tense. But yet you "have been using" (present perfect) present tense all throughout this discussion. Curious."
I have no idea how you could have concluded what you have based on what I wrote. Bizarre.
bmiller: "The language of physics uses the present tense all the time without referring to the ancient past."
Motion in the present necessarily involves a prior (past) reference frame. A prior reference frame refers to the past. The "ancient past" is a problem of your invention for the language of physics, but the fact that motion NECESSARILY takes us back to the past, and the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion, does present a problem for apologists who’d like to avoid this necessary implication.
bmiller: "We've already discussed things being at rest or in motion while discussing inertia, gravity and instantaneous velocity."
So what? You reading and sometimes using those words gives me no confidence that you understand the concepts that underlie them.
bmiller: "We can also talk past motion referring to the present and physics does that also."
You just seem to be saying things that have no relation to what I've written, nor does it even seem like you're trying to assemble a defense of the First Way.
Do you have something to say regarding a defense of the First Way from the criticism offered here?
bmiller: "It is meant in this sense: / When a locomotive engine is pulling a train, each car experiences tension which causes the following car to move."
Things move, yes. We all agree to that because we observe it, and this premise appears sound. But you are denying that the First Way introduces the implications of the past in reference to observed motion, which would make the argument unsound. Even in your example of tension in a train this appears to be a simultaneous event but is not. When the engine starts to pull, the tension travels through the cars not instantly, but at some velocity equal to or less than the speed of light (speed of sound?). In the same instant that the engine stops pulling the first car, there is a similar lag before each subsequent car is released from the force that was being applied by the engine. If you were to arbitrarily pick any point along the train, the force that you would identify that comes from the engine is present only because of a prior force applied — NEVER a concurrent one.
There is no simultaneity of motion. All motion is described in reference frames that NECESSARILY account for time. If the First Way denies that motion is confined only to the current reference frame (the present), and does not account for the fact that all motion occurs over time (which NECESSARILY includes a prior (past) reference frame), then the First Way is, by the rules of good argument, unsound.
Apologists: "The reasons you think that the First Way is a bad argument are mistaken because of your misunderstanding of what the argument REALLY says." Skeptics: "Like?" Apologists: "Objects in motion need to be pushed all the time." Skeptics: "If the argument says that, the argument is observably wrong." Apologists: "When the argument says "motion" it only means motion right now, without reference to a prior reference frame." Skeptics: "If the argument says that, the argument is incoherent." Apologists: "When the argument says motion now, that has nothing to do with time." Skeptics: "Without time, there is no motion. If the argument says that, the argument is incoherent."
Every instance I can think of where apologists have claimed that skeptics fail to understand the First Way boils down to the First Way being unsound or incoherent.
Thus, the only people who seem to fail understand the First Way appear to be apologists.
" Wikipedia has a summary with footnotes indicating where in Physics to look." --Very interesting. Thanks for the reference.
Aristotle asserted the natural state of motion is rest. "Based on observation Aristotle asserted that object stay in motion only if they are pushed, but left to themselves object come to a state of rest. So the state of “rest” is the natural state of motion to which all things return. " http://faculty.uml.edu/flonberg/95.103/Class10_09.pdf
Aristotle also stated matter is eternal and motion is eternal " Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.[1]"
" He concludes that motion is necessarily eternal." [1]Physics I, 7 [2]Aristotle in Physics VIII, 1, 251a, 8-20
Therefore, on the Aristotelian view, the conclusion is obvious, some mover has always and is now in the present moving all things.
So, the First Way was disproved by Newton, since Newton disproved Aristotle.
Inertia disproves the First Way, because inertia disproves the notion that the natural state of motion is rest.
Legion got a bit hot under the collar at the suggestion he does not understand inertia. Here is a list of some people who do not or did not understand inertia. bmiller Legion of Logic SteveK Grodrigues Aquinas Aristotle All Thomists
Friction is an illusion in the sense that it is merely a macro observation of frictionless subatomic interactions. Ultimately, there is no such thing as friction.
Motion is never lost, it is merely transformed.
Take for example, a sealed bottle of compressed gas, say a steel oxygen bottle. The molecules of oxygen are at all times bouncing about madly. The inside of the bottle, if you could see it, would look like a crazy chaotic beehive of molecules endlessly bouncing off each other with no loss of motion.
The natural state of motion is, in truth, to continue in whatever motion the object is presently moving. Motion is self sustaining, Newton showed us, building upon Galileo,
There simply is no need for a first mover, on the assertion of eternal matter and eternal motion. In that case all the motion of the universe has always existed and will always exist, as everything in the universe keeps bouncing off each other, just like the molecules inside the steel oxygen bottle.
"Legion got a bit hot under the collar at the suggestion he does not understand inertia. Here is a list of some people who do not or did not understand inertia. bmiller Legion of Logic SteveK Grodrigues"
Hilarious. A delusional, autistic ignorant kook -- this is demonstrably true -- telling me, a phd in mathematical physics with actual, real research under his belt, I do not understand inertia. Hilarious.
And I am off again. Let the idiotic madness continue.
grod: "Hilarious. A delusional, autistic ignorant kook -- this is demonstrably true -- telling me, a phd in mathematical physics with actual, real research under his belt, I do not understand inertia. Hilarious."
Pretend pretend pretend.
I've noticed that's what shabby people reliably do when they realize they can't actually support a claim that fails according to the rules of good argument.
"I've noticed that's what shabby people reliably do when they realize they can't actually support a claim that fails according to the rules of good argument."
Funny you mention that, since there was no evidence presented at all that I have anywhere failed to understand inertia -- neither will there be, because there simply isn't. So I guess that makes you a very "shabby people", right?
" since there was no evidence presented at all that I have anywhere failed to understand inertia" --Ok, so you realize that the First Way is not a sound argument for a First Mover in the present, since the First Way is founded on the Aristotelian views: 1. Matter is eternal. 2. Motion is eternal. 3. The natural state of matter is rest.
On inertia there simply is no need for a first mover, and since you understand inertia you understand that the First Way is thus unsound.
I do not know what Psycho Strawdusty imagines I "cleared up", but I notice that once again, when shown that he fabricates lies, he changes the subject, fabricates yet more crap, and does not have the intellectual decency to either put up or retract it.
And now I am really off. Feeding trolls is making injury to our gracious host.
Hilarious...delusional... autistic... ignorant... kook... idiotic... madness ... Psycho Strawdusty... fabricates... lies... fabricates... crap... does not have the intellectual decency --Say there grod, was that the basis of your PhD thesis? How did the defense go?
The First Way is founded on the Aristotelian views: 1. Matter is eternal. 2. Motion is eternal. 3. The natural state of matter is rest.
On inertia there simply is no need for a first mover, and since you understand inertia you understand that the First Way is thus unsound, right?
grod: "Funny you mention that, since there was no evidence presented at all that I have anywhere failed to understand inertia -- neither will there be, because there simply isn't. So I guess that makes you a very "shabby people", right?"
Funny that you misunderstood that I wrote, "Pretend pretend pretend," and noted that that is what shabby people do who avoid argument in favor of, well, pretending -- pretending that they know something they won't express, pretend that they have accomplished something they haven't, pretend that they have somehow provided sufficient evidence, demonstrations and arguments, pretend that they have left the discussion, etc.
Me: "The fact that we use the shorthand present tense to describe motion in the present DOES NOT alter the fact that the present tense, NECESSARILY, involves a prior reference frame (past) with regard to present motion." bmiller: "I don't think I've ever met anyone who insisted that all present tense action verbs are really present perfect tense. But yet you "have been using" (present perfect) present tense all throughout this discussion. Curious."
I have no idea how you could have concluded what you have based on what I wrote. Bizarre.
It's because you said that present tense involves the (past).
Motion in the present necessarily involves a prior (past) reference frame. A prior reference frame refers to the past. The "ancient past" is a problem of your invention for the language of physics, but the fact that motion NECESSARILY takes us back to the past, and the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion, does present a problem for apologists who’d like to avoid this necessary implication.
Can we now just move on, since it's now apparent that "the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion" is no longer on the table?
I could talk more about the locomotive example if you like.
--Very interesting. Thanks for the reference. You're welcome.
Regarding the pdf: "Based on observation Aristotle asserted that object stay in motion only if they are pushed, but left to themselves object come to a state of rest. So the state of “rest” is the natural state of motion to which all things return. "
Do you have any references handy for that by any chance? What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?
Don't you think it would odd for Aristotle to hold that motion was eternal at the same time he held that "rest" is the natural state of motion of all things?
bmiller: "Can we now just move on, since it's now apparent that "the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion" is no longer on the table?"
By "apparent... no longer on the table" above you would mean, if you understood how objects behave in reality, "unavoidable."
You consistently appear so stupid that you don't realize your deficiencies. This is best explained by the Dunning Kruger effect, of which you are a classic example.
bmiller: "I could talk more about the locomotive example if you like."
I think you are a bore. It's tedious reading your comments. I only respond to them because I am compulsive, not because your evident ignorance and stupidity deserve serious consideration; I just don't like it when shabby people pretend.
bmiller: "Can we now just move on, since it's now apparent that "the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion" is no longer on the table?"
By "apparent" above you would mean, if you understood how objects behave in reality, "unavoidable."
Ok, I'll let you go on then.
I only respond to them because I am compulsive,
Do you mean clinically compulsive? I hope you're just kidding.
" Do you have any references handy for that by any chance? " --I was hoping you might have them!
"What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?" --There are about a gazillion secondary sources, I was hoping you might know the specific primary source. I will keep looking.
The pdf I sent you was just one of many, many secondary sources easily available by searching on a few related term like Aristotle Motion Rest Natural Place.
" Don't you think it would odd for Aristotle to hold that motion was eternal at the same time he held that "rest" is the natural state of motion of all things?" --Not on a first mover, and in particular, not on a first mover in the present.
Remember, inertia did not come along as established physics until Newton (Galileo).
Motion in the present only needs a first mover in the present if motion will end on its own.
If the whole universe would grind to a halt on its own then it would need a mover to keep it going for all eternity and that mover would still be needed to keep things moving in the present moment.
So here are some sets of ideas that go together: Set 1. Matter is eternal. Motion is eternal. The natural state of matter is rest (the universe will grind to halt on its own). A first mover is needed in the present and always has been needed.
Set 2. Matter is eternal. Motion is eternal. The natural state of matter is to continue moving (the stuff of the universe will bounce against each other forever like molecules of gas in a sealed bottle). No first mover is needed now or ever.
The natural state of matter is to move toward its natural place, per Aristotle. Once at its natural place, then it will stop and remain motionless unless subjected to force, hence forced motion. Remove the force and you will remove the motion. Hence the need for a terrestrial first mover to account for all the motions we see. A number of citations are available here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/#5
This source, like the pdf and a plethora of others, states clearly: "The fundamental assumption in Aristotelian physics was that the natural state of sublunary matter is rest."
However, Aristotle did allow for a sort of circular uniform motion beyond the moon: "In contrast to earthly motions, in the supralunary regions of the heavens the natural state of motion was circular," http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/aristotle-physics.html
Here is a slide showing Galileo as contradicting Aristotle on motion: http://images.slideplayer.com/35/10491446/slides/slide_2.jpg
So, yes, Aristotle thought the natural state of an object is at rest, which leads to a conclusion of a first mover in the present. He also thought that matter is eternal and motion is eternal therefore the first mover has always been moving things.
Inertia means that the natural state of an object is to continue the motion it is in, which eliminates the need for a first mover in the present, and thus disproves the First Way as an argument for a first mover in the present.
bmiller: "Can we now just move on, since it's now apparent that "the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion" is no longer on the table?" Me: "By "apparent" above you would mean, if you understood how objects behave in reality, "unavoidable." bmiller: "Ok, I'll let you go on then."
You don't seem to understand the ramifications of what you argue.
1. Did the big bang happen? 2. Is the big bang when we understand motion to have begun? 3. If the First Mover wasn't involved in the events that began at the big bang, then the first mover CANNOT be the first mover, because there is a prior mover.
"What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?" --There are about a gazillion secondary sources, I was hoping you might know the specific primary source. I will keep looking.
The pdf I sent you was just one of many, many secondary sources easily available by searching on a few related term like Aristotle Motion Rest Natural Place.
Yes, seems there is a lot of "fake news" out there doesn't it?
I've seen a lot of distortions and I don't think they are intentional. The particular one you pointed to was from a physics course, so the instructor was probably not familiar with what Aristotle taught first hand.
This source, like the pdf and a plethora of others, states clearly: "The fundamental assumption in Aristotelian physics was that the natural state of sublunary matter is rest."
Couldn't find that quote at the SEP site.
It is difficult to unwind all the various misunderstandings.
But let me point out a couple issues from the first pdf.
1.Aristotle asserted that object stay in motion only if they are pushed
This is false. Aristotle listed 2 types of motion, violent and natural. Only the first required an accidental agent. I think this mistake is made because someone confused "the corpuscular philosophy" with Aristotle.
2. but left to themselves object come to a state of rest
Don't know where he got this unless it refers to the tendency of things in natural motion to move toward the center. On the earth, that is the center of the earth which is called gravity.
3. Galileo's incline experiment always results with the ball coming to rest anywhere on earth.
4. The Leap to the Ideal
If the author wants to compare what Galileo thought would happen in an ideal situation without friction, gravity, and air resistance, with what Aristotle thought happens with those conditions, then it is apples to oranges.
" Don't you think it would odd for Aristotle to hold that motion was eternal at the same time he held that "rest" is the natural state of motion of all things?"
The reason I asked this question is because Aristotle considered everything material constantly changing in some manner (not necessarily locomotion), so something material frozen in an unchanging state would be an exception.
You don't seem to understand the ramifications of what you argue.
1. Did the big bang happen? 2. Is the big bang when we understand motion to have begun? 3. If the First Mover wasn't involved in the events that began at the big bang, then the first mover CANNOT be the first mover, because there is a prior mover.
The Unmoved Mover of the First Way is to he understood in this way: Everything that is moving at the present moment is ultimately being moved by the Unmoved Mover. Every motion at a moment in the past (when that past moment was actually the "now" moment) was ultimately in motion due to the Unmoved Mover.
When you consider it in this fashion, however many moments ever occurred, each needed a first mover in the sense of the First Way.
Regardless, Aristotle thought that matter and motion was eternal, so he would not have considered the Big Bang to have happened if it meant that that was the point in time when motion began. So in the sense that a first mover could have caused a "first motion" would have caused him to dispute it. So it would not make sense to think the First Way would be about a "first motion" of the universe.
The pdf I sent you was just one of many, many secondary sources easily available by searching on a few related term like Aristotle Motion Rest Natural Place.
" Yes, seems there is a lot of "fake news" out there doesn't it?" --No, there really isn't. The assertion of fake science professors is most commonly made by a con man attempting to pass off a fraud, somebody like Kent Hovind, for example.
1.Aristotle asserted that object stay in motion only if they are pushed
" This is false. Aristotle listed 2 types of motion, violent and natural. Only the first required an accidental agent. I think this mistake is made because someone confused "the corpuscular philosophy" with Aristotle." --No, the mistake was yours. Natural motion on Earth does not persist. Once an object gets to it's natural place it stops. From there it requires a force to move it and after the force is removed it stops.
So, objects on Earth only stay in motion if they are pushed. That statement about Aristotle is correct. You are mistaken.
2. but left to themselves object come to a state of rest
" Don't know where he got this " --Your unfamiliarity does not constitute a "fake". It just means you have not yet learned the subject matter.
"If the author wants to compare what Galileo thought would happen in an ideal situation without friction, gravity, and air resistance, with what Aristotle thought happens with those conditions, then it is apples to oranges" --The surface of the Earth is ideal in that motion is never lost, only transformed. Motion continues indefinitely on the surface of the Earth. That is one of the things Aristotle got wrong.
An object in motion on Earth will stop, but it's motion is really only transferred to other objects either as molecular kinetic energy (heat), or some other form of energy transfer. That is why the First Way fails as an argument for a first mover in the present.
Remember, inertia did not come along as established physics until Newton (Galileo).
The observation that things continued to move after violent motion ceased has been observed throughout history. It was also an observable fact that when an arrow was shot, the arrow did not travel indefinitely. We know today that it fell to earth due to the resistance of air and to gravity. Know what Aristotle thought? The same thing. Discussion of the phenomenon continued with the theory of impetus in place before Galileo. After all, weapons of war were continuously being improved so it's not as if technology did not advance because Newton had not codified his laws of motion.
But what would Aristotle have thought an object would do in the absence of gravity and air resistance?
" This is false. Aristotle listed 2 types of motion, violent and natural. Only the first required an accidental agent. I think this mistake is made because someone confused "the corpuscular philosophy" with Aristotle." --No, the mistake was yours. Natural motion on Earth does not persist. Once an object gets to it's natural place it stops. From there it requires a force to move it and after the force is removed it stops.
So, objects on Earth only stay in motion if they are pushed. That statement about Aristotle is correct. You are mistaken.
Well, if I drop a ball from a tower according to Aristotle, it needs no agent to push it as it falls to the earth. If I carry the ball up the tower, then I am the agent responsible for that violent motion. So both types of motion are observable on the earth.
" Don't know where he got this " --Your unfamiliarity does not constitute a "fake". It just means you have not yet learned the subject matter.
If you know the subject matter, by all means tell me what he means.
"If the author wants to compare what Galileo thought would happen in an ideal situation without friction, gravity, and air resistance, with what Aristotle thought happens with those conditions, then it is apples to oranges" --The surface of the Earth is ideal in that motion is never lost, only transformed. Motion continues indefinitely on the surface of the Earth. That is one of the things Aristotle got wrong.
An object in motion on Earth will stop, but it's motion is really only transferred to other objects either as molecular kinetic energy (heat), or some other form of energy transfer. That is why the First Way fails as an argument for a first mover in the present.
Really. Do you have a primary source from Galileo's writings where he expressed these thoughts wrt to the incline experiment?
SP An object in motion on Earth will stop, but it's motion is really only transferred to other objects either as molecular kinetic energy (heat), or some other form of energy transfer. That is why the First Way fails as an argument for a first mover in the present.
" Really. Do you have a primary source from Galileo's writings where he expressed these thoughts wrt to the incline experiment?" --It doesn't matter.
No, you are not some great scholar of Aristotle here to tell all those stupid professors how they all got the history of science wrong.
Inertia and the conservation of mass/energy disproves the First Way as an argument for a first mover in the present. Aristotle did not invent inertia, nor did he come up with F=ma, or the Newtonian principles (laws) of motion.
Aristotle had a number of wrong ideas. Everybody who knows the history of science knows that, except, apparently, you.
Inertia and the conservation of mass/energy disproves the line of argument that proceeds 2g 3 4b 4a 4
The conclusion of 4 is false as an argument for an infinite regress in the present, the present taken to mean not strictly this instant, rather, within the human perception of the recent past such that we sense a set of recent temporal events as being in the present.
Motion does go to infinity in the sense that a circle goes to infinity in the present.
Here is how motion really works: X1 moves X2 X2 moves X3 ... moves Xn Xn moves X1
Put another way, everything just keeps bouncing off everything else, no first mover required. That's because of inertia and the conservation of mass/energy.
Motion is not a linear chain that must come to terminus. Motion is a multibody process that comes around upon itself. It is a circle, a mobius strip, a sealed bottle of gas, or whatever analogy one wishes to use.
Motion is not a straight line series of events that starts at one place and ends at another place. There is no first mover because there is no first motion, just an eternity of motion that always has been moving and always will be moving without loss because of inertia and the conservation of mass/energy.
" Really. Do you have a primary source from Galileo's writings where he expressed these thoughts wrt to the incline experiment?" --It doesn't matter.
It matters since the topic under discussion was Galileo vs Aristotle.
No, you are not some great scholar of Aristotle here to tell all those stupid professors how they all got the history of science wrong.
Some get it right and some get it wrong as should be apparent when they disagree. For instance, the pdf seems to mention only violent motion, while the SEP article correctly mentions both violent (forced in the article) and natural motions. The SEP also referenced primary sources to indicate where their analysis is derived from while the pdf does not. So no telling where the pdf author got his info.
Inertia and the conservation of mass/energy disproves the First Way as an argument for a first mover in the present.
Inertia and conservation of momentum affirm the First Way according to Newton:
The Vis inertiæ is a passive Principle by which Bodies persist in their Motion or Rest, receive Motion in proportion to the Force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this Principle alone there never could have been any Motion in the World. Some other Principle was necessary for putting Bodies into Motion; and now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion.
In case you didn't look up the Latin term "vis" it means "force".
Aristotle did not invent inertia
Are you sure about that? What did Aristotle theorize would happen to a moving object in the absence of gravity and air resistance?
Aristotle had a number of wrong ideas. Everybody who knows the history of science knows that, except, apparently, you.
Sure he had some wrong ideas. The First Way is not one of them.
SP Inertia and the conservation of mass/energy disproves the First Way as an argument for a first mover in the present.
" Inertia and conservation of momentum affirm the First Way according to Newton:" --Not as an argument for a first mover in the present.
The Vis inertiæ is a passive Principle by which Bodies persist in their Motion or Rest, receive Motion in proportion to the Force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this Principle alone there never could have been any Motion in the World. Some other Principle was necessary for putting Bodies into Motion; and now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion.
--Note Newton said "was necessary". Thus, in the distant past either motion has always existed or in the distant past there was a first mover.
Newton's discoveries do not rule out a first mover in the distant past.
Newton's discoveries together with conservation of mass/energy rule out a first mover in the present.
@bmiller " It's not fair to quote Newton in order to disprove Cal and Dusty's claim about inertia. Now they will have to abandon their claim." --You claim to be a mechanical engineer. So, perhaps you will put your alleged engineer skills to work on identifying the first mover inside a bottle of compressed gas, say, a sealed steel tank of Argon.
When you allegedly studied for your alleged engineering skills you undoubtedly studied what are called the ideal gas laws. You surely took chemistry and understand that Argon is a monoatomic gas. The pressure against the walls of the tank are accounted for by the collisions of the Argon atoms against the wall. At all times the atoms of Argon are bouncing madly about in a beehive of motion, collisions, and activity that never ceases, never slows down, and remains the same in total as long as the tank remains sealed and the temperature is constant.
Where is the first mover in the tank that keeps all those atoms moving in the present?
According to Newton, there is no first mover, every atom just keeps bouncing off each other and the tank wall, in principle, without end.
Please put your engineering skills to work and identify the first mover that keeps the atoms of Argon moving inside the sealed tank so they don't all just stop and fall to the bottom.
" Inertia and conservation of momentum affirm the First Way according to Newton:" --Not as an argument for a first mover in the present.
The Vis inertiæ is a passive Principle by which Bodies persist in their Motion or Rest, receive Motion in proportion to the Force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this Principle alone there never could have been any Motion in the World. Some other Principle was necessary for putting Bodies into Motion; and now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion.
--Note Newton said "was necessary". Thus, in the distant past either motion has always existed or in the distant past there was a first mover.
Newton's discoveries do not rule out a first mover in the distant past.
It's unclear to me what your objection is. Perhaps you can rephrase it.
This quote from Opticks refers to inertia as having existed in the past as well as being in operation now. Since the First Way is discussing present motion and only an Unmoved Mover at the present moment, then the relevant part of the quote is "now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion."
Whether or not Newton considered there to be a "first motion" in the distant past is irrelevant to the First Way.
Motion does go to infinity in the sense that a circle goes to infinity in the present.
Here is how motion really works: X1 moves X2 X2 moves X3 ... moves Xn Xn moves X1
Depending on how you set the context for this series there could be different responses as to why this would not be physically possible.
The most straight forward response is that inanimate things do not move themselves. If I removed each of the X's one at a time from Xn...X3 and finally X2, I am left with X1 moving itself so it is both potentially moving and actually moving in the same respect at the same time, which is of course impossible.
First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind (machines that produce work without the input of energy) are impossible.
" "now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion." --Newton did not fully appreciate the extent of the ramifications of his discovery. That is not unusual in science, since the discoverer of a principle typically dies within a historically short time, and others continue to apply that principle more thoroughly.
Conservation of matter/energy is the further principle. Motion persists unless acted upon, but sometimes the kinetic energy of motion is transformed into some other form of energy. There is no net loss of energy, and thus no need for a first mover.
" Whether or not Newton considered there to be a "first motion" in the distant past is irrelevant to the First Way." --Right, what Newton thought is unimportant. What matters is the application of his discoveries, which make a first mover in an "essential" series completely uncalled for.
Motion does go to infinity in the sense that a circle goes to infinity in the present.
Here is how motion really works: X1 moves X2 X2 moves X3 ... moves Xn Xn moves X1
" Depending on how you set the context for this series there could be different responses as to why this would not be physically possible." --The above series is how a sealed bottle of gas works. All the molecules just keep bouncing off each other.
" The most straight forward response is that inanimate things do not move themselves. " --They are already moving, per Aristotle, motion is eternal as is matter. The stuff of the universe has always been moving. The series above is a highly simplified illustration of the fact that all the bits of stuff in the universe keep bouncing off each other.
" First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, " --The series is a closed system.
Dusty >> "They are already moving, per Aristotle, motion is eternal as is matter."
I don't like when shabby people pretend so my compulsion here is to correct you for your own benefit so you can stop pretending to know what Aristotle said.
Per Book 8, Aristotle thought this only of circular motion because it did not involve change. He argues that anything changing cannot be infinite or eternal. Aristotle did not think that rectilinear motion or a compound of rectilinear and circular motion was eternal.
"Therefore that which turns back in traversing a rectilinear course must in so doing come to a stand. Consequently there cannot be a continuous rectilinear motion that is eternal."
"Now rotatory motion can be eternal: but no other motion, whether locomotion or motion of any other kind, can be so, since in all of them rest must occur and with the occurrence of rest the motion has perished."
http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics8.htm
Your "X1 moves X2" example is an example changing reflexive motion that Aristotle did not think was eternal. See Section 18 of Book 8.
Aristotle "Therefore that which turns back in traversing a rectilinear course must in so doing come to a stand. Consequently there cannot be a continuous rectilinear motion that is eternal." --Right, the natural state of matter is rest.
Aristotle "Now rotatory motion can be eternal: but no other motion, whether locomotion or motion of any other kind, can be so, since in all of them rest must occur and with the occurrence of rest the motion has perished." --Right, circular motions of the heavenly bodies are natural. http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics8.htm
So there you have some examples of the muddled thinking of Arisitotle, thinking that circular motion was fundamentally different than rectilinear motion.
" Your "X1 moves X2" example is an example changing reflexive motion that Aristotle did not think was eternal." --Right, he was wrong about that too. For example the case of the sealed tank of Argon, wherein X1 moves X2....moves Xn moves X1 just keeps going absent any friction or loss
To your references we can add these kindly provided by bmiller said... Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.[1] In Book VIII, He concludes that motion is necessarily eternal. [1]Physics I, 7 [2]Aristotle in Physics VIII, 1, 251a, 8-20 July 06, 2017 12:05 PM
So, putting it all together Aristotle thought 1.Matter is eternal. 2.Motion is eternal. 3.Rectilinear motion must come to a stand (rest). 4.Objects move to their natural place. 5.Forced or violent motion is possible but it must come to a stand (rest). 6.A first mover is thus required.
The exact details of what muddled notions Aristotle thought are not terribly important to show the First Way is wrong as an argument for a first mover in the present.
Haines also asserts clearly that the sequence of movers described in 2g through 5 are an "essential" series, meaning cause and effect happens at the same time. That assertion alone is so patently false that it utterly destroys the First Way on modern knowledge of inertia, conservation of matter/energy, and the time sequence of causation.
bmiller: “The Unmoved Mover of the First Way is to he understood in this way: Everything that is moving at the present moment is ultimately being moved by the Unmoved Mover.”
“Ultimately being moved” is more of the kind of equivocation we see in the First Way. If the First Way means that everything moving now is being pushed by something that goes back to a first mover, the First Way is demonstrably wrong. So, this means that the First Way fails.
bmiller: “Every motion at a moment in the past (when that past moment was actually the "now" moment) was ultimately in motion due to the Unmoved Mover.”
Hey, you finally agree with me! Something moving now NECESSARILY was at a different position in a prior reference frame. Congratulations!
bmiller: “When you consider it in this fashion, however many moments ever occurred, each needed a first mover in the sense of the First Way.”
Or they go on ad infinitum. You just repeat the same mistake the First Way makes; begging the question.
bmiller: “Regardless, Aristotle thought that matter and motion was eternal, so he would not have considered the Big Bang to have happened if it meant that that was the point in time when motion began.”
Which is neither here nor there because we aren’t discussing what you think some ancient person believed. We are discussing the reason for believing things. And those reasons are supposedly in the First Way, but they fail for the reasons we have described.
bmiller: “So in the sense that a first mover could have caused a "first motion" would have caused him to dispute it.”
Oh, do tell. And how would he have disputed it? I thought you were supposed to trying to defend the First Way?
bmiller: “So it would not make sense to think the First Way would be about a "first motion" of the universe.”
If it doesn’t make sense to you then you don’t understand how objects move in reality — that they necessarily involve a prior reference frame (prior time), and that if one is to ask the question of what moves something now, one necessarily goes back in time until either a first mover, or an infinite series. That is the paradox. You should know this by now if you’re going to try and defend an argument that supposedly explains a paradox — it’s handy to understand what the question actually is / involves.
" Depending on how you set the context for this series there could be different responses as to why this would not be physically possible." --The above series is how a sealed bottle of gas works. All the molecules just keep bouncing off each other.
" The most straight forward response is that inanimate things do not move themselves. " --They are already moving, per Aristotle, motion is eternal as is matter. The stuff of the universe has always been moving. The series above is a highly simplified illustration of the fact that all the bits of stuff in the universe keep bouncing off each other.
If you wanted to illustrate molecules moving in a bottle of gas, then X1 moves X2 etc back to X1 is not what is actually going on at any particular instant in time. X1 does not simultaneously move X2 while Xn is moving X1 at a particular instant. When a series of moving movers is involved, the First Way is addressing an essentially ordered series, not a time ordered series. Over time, Xn may bang into X1 again, but in the meantime X1 is either moving naturally or violently by something other than itself, so it cannot move itself as part of an essentially ordered series.
“Ultimately being moved” is more of the kind of equivocation we see in the First Way. If the First Way means that everything moving now is being pushed by something that goes back to a first mover, the First Way is demonstrably wrong. So, this means that the First Way fails.
There is no equivocation. The First Way is about an essentially ordered series of instrumental movers, which requires an ultimate mover to move the series in the present moment. The First Way does not "mean that that everything moving now is being pushed by something that goes back to a first mover". Things can be forced into motion or move via natural motion.
bmiller: “When you consider it in this fashion, however many moments ever occurred, each needed a first mover in the sense of the First Way.”
Or they go on ad infinitum. You just repeat the same mistake the First Way makes; begging the question.
You are conflating infinite time with an infinite number of instrumental movers in motion as part of an essentially ordered series. The First Way is uses infinite in the latter sense. Since infinite time is not part of the discussion of the First Way, it says nothing one way or the other about whether time had a beginning or not. So yes, looking only at the First Way, time could have had a beginning or not. No way of telling since it does not address the subject.
bmiller: “So in the sense that a first mover could have caused a "first motion" would have caused him to dispute it.”
Oh, do tell. And how would he have disputed it? I thought you were supposed to trying to defend the First Way?
I've posted the Wikipedia link above that explains how Aristotle came to that conclusion. I'm only defending the First Way as understood by Aristotle, Aquinas and all knowledgeable commentators and critics.
bmiller: “So it would not make sense to think the First Way would be about a "first motion" of the universe.”
If it doesn’t make sense to you then you don’t understand how objects move in reality — that they necessarily involve a prior reference frame (prior time), and that if one is to ask the question of what moves something now, one necessarily goes back in time until either a first mover, or an infinite series.
Well my point has always been (present perfect tense) that it would not make sense for Aristotle to write a book that starts out defending eternal motion and then end it by contradicting himself by insisting that motion had a beginning. That's a different question than how it makes sense to you that present tense is the same as present perfect tense.
" If you wanted to illustrate molecules moving in a bottle of gas, then X1 moves X2 etc back to X1 is not what is actually going on at any particular instant in time." --Indeed.
" X1 does not simultaneously move X2 while Xn is moving X1 at a particular instant." --Very true.
" When a series of moving movers is involved, the First Way is addressing an essentially ordered series," --There is no such thing.
" not a time ordered series." --Every causal series is a time ordered series.
" Over time, Xn may bang into X1 again," --Indeed.
" but in the meantime X1 is either moving naturally or violently by something other than itself, so it cannot move itself as part of an essentially ordered series." --There is not such thing.
I have had an epiphany of sorts. Your worldview is so utterly foreign to any person who has grown up in the modern era and has absorbed modern science from childhood that it has taken me some 2100 posts to realize that this utterly foreign and long ago discarded notion persists in the minds of a segment of our population.
You think there is a thing called an "essential" series. You have an Aristotelian world view.
In your view motion somehow requires something to keep it going. In your view a series of cause and effect can happen simultaneously, with a chain reaction of cause and effect in a long series all happening at the same instant.
These notions lead you the the conclusion that a first mover in the present is required, ant it is this notion of an "essential" series that Aquinas took for granted, as did his intended audience, so much so that it is not explicitly stated in this ancient argument, because it was universally understood as such among that culture at that time, and it remains so much a part of your worldview that modern knowledge of motion and energy and causality are completely blocked from your cognition.
This is much worse than I had heretofore realized. The depth of your retrograde worldview is so low I am no longer confident I can find the words to introduce you to modern thought.
I propose to simply start with this.
There is no such thing as an "essential" series. Every multibody series of objects acting as motion causes and effects is necessarily a time ordered series.
There is no such thing as an "essential" series. Every multibody series of objects acting as motion causes and effects is necessarily a time ordered series.
Of course there is such a thing as an essentially ordered series. Inertia and gravity are presently responsible for the motion of Voyager right now and so are essential to the present movement of the capsule. The booster rocket that initially launched Voyager on it's journey is, at the present time, not responsible for Voyager's motion and so is not essential for Voyager to continue on it's journey. It's either scrap metal, in a museum or in the ocean...I didn't check.
In this particular case, gravity and inertia are part of the essentially ordered series responsible for Voyager's present motion. The booster rocket could be considered part of an accidentally ordered series responsible for Voyager's present motion, but since it is not presently responsible, it is not essential for that movement.
These are concepts we use all the time, but perhaps you've never heard them expressed in these terms before.
Stardusty: "This is much worse than I had heretofore realized. The depth of your retrograde worldview is so low I am no longer confident I can find the words to introduce you to modern thought."
It's worse than that; I don't think that apologists actually understand how arguments work, and (perhaps more importantly) they don't respect facts -- apologists are typically narcissists, and respecting intersubjectivity clashes with this disorder.
Apologists want two things: to retain their silly beliefs, and to be regarded as smart. Anything that doesn't offer one of these options will be disregarded or dismissed by them.
This simple theory explains EVERYTHING that has transpired here.
This is a link to various physics problems involving free body diagrams. Check out #3
It is a problem used in physics classes to determine the various tensions present in couplings among the various cars in the train. Two things that are relevant to the discussion are that 1) It relates to the forces that are causing motion in a series of things that are not causing motion themselves (other than the locomotive). 2) The tension between the car couplings is different. The locomotive is supplying force for both cars, while the tension between cars 1 and 2 is half that, the conclusion being that car 1 is pulling car 2. This is what is meant by an essentially ordered series, being that car 1 is instrumental in moving car 2.
You may also be interested in the other problems as well as they use "free body diagrams" routinely used in physics courses.
If pdf's are not your thing, then here is a video that shows the same concept.
" Of course there is such a thing as an essentially ordered series." --Greek mythology. That is all an "essentially" ordered series is. It has no more reality than the gods on mount Olympus.
" Inertia and gravity are presently responsible for the motion of Voyager right now" --Gravity is not "responsible right now".
This is a good quality animation that shows how a spacecraft interacts with bodies in gravitational fields. https://www.space.com/36980-nasa-nicer-mission-neutrons-stars-and-gps-for-the-galaxy-teaser-trailer.html
While the animation takes a couple minutes the process actually takes years. As the spacecraft gains energy the planets lose energy in a time sequence of events.
Cause and effect are always, necessarily, a time ordered series.
There is no such thing as an "essential" series. That notion is ancient Greek mythology, nothing more.
" These are concepts we use all the time" --No scientist uses the concept of an "essential" series. All planetary scientists, space mission scientists, and physicists of all sorts do not use this ancient Greek myth in any serious professional work.
", but perhaps you've never heard them expressed in these terms before." --This is not an issue of my lack of familiarity with terminology. The issue is that you are living your life under the misconception of ancient Greek mythology.
" This is a link to various physics problems involving free body diagrams. Check out #3" --No mention of an "essential" series there because that is just an ancient Greek myth.
" It is a problem used in physics classes to determine the various tensions" --Students learn what is called "statics". These a simplified and idealized problems known to yield answers that are only close, not fully accurate. The professor will say something like "to a first approximation we can model this system as..." and then the student solves those problems.
No representation is made that these are intended to be thorough scientific investigations of the entire dynamic process being modeled.
More detailed analysis is covered in what is called "dynamics", but that is also presented as only approximate modeling.
There is no such thing as an "essential" series. Every causal series is necessarily a complex time ordered series. The actual number of atomic elements in a causal series such a locomotive pulling a train is roughly on the order of 10^24 * 10^n with n equal to the kilograms of mass involved. Since a locomotive uses an oxidation reaction one would need to consider the number of electrons in each atom as well. So, to accurately analyze the series is humanly impossible. The only way to get any useful work done is to employ models.
You will not find any mention of an "essential" series in a modern discussion of causality because it is obvious that a causal series is necessarily a process over time.
present in couplings among the various cars in the train. Two things that are relevant to the discussion are that 1) It relates to the forces that are causing motion in a series of things that are not causing motion themselves (other than the locomotive). 2) The tension between the car couplings is different. The locomotive is supplying force for both cars, while the tension between cars 1 and 2 is half that, the conclusion being that car 1 is pulling car 2. This is what is meant by an essentially ordered series, being that car 1 is instrumental in moving car 2.
You may also be interested in the other problems as well as they use "free body diagrams" routinely used in physics courses.
If pdf's are not your thing, then here is a video that shows the same concept. July 09, 2017 8:01 PM
" I was taught that same ancient, outdated mythology in science class." --In engineering you never realized that statics is an approximate model?
Did you move on to dynamics? Do you realize that was only an approximate model too?
Where in all your engineering practice and education did you ever get the idea that a real causal series was really one of these simplifications and the series really happened in zero time?
In engineering you never got the fact that nothing happens in zero time?
An "essential" series is just an ancient Greek myth. Don't you understand that?
Whatever your complain is, I cannot muster any sympathy for it because they are teaching this ancient mythology in the science classroom. If they are doing that, then your objection is hollow. It's not the myth you think it is.
Dusty seems to think that Aristotle forgot to properly consider time - and in doing so it invalidates his arguments. Dusty is ignorant. Aristotle spills a lot of ink looking at time and writing various proofs related to time. Here's one from Book 6.
Aristotle: "We will now show that nothing can be in motion in a present"
Now that Dusty knows that Aristotle agrees, Dusty can now stop relying on the statement "nothing happens in zero time" as a rebuttal. It's not a rebuttal.
Science is loaded to the hilt with simplified and idealized teachings: atomic models, ideal gas laws, frictionless surfaces, point mass, unchanging objects, uniform density.
On the one hand we are told to rely on science for knowledge about the physical world. On the other hand, Dusty is arguing that it's all a myth.
When we rely on the teachings of science and it fits Dusty's agenda to accept these simplified idealized notions, that's good. No pushback, no rebuttal, no disagreement.
When we point out the fact that Aristotle is teaching the same thing using ancient, and philosophical language, that's not good because Aristotle is a doofus for relying on simplified idealized notions that are a myth.
It would be nice if the skeptics here showed some consistency.
" This is a link to various physics problems involving free body diagrams. Check out #3" --No mention of an "essential" series there because that is just an ancient Greek myth.
The diagram illustrates the concept. The first car being essesential to the movement of the last.
No representation is made that these are intended to be thorough scientific investigations of the entire dynamic process being modeled.
The diagram is used to calculate coupler tension. Different diagrams would be used to investigate different things.
You will not find any mention of an "essential" series in a modern discussion of causality because it is obvious that a causal series is necessarily a process over time.
The free body diagrams illustrate the principle regardless of what one calls it.
Dusty: "Your worldview is so utterly foreign to any person who has grown up in the modern era. You think there is a thing called an "essential" series."
bmiller: "The diagram illustrates the concept. The first car being essesential to the movement of the last."
It's got to be embarrassing to discover that ones "epiphany" is demonstrated to be false each and every day. It's not foreign at all. The question now is will Dusty do anything to correct his flawed thinking?
@Stardusty, I think that it's not so much that steveK and his ilk are ignorant of the Enlightenment and a modern world view.
It's more than that.
They don't understand argument, and facts, and perhaps most challenging of all, they don't value consistency, epistemic humility, and honesty.
You can argue with people who don't agree with you; but it's impossible to argue with people who are dishonest.
Stevek knows he's a liar. And yet he isn't bothered by it the way it would bother you and I -- the way that would prevent us from doing it, or correcting it.
You can make an ignorant person aware, but you can't make an immoral person moral. At least I don't think I can.
Are you sure about that? What did Aristotle theorize would happen to a moving object in the absence of gravity and air resistance?
It has been argued that Newton's First Law of Motion refuted Aristotle. If so, we would expect Newton to point that out. But on the contrary, he actually credits Aristotle and other ancient Greeks for originating the basic idea.
As he expressed here: "All those ancients knew the first law [of motion] who attributed to atoms in an infinite vacuum a motion which was rectilinear, extremely swift and perpetual because of the lack of resistance...Aristotle was of the same mind, since he expresses his opinion thus [in On The Heavens, 3.2.301b]: 'If a body, destitute of gravity and levity, be moved, it is necessary that it be moved by an external force. And when it is once moved by a force, it will conserve its motion indefinitely'. And again in Book IV of the Physics, text 69, [i.e. Physics 4.8.215a19] speaking of motion in the void where there is no impediment he writes: 'Why a body once moved should come to rest anywhere no one can say. For why should it rest here rather than there ? Hence either it will not be moved, OR it must be moved indefinitely, unless something stronger impedes it"
From one of Newton's Scientific Papers in The Portsmouth Collection
" The diagram illustrates the concept. The first car being essesential to the movement of the last." --No, simplified diagrams illustrate approximate models.
SP You will not find any mention of an "essential" series in a modern discussion of causality because it is obvious that a causal series is necessarily a process over time.
" The free body diagrams illustrate the principle regardless of what one calls it." --No, simplified diagrams do not illustrate an "essential" series. The diagrams are inaccurate and only idealizations as first order approximations. They are not serious studies of causation.
Aristotle had some bits and pieces that were close or at least on the right track.
People followed Aristotle for some 2000 years not because they were stupidly following nonsense, but because to the ordinary observer a very great deal of what Aristotle said seemed to comport with reality. Aristotle was one of the most brilliant and accomplished thinkers of all time.
Aristotle did not link his general notion that in some circumstances things keep moving to his other ideas about natural motion, how things are forced to move, how things accelerate while they are falling, and the true effects of viscous resistance to falling objects of different weights.
Aristotle did not understand inertia beyond a very superficial inkling that sometimes things keep moving.
" The diagram illustrates the concept. The first car being essential to the movement of the last." --No, simplified diagrams illustrate approximate models.
SP You will not find any mention of an "essential" series in a modern discussion of causality because it is obvious that a causal series is necessarily a process over time.
" The free body diagrams illustrate the principle regardless of what one calls it." --No, simplified diagrams do not illustrate an "essential" series. The diagrams are inaccurate and only idealizations as first order approximations. They are not serious studies of causation.
The diagrams are how physics have always been taught and discussed from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein. Check out Newton's Principia page 356 for example where he uses a diagram to illustrate how pressure is propagated through a fluid with a series of labeled circles representing fluid particles forming a series of moving movers.
If you want to maintain that the way physics has been taught throughout history has always been wrong up to and including today then you have an odd point of view. How would you teach it without free body diagrams?
Well Newton did mention Lucretius also so maybe he was giving them both credit for it. ☺
Aristotle did not link his general notion that in some circumstances things keep moving to his other ideas about natural motion, how things are forced to move, how things accelerate while they are falling, and the true effects of viscous resistance to falling objects of different weights.
Hmm. I'm not sure what the criticism is wrt linking things. He actually did extensive studies on "viscous resistance to falling objects of different weights." so can you explain what you mean by this?
Aristotle did not understand inertia beyond a very superficial inkling that sometimes things keep moving.
Since Newton's First Law assumes ideal conditions where no other forces are in play, how do you think Aristotle's view under these conditions is "a very superficial inkling" compared to Newton's since Newton credits the ancient Greeks (including Aristotle) for originating the idea?
" Since Newton's First Law assumes ideal conditions where no other forces are in play, how do you think Aristotle's view under these conditions is "a very superficial inkling" compared to Newton's " --Because Newton didn't simply make a narrow assertion and then apply it inconsistently as Aristotle did.
Newton showed how to apply the concept of inertia consistently for every sort of motion in every place, including terrestrial motion, so-called natural motion, elliptical and parabolic motion, as well as rectilinear motion. He also quantified acceleration and its relationship to inertia uniformly both for so called forced motion and natural motion.
By comparison Aristotle had only a vague inkling about inertia.
bmiller: "If you want to maintain that the way physics has been taught throughout history has always been wrong up to and including today then you have an odd point of view?"
This is what I mean by dishonesty. Apologists are dishonest. bmiller is another apologist.
bmiller doesn't care about ideas, and learning per se. bmiller cares about the social utility of his jottings, and how it can elicit the approval of his shabby little group of fellow apologists.
That explains every one of his comments so far. It probably always will. Because while it's possible to fix ignorance, it's much harder to fix morality. And unfortunately, the two are intertwined.
bmiller: "If you want to maintain that the way physics has been taught throughout history has always been wrong up to and including today then you have an odd point of view?"
This is what I mean by dishonesty.
I don't know what you're talking about. Aristotle used free body diagrams in Physics.
" Since Newton's First Law assumes ideal conditions where no other forces are in play, how do you think Aristotle's view under these conditions is "a very superficial inkling" compared to Newton's " --Because Newton didn't simply make a narrow assertion and then apply it inconsistently as Aristotle did.
Newton thought Aristotle accurately described motion in ideal conditions. After Aristotle the idea was further refined and developed. If you read Aristotle's Physics you will notice it reads more like what we would consider Philosophy or Philosophy of Science. That's why Legion had been emphasizing the First Way should be understood as a metaphysical argument rather than a physics argument, owing to how we use the word physics today.
@Stardusty, I think that it's not so much that steveK and his ilk are ignorant of the Enlightenment and a modern world view.
It's more than that.
They don't understand argument, and facts, and perhaps most challenging of all, they don't value consistency, epistemic humility, and honesty.
You can argue with people who don't agree with you; but it's impossible to argue with people who are dishonest.
Stevek knows he's a liar. And yet he isn't bothered by it the way it would bother you and I -- the way that would prevent us from doing it, or correcting it.
You can make an ignorant person aware, but you can't make an immoral person moral. At least I don't think I can. July 10, 2017 12:58 PM --I agree that there is strong evidence that SteveK is not a mechanical engineer. His use of technical terms is very vague, and engineers are notorious for speaking accurately on technical matters. He displays a knowledge of physics commensurate with middle school or at best high school education. A mechanical engineer must take several semesters of calculus for engineers, physics for engineers, statics, dynamics, numerical methods, and advanced courses in analysis. SteveK displays no such background whatsoever.
Grod is even more grandiose. He claims to be a phd [sic] in mathematical physics (ROTFLMAO). Grod doesn't actually make arguments that display this knowledge, rather, he just drops by to issue long lists of name calling, imply he has some great knowledge that would decimate his name calling target's arguments if only he took the time to present them, and then leave.
Of course one could make various excuses, so who knows? But the evidence is strongly against them both.
Cal Metzger said...
bmiller: "If you want to maintain that the way physics has been taught throughout history has always been wrong up to and including today then you have an odd point of view?"
This is what I mean by dishonesty. Apologists are dishonest. bmiller is another apologist.
bmiller doesn't care about ideas, and learning per se. bmiller cares about the social utility of his jottings, and how it can elicit the approval of his shabby little group of fellow apologists.
That explains every one of his comments so far. It probably always will. Because while it's possible to fix ignorance, it's much harder to fix morality. And unfortunately, the two are intertwined. July 12, 2017 5:42 AM --Not quite.
While I generally stay away from psychological assertions because they are ultimately unprovable, there certainly is a preponderance of evidence, a very strong correlation, between your hypotheses and all the comments we have seen here.
But, you might want to consider adding a feature to your analysis. Bmiller and legion will switch to a fairly constructive mode when they seem to feel they are taking on the role of educator. Typically bmiller will use the argumentation techniques of a YEC, quote mining, intentionally cutting out critical qualifiers to reverse the meaning of what was said, and generally disjointed argumentation.
However, it seems like he fancies himself somewhat of an expert on Aquinas and Aristotle. When the discussion puts him into a perceived roll of educator he actually becomes temporarily reasonable.
It doesn't last. Once the perceived education period turns to pointing out all the flaws in what he has just "taught" he goes right back to his scattered, disjointed irrationalities.
I don't quite know what happened to Legion One possibility is that he was getting close to another major shift in his worldview and withdrew as a defense mechanism.
" That's why Legion had been emphasizing the First Way should be understood as a metaphysical argument rather than a physics argument, owing to how we use the word physics today." --Their is no metaphysical merit to the first way. The notion of a necessity for an ontological infinite series in the absence of a first mover is simply nonsense. No clear explanation for this assertion has ever been made.
Why does there supposedly need to be a long ontological chain of causation in the present moment? The very notion is incoherent and meaningless.
The only coherent notion of the necessity for a first mover in the present is on the notion that motion will come to a rest, at least terrestrially. If that were true then a strong argument could be made that there is some undiscovered force that keeps things moving against this asserted property of motion to naturally end terrestrially.
That notion is false. Motion does not end at all, terrestrially or anyplace else, it always continues or is transformed. Inertial Conservation These simple facts eliminate the need for a first mover in the present to overcome an asserted property of motion to end.
Why does there supposedly need to be a long ontological chain of causation in the present moment?
There doesn't. 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.
See. There only needs to be one thing.
The only coherent notion of the necessity for a first mover in the present is on the notion that motion will come to a rest, at least terrestrially. If that were true then a strong argument could be made that there is some undiscovered force that keeps things moving against this asserted property of motion to naturally end terrestrially.
In fact Aristotle and Newton both reached the same conclusion. Things "came to rest terrestrially" due to air resistance and gravity. But neither of them argued for a first mover on that basis.
That notion is false. Motion does not end at all, terrestrially or anyplace else, it always continues or is transformed.
Maybe it's time to consider what we are referring to.
Motion is something that material things do, right? No material things, no motion, right?
Then what is a material thing?
Are you a material thing? Can you ever stop moving? How about when you're dead?
I suggest that your idea of a material thing is different from Aristotle or Newton.
" 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.
See. There only needs to be one thing." --The sun is moving, therefore the first mover moves the sun, therefore god
Nope. Nor do I think it was intended to be. Sometimes mundane observations serve as their own explanation, though.
That comment sounds like it came from someone: Who doesn't care about ideas, and learning per se. Who cares about the social utility of his jottings, and how it can elicit the approval of his shabby little group of fellows
Of such people it has been said "It's possible to fix ignorance, it's much harder to fix morality. And unfortunately, the two are intertwined."
In other words it sounds like a [sic] derogatory comment.
bmiller: "That comment sounds like it came from someone: Who doesn't care about ideas, and learning per se."
All evidence to the contrary.
bmiller: "Who cares about the social utility of his jottings..."
I do care about the social utility of my jottings. That should be self-evident from commenting on a public blog, shouldn't it?
bmiller: "...and how it can elicit the approval of his shabby little group of fellows"
We are all social creatures. I am interested in what Stardusty thinks, because he possesses knowledge that I do not, and because he has a sharp intellect, and because he can offer me insights that I wouldn't discover on my own.
I am not very interested in what you think you know, because you are a pretender. You you fail to be consistent, you are dishonest, you are ignorant of basic knowledge, and you are very often confused to the point of being irrelevant.
I am interested in how you fail to think clearly, because I think your pathological failures at rationality reveal the forces at work in all of our thinking, and I hope to learn to think more clearly by trying to modulate the forces that so obviously run rampant with you.
bmiller: "Of such people it has been said "It's possible to fix ignorance, it's much harder to fix morality. And unfortunately, the two are intertwined." "
That is one of my operating theories, recently, yes. I think it is a less well-known explanation because psychologists shy away from these kind of conclusions.
bmiller: "In other words it sounds like a [sic] derogatory comment."
I agree that the explanation is not flattering to the apologist.
Also, it looks like you don't understand how to use the term "[sic], nor that I have made it clear that I don't shy away from the derogatory ramifications of my puted explanation.
You remain a hot mess. It's my guess you will always be so, because you seem to have a sickness that I don't know how to fix.
bmiller: "Let me know when you have an actual argument regarding the First Way and/or "learning per se"."
One doesn't provide an "argument" that the an argument doesn't abide by the rules of good argument. You fail to even understand that basic fact.
One provides criticism -- criticism that shows how an argument fails to abide by the rules of good argument. Criticism that has been provided, over and over and over and over, in detail and countless permutations, without a single meaningful response from apologists such as yourself here.
This is understood because you are a kind of idiot -- the kind who are best explained by their ugly moral character.
In other words, you are an apologist.
And apologists aren't just ugly -- they are profoundly stupid, in only the way that people who won't allow that 2 + 2 = 4 can be stupid.
a) time delay criticism (so?) b) motion occurs over time criticism (not contested by anyone) c) I don't understand what Aquinas means by "act" and "potency" and "change" criticism (not my problem) d) macro-level is an illusion criticism (as if) e) absence of evidence is evidence of absence criticism (mkay) f) nobody serious person uses the term "essential series" criticism (irrelevant) g) Newton proves the argument is false criticism (Newton agrees with Aristotle) h) Newton didn't understand his own theory criticism(sez you) i) everything has always been in motion criticism (your separate claim to argue) j) essential series don't exist in reality criticism (see that free body diagram) k) free body diagrams are just an approximate model criticism (since when are scientific models/approximations false?) l) you're an idiot criticism (so?) m) things act to move themselves criticism (logically impossible given the setup of the argument. See 2e and 2f) n) an infinite regress is possible criticism (logically impossible given the setup of the argument. See 4a and 4b)
None demonstrate that the FW argument fails to be a good argument.
" None demonstrate that the FW argument fails to be a good argument." --Your straw man list is pointless.
You can find summaries of my actual arguments here: March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM May 11, 2017 9:00 AM June 30, 2017 7:08 AM June 30, 2017 5:45 PM
Nope. You're just a liar, which inhibits your ability to think and present thoughts clearly.
stevek: "None demonstrate that the FW argument fails to be a good argument."
The criticisms offered ALL point out the ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument -- rules that you have already agreed MUST be obeyed in order for an argument to be a good one.
Your misrepresentation and false appraisal is meaningless to a discussion of the First Way. Which stands on its own, and fails according to the rules of good argument.
That you would state otherwise reflects not just your muddled thinking, but the poor character which motivates how you engage with the topic.
Not until you value consistency, and ideas themselves (independent of you), will you be able to engage in an intellectual topic. Until then, your views are interesting only in how they reveal how individuals act shabbily and think poorly -- and how those two habits are inextricably intertwined.
o) God must have moved when he changed his mind criticism (not an example of potency being reduced to act) p) I don't understand the unmoved mover to be God criticism (you're not part of the group referenced by "all")
>> March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
q) the FW says ALL things causing motion are in motion criticism (no, it doesn't say that)
>> March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
c) I don't understand what Aquinas means by "act" and "potency" and "change" criticism (not my problem)
a) time delay criticism (so?) c) I don't understand what Aquinas means by "act" and "potency" and "change" criticism (not my problem) e) absence of evidence is evidence of absence criticism (mkay) g) Newton proves the argument is false criticism (Newton agrees with Aristotle)
>> June 30, 2017 7:08 AM
r) begging the question criticism (your rephrasing of the FW created a problem)
>> June 30, 2017 5:45 PM
b) motion occurs over time criticism (not contested by anyone) d) macro-level is an illusion criticism (as if) f) nobody serious person uses the term "essential series" criticism (irrelevant) j) essential series don't exist in reality criticism (see that free body diagram) k) free body diagrams are just an approximate model criticism (since when are scientific models/approximations false?) l) you're an idiot criticism (so?)
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 2001 – 2200 of 3162 Newer› Newest»Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" 5. Therefore there must be a source of motion for things that are being moved by things that are being moved, and this source can't be getting moved by something else or else the problem remains.
There is no begging the question."
--I'm sorry you are unable to follow logical notation. Haines uses it in order to assert that the argument is logically valid. I have shown how is notation is critically abbreviated and the argument does in fact beg the question.
A modern writer might be able to rephrase the argument into a valid form, but as writing the First Way is logically invalid by begging the question as I have clearly shown.
July 01, 2017 4:30 AM
Here is a more detailed demonstration of how the First Way, as actually written, begs the question. The term "you" refers to David Haines.
In your referenece [8] you provide a link that was a source for your notation. At that link I also found this translation that differs slightly from the translation you use in your analysis above.
“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”
You outlined this section as follows
g. It follows, therefore, that all that is moved is moved by another.
(3) If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on].
(4) But this cannot proceed to infinity:
a. Because, in this case, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another,
b. Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand.
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:
Your notation for these items (neglecting 2g which I included in the text from the Francisco Romero Carrasquillo posted translation) seems to me to be exceedingly abreviatied.
C2) I (premise 4)
CC) U (premise 5)
In [8] you cite a reason as “under premises 2 and 4 Aquinas provides support for the content of these premises. Though the support does not belong to the argument as such,” that I must strongly disagree with.
To say
Y because X
is to say
X therefore Y.
The words “because” and “therefore” are inverted forms of each other.
For whatever reason, Aquinas chose the “because” style, which leads to the following relationships:
4 because 4a
4a because 4b
4b is logically prior to 4a
4a is logically prior to 4
4 is logically prior to 5
Put another way:
4b therefore 4a
4a therefore 4
4 threfore 5
Let’s take a closer look at each of these:
4b second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover
4a in the case of intinity, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another
4 (that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]) cannot proceed to infinity
Placing the words in more familiar structure using “therefore” we get:
Second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover
therefore
In the case of intinity, there would be no first mover; and consequently, no thing would move another
therefore
(that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]) cannot proceed to infinity
therefore
It is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved
4b asserts U (since there is a second mover there is a first mover)
4a asserts that there can’t not be U (there can’t not be a first mover else there would be no things moving other things)
4 asserts not I (the series of motions cannot proceed to an infinite regress)
5 asserts U (a first mover is necessary)
4b therefore 4a therefore 4
4 threrfore 5
U therefore ~~U therefore ~I
~I therefore U
Aquinas merely begs the question. The First Way is logically invalid.
Me: "A solid steel rod in space 2 light years in length is moved by Joe Astronaut pushing one end of the rod continuously at a speed of 1 m/s."
Dusty: "It will break"
I'm thinking of a very large diameter rod. So no, it wouldn't break. A man cannot apply that much force.
Me: "a)How much time passes before the other end begins to move?"
Dusty: "Assuming it didn't break that depends on the compressiblity of the material."
Young's modulus of for most steel is very high. A human hand could not produce the necessary force to deform it.
Me: "b)During that time delay, is the rod being deformed? By how much?"
Dusty: "Yes, ask a mechanical engineer to model it for you and you can get a fairly close answer"
I'm a mechanical engineer. Some of your prior statements made me think to ask these questions. I know how this stuff behaves here on earth, but was wondering if space changed anything. Which brings me to my final thoughts.
If the mechanical properties of steel (titanium, etc) are mostly unchanged in space, then the rod will not compress at all because a human cannot generate the necessary force.
Will the rod move as a whole or just deform like a rope? This gets trickier for me. Space supposedly has little to no friction so very little force should be required to move a huge mass (in theory).
If the applied stress is low the rod will not deform. Since it remains rigid and undeformed both ends will start to move at *approximately* the SAME TIME - just like here on earth.
Oops...should read
"With enough force, will the rod move as a whole or just deform like a rope?"
bmiller said...
" I pointed out you were inconsistent"
--Not substantially. If by "inconsistent" you mean I sometimes choose different words to make the same fundamental statement then you trivialize the word "inconsistent".
Strawdusty to SteveK:
"4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a)
...
Begging the question.
"
June 28, 2017 9:36 PM
bmiller to Strawdusty:
There is no question begging: first mover ≠ first mover put in motion by no other
June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
Strawdusty to bmiller:
bmiller said...
" 4 refers to the first mover being necessary for an essentially ordered series to be in motion. "
--That is begging the question, the assumption that every real series of events must have a first member.
June 30, 2017 8:29 AM
Changing your "begging the question" assertion from 5 being a rewording of 4a to somehow 4 itself "begging the question"
Strawdusty to Legion:
4b therefore 4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4b (slightly reworded in 5)
June 30, 2017 5:45 PM:
" Back to making disproven assertion to Legion rather than the new one you made up on June 30, 2017 8:29 AM."
--Right. Those are all various ways of saying the same thing. I use some different emphasis and more or less detail, but my statements above are all consistent with each other.
For a more complete analysis you can see the above post. It is lengthy, so I don't post the whole thing every time a make a point about it.
Haines's notation boils it down to just 4 and 5. The more immediate statement beyond the line at 4 is 4a. A more complete look also looks at 4b.
In each assertion of the first mover there is the implicit assertion that there simply must be a first mover in this series, and by placing that assertion into the premise of 4's sub sections the question begging is begun, which is what I summarized in June 30, 2017 8:29 AM.
4b can also be broken down further, although I did not do so in the above post. Here is some more on that issue:
One could argue that 4b should be further subdivided due to the statements regarding second and first movers. Here the 2 translations I am references differ somewhat
“seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover”
“Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover”
This could be summarized as
Subsequent movers therefore first mover
or
Second movers therefore first mover
If we use the word “second” as the antecedent then “first” is not a proper consequent, rather a mere tautology of definition, since “second” is merely defined to be the next thing after “first”.
If we use the word “subsequent” as the antecedent then “first” is again not a proper consequent, merely an assertion of the very thing that the whole argument is attempting to conclude, that a first mover is necessary.
So, by either translation 4b is simply an assertion of the first mover
July 01, 2017 10:08 AM
Blogger SteveK said...
" I'm a mechanical engineer."
--You don't speak like any one I have worked with, thus, I am skeptical of that statement.
" Space supposedly has little to no friction so very little force should be required to move a huge mass (in theory)."
--If at one time you do not push on this mass and then you do push on this mass to move the mass we have to use F=ma, at least to a first approximation. The force required to accelerate a huge mass is by definition huge. A mechanical engineer would know that.
" If the applied stress is low the rod will not deform. "
--You seem to be confusing "yield" with the more general term "deform". Steel will elastically deform even under low force, but a much higher force is required for plastic deformation. You really do not display the understandings typical of a mechanical engineer.
"Since it remains rigid and undeformed both ends will start to move at *approximately* the SAME TIME - just like here on earth."
--A 2 light year long rod in space is not going to be ridgid, ok? Do you really think forces would remain in balance over that distance?
I get the feeling this is a setup for some kind of argument for an essentially ordered series, but the setup is not going well...
July 01, 2017 3:10 PM
>> "The force required to accelerate a huge mass is by definition huge."
Not if the acceleration is extremely small. A person who understands that equation would know this.
>> " You seem to be confusing "yield" with...
No need to lecture me. I know the difference between plastic and elastic deformation and the various points on the curve when that occurs. Both are forms of deformation.
>> A 2 light year long rod in space is not going to be ridgid, ok?
Metal stays rigid under unbalanced forces all the time, so why not? You're assuming stress beyond ultimate yield stress but there's no reason to assume this.
@Strawdusty,
--Right. Those are all various ways of saying the same thing. I use some different emphasis and more or less detail, but my statements above are all consistent with each other.
No. In one instance you deal with 4 and 5 and the other you deal only with 4.
As I've repeatedly pointed out the first mover of 4 could be a first mover that moves. Conclusions reached in 1-4 allow us to reach the final conclusion in 5.
Strawdusty to SteveK:
"4a therefore 4
4 therefore 4a (5 being a rewording of 4a)
...
Begging the question.
"
June 28, 2017 9:36 PM
bmiller to Strawdusty:
There is no question begging: first mover ≠ first mover put in motion by no other
June 30, 2017 7:50 AM
I can only react to what you've written.
@Strawdusty,
Haines's notation boils it down to just 4 and 5. The more immediate statement beyond the line at 4 is 4a. A more complete look also looks at 4b.
In each assertion of the first mover there is the implicit assertion that there simply must be a first mover in this series, and by placing that assertion into the premise of 4's sub sections the question begging is begun, which is what I summarized in June 30, 2017 8:29 AM.
No. The argument "boils down" to all the premises including 1, 2, 3, 4 concluding in 5.
1: Something moves.
2: Nothing moves itself
3: If something is moving, something is moving it. If that is moving something is moving that. [and so on starting with the last mover toward the first]
4: This can't go on to infinity because then no matter how far back in an infinite series we would then never have a thing that could move the others (the first mover)
5: Since there must be a first mover of this series and since nothing moves itself, the first mover must be unmoved.
Here is the same argument phrased differently and which was referenced in Haines's article:
"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."
You can see from the bolded section that the series need only have 1 moving member.
Blogger bmiller said...
" As I've repeatedly pointed out the first mover of 4 could be a first mover that moves. "
--Ok, so the first mover moves.
That gives us a few choices:
1. The first mover has always been moving.
2. The first mover has always existed but was stationary, then began to move.
3. The first mover popped into existence ex nihilo by no cause and has always been moving for all of its existence.
4. The first mover popped into existence ex nihilo by no cause but was stationary, then began to move.
Choose your poison.
All choices violate other principles of the First Way.
July 01, 2017 6:48 PM
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
Haines's notation boils it down to just 4 and 5. The more immediate statement beyond the line at 4 is 4a. A more complete look also looks at 4b.
In each assertion of the first mover there is the implicit assertion that there simply must be a first mover in this series, and by placing that assertion into the premise of 4's sub sections the question begging is begun, which is what I summarized in June 30, 2017 8:29 AM.
" No. The argument "boils down" to all the premises including 1, 2, 3, 4 concluding in 5."
--Read his notation for the section I am analyzing for begging the question and you will only find
C2) ~I (premise 4)
CC) U (premise 5)
Haines does not include 4a or 4b, possibly because the question begging becomes obvious when one translates that whole section of the argument to notation.
Dusty
>> "I get the feeling this is a setup for some kind of argument for an essentially ordered series"
You'd be right. If, in space, the force applied to one end of a metal rod results in a stress less than yield then the rod is rigid and both ends will begin to move at approximately the same time.
As I understand your comment below you were disputing this for extremely long lengths - but maybe I am misunderstanding the point of you bringing up the speed of light as it related to a essentially ordered series.
Dusty: "light travels at about 1 foot per nanosecond, and that is a basic speed limit for all conventional physical actions of this sort"
@Strawdusty,
" As I've repeatedly pointed out the first mover of 4 could be a first mover that moves. "
--Ok, so the first mover moves.
Sorry, ruled out by premise 2:
2: Nothing moves itself
That's how arguments work. One must consider all the premises.
SteveK said...
>> A 2 light year long rod in space is not going to be ridgid, ok?
" Metal stays rigid under unbalanced forces all the time, so why not? Y"
What is the diameter of this "rod"? An inch? Something really fat, say, a foot? How about a humongous size rod, say 1 meter diameter?
2 light years is about 18922000000000000 meters. How ridged is a steel rod with a 18922000000000000/1 length to diameter ratio?
In that case the diameter is 5.284e-17 of the length.
So if we had a rod stretching from LA to NYC about 4500000 meters that rod if the same ratio would be 2.378e-11 meter in diameter, which is 2/10 of an angstrom.
How ridged is that?
July 01, 2017 6:19 PM
@Strawdusty,
" No. The argument "boils down" to all the premises including 1, 2, 3, 4 concluding in 5."
--Read his notation for the section I am analyzing for begging the question and you will only find
C2) ~I (premise 4)
CC) U (premise 5)
Haines does not include 4a or 4b, possibly because the question begging becomes obvious when one translates that whole section of the argument to notation.
Please make and effort to show who and what you are quoting. There were not even quote marks on the post I'm responding to. Furthermore you're adding confusion by switching back and forth between the text and logic notation.
The text is clear. But it's no surprise if one won't reach the same conclusion as the author of an argument by only considering a subset of his premises.
1: Something moves.
2: Nothing moves itself
3: If something is moving, something is moving it. If that is moving something is moving that. [and so on starting with the last mover toward the first]
4: This can't go on to infinity because then no matter how far back in an infinite series we would then never have a thing that could move the others (the first mover)
5: Since there must be a first mover of this series and since nothing moves itself, the first mover must be unmoved.
Dusty,
I never specified the geometry. You assumed it would fail no matter what the geometry was. I didn't do that.
How about a 3 to 1 ratio of length to diameter, so 2 light years long and .67 light years diameter? It's a thought experiment so I'm being creative.
I haven't run any numbers so maybe it's physically impossible to avoid yielding the material to the point of breaking when motion is attempted, regardless of the material/geometry.
Ironically that would only prove an infinite series is impossible from a physics point of view, which is the same conclusion the FW reaches albeit from the metaphysical view.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Yes, that is a problem in a discussion about god [sic], or do you suppose god [sic] is limited to the sorts of things that go on at the surface of the Earth?"
" I honestly have no idea how you could possibly conclude discussing a train on the ground is somehow problematic in the manner you are approaching it from, which is a very irrelevant manner."
--Yes, I realize that you have no idea about certain things. It isn't a matter of stupidity, rather, perspective.
The First Way is an argument for God. God is considered to be a creative being that brought our observable universe into existence, set existent objects in motion, and is purported to have a whole range of properties.
To argue for God Aquinas in the First Way is focusing on the origin of motion, what causes the motion we observe, what accounts for things that are moving. Aquinas hopes to get to a logical necessity for a coherent first mover, to which he will then attach the label of God.
For the First Way to be valid today it must remain in keeping with modern scientific knowledge.
The First Way must be applicable to all objects of all sizes everywhere in the universe to be of any modern value.
Thus, to focus on medium size objects on the surface of our planet is a hopelessly blinded and minuscule perspective. We cannot possibly hope to analyze the validity of the First Way unless we consider it's validity as it applies from the very smallest things we know (quarks, electrons, neutrinos, photons) up to the largest things we know (astronomical objects, superclusters, the cosmic background radiation, our big bang)
So, you might think it is foolish to consider a caboose in space. I think it is foolish to fail to consider that everything is in space, everything is made up of tiny particles, and causation proceeds between these tiny particles and associated fields in space in an incredibly complex continual multibody interaction process.
That is my perspective, whereas your perspective is very underdeveloped and inadequate by comparison.
Stardusty: "No, they all require time to take their action"
" Haha I am getting a kick out of you and Cal thinking you are refuting us, when you are either missing or intentionally dodging the point."
--No, I am calling your analysis hopelessly simplistic and lacking in modern perspective.
" Concurrent in the series means that if the mover is taken away, the moved will not be able to sustain its motion. "
--Here you personify or anthropomorphize a thing as a "mover" or a "cause". You have only assigned a title to an object that is a very complex system of continually interacting processes.
When you expand your perspective into the modern era you will be able see how irrelevant to causal analysis your present perspective is.
July 01, 2017 4:26 AM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Removing a cause after the time delay inherent in its operation will have no effect on operations within that delay window."
" And this defeats the First Way or refutes my point how...?"
--As I mentioned elsewhere, here I have slipped into your vernacular just for the sake of a discussion, perhaps an ill advised attempt at communication on my part.
The locomotive is not "a cause" as a personified thing, a title given to an object. Air and fuel are oxidized and energy is converted in a continual process of vast complexity. If you stop that process then the process stops. So, in the end, your false distinction of an essential series is a mere tautology.
Stardusty: "I you remove the fuel pump the engine will continue to run for a short time."
" And then will stop, much like I said."
--If you stop the process the process will stop. Fine, that is true, but trivial.
Stardusty: "Removal of each will not cause an instantaneous effect on the caboose."
" Thank you for refuting something I never said. However, very quickly the motion in question will begin tapering off, in some cases so quickly that we could not even perceive the instant in which the motion continued. Which is in accordance with what I have said."
--Epicycles are also in accordance with observed planetary motion. They turn out to be false.
Stardusty: "If you remove a cause after the cause then the effect is not changed. If you remove a cause before the effect then you have not really removed the cause except as in your thinking, rather, you have changed the situation to prevent the cause and effect from ever happening."
" Neither of these is an essentially ordered series"
--There is no such thing as an essentially ordered series in modern causation, there is just the propagation of causal effects in a mutually interacting multibody process.
I realize you know some fundamental concepts of what inertia is, but you have yet to gain the perspective to realize that motion is inherently self sustaining.
That was one of the great conceptual leaps of Newton. Motion is self sustaining, it does not stop unless something acts to stop it.
In terms of motion as positional change in a frame of reference objects do move themselves once they have been accelerated from a relative rest, in other words, in uniform motion objects move themselves.
I invite you to expand your perspective into the modern day. The notion of assigning the title of "cause" to an object and then distinguishing between an essentially ordered series and any other series is illusory and useless in a serious discussion of causality.
July 01, 2017 4:26 AM
SteveK said...
" How about a 3 to 1 ratio of length to diameter, so 2 light years long and .67 light years diameter? "
--In that case a human being could not push on it because a 2ly by .67ly solid steel cylinder would have such an enormous gravitational field strength that a human being would be squashed flat against it like a crepe pancake and die immediately.
What does any of this have to do with the First Way?
July 01, 2017 8:02 PM
Stardusty: "A modern writer might be able to rephrase the argument into a valid form, but as writing the First Way is logically invalid by begging the question as I have clearly shown."
Things are rarely as clear as you seem to think about your assertions, but I am content that the actual ideas behind the First Way do not beg the question.
Stardusty: "To argue for God Aquinas in the First Way is focusing on the origin of motion"
No, not in the First Way. "First" is primary in an active series, not original in a past and defunct series. That Aquinas would believe God is the creator of the universe and thus motion in the past is not the focus of the First Way
Stardusty: "The First Way must be applicable to all objects of all sizes everywhere in the universe to be of any modern value."
So relativity and quantum physics are of no modern value? I think you mistake "not comprehensive" with "useless", because neither of those is useless.
Stardusty: "So, you might think it is foolish to consider a caboose in space. I think it is foolish to fail to consider that everything is in space, everything is made up of tiny particles, and causation proceeds between these tiny particles and associated fields in space in an incredibly complex continual multibody interaction process."
A caboose in space is not being subjected to friction like a caboose on earth, so the situations are quite different. Different things are different.
Stardusty: "That is my perspective, whereas your perspective is very underdeveloped and inadequate by comparison"
I literally laughed out loud, thank you for reminding me what skeptics think of themselves.
Stardusty: "Here you personify or anthropomorphize a thing as a "mover" or a "cause"."
You are quite confused.
Stardusty: "You have only assigned a title to an object that is a very complex system of continually interacting processes."
I would not stop with the locomotive itself as the cause, but it is useful as a demonstration of concept to reasonable people.
Stardusty: "If you stop the process the process will stop. Fine, that is true, but trivial."
And science says stuff does stuff.
Stardusty: "There is no such thing as an essentially ordered series in modern causation, there is just the propagation of causal effects in a mutually interacting multibody process."
I don't care if science uses it, I care if it describes what is real.
Stardusty: "but you have yet to gain the perspective to realize that motion is inherently self sustaining."
I do know that. Very easy to disprove, so amusing that you and Cal keep spouting it.
Hint: disagreeing with Stardusty and Cal is not an indication of ignorance.
Stardusty: "Motion is self sustaining, it does not stop unless something acts to stop it."
Indeed. And once something acts to stop it, for the motion to continue will require a sustaining force, which would make it something the First Way analyzes. Note I never used the word "instantaneous" or any synonym of it.
Stardusty: "The notion of assigning the title of "cause" to an object and then distinguishing between an essentially ordered series and any other series is illusory and useless in a serious discussion of causality."
So you assert.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "A modern writer might be able to rephrase the argument into a valid form, but as writing the First Way is logically invalid by begging the question as I have clearly shown."
" Things are rarely as clear as you seem to think about your assertions, but I am content that the actual ideas behind the First Way do not beg the question."
--Ok, so Aquinas does beg the question but you can reword the argument to remove some of its glaring defects. Even so, you will not be able argue for a coherent first mover, since the notion of a first mover suffers from its own irrationalities.
Stardusty: "To argue for God Aquinas in the First Way is focusing on the origin of motion"
" No, not in the First Way. "First" is primary in an active series, not original in a past and defunct series."
--If the past is eliminated than the first mover is just whatever is presently observed and there is no problem.
In your train example the locomotive just moves the train, problem solved.
Stardusty: "The First Way must be applicable to all objects of all sizes everywhere in the universe to be of any modern value."
" So relativity and quantum physics are of no modern value?"
--Relativity and QM are applicable everywhere. You seem to think they are not. Why?
" A caboose in space is not being subjected to friction like a caboose on earth, so the situations are quite different. Different things are different."
--It's the same physics.
Stardusty: "There is no such thing as an essentially ordered series in modern causation, there is just the propagation of causal effects in a mutually interacting multibody process."
" I don't care if science uses it, I care if it describes what is real."
--That's why your perspective is so badly underdeveloped. You prefer folk observations to science when analyzing motion. You have thus doomed yourself to misconception.
Stardusty: "Motion is self sustaining, it does not stop unless something acts to stop it."
" Indeed. And once something acts to stop it, for the motion to continue will require a sustaining force, "
--Force is force. There is no such thing as a "sustaining force" outside of your imagination.
" Note I never used the word "instantaneous" or any synonym of it."
--You deny an infinity of time is at issue. If the cause and effect are not instantaneous and infinity of them would require infinite time.
You deny the First Way addresses the past, so cause and effect must then be instantaneous.
When you put away your folk reasoning and learn to think scientifically you will bring your underdeveloped concepts out of the middle ages and into the present day.
Stardusty: "The notion of assigning the title of "cause" to an object and then distinguishing between an essentially ordered series and any other series is illusory and useless in a serious discussion of causality."
" So you assert."
--In folk reasoning we think of an object as a cause. We assign the title of cause to things in order for us to function at our level. But that is not helpful if we are attempting to account for a first mover as opposed to an infinite regress.
If you want to go about assigning titles and using ordinary observations and only consider the present moment then then there are lots of first movers. The batter is the first mover of the ball. The locomotive is the first mover of the train. The engine is the first mover of the car. The electric motor is the first mover of the blender. And on and on, explaining nothing that can lead to sound argument for God.
July 02, 2017 2:33 AM
Me: “So, either you understand inertia, which would mean that you understand that things in motion in the current reference frame were set in motion in a prior reference frame (in which case your understanding of inertia should reveal to you that the premise of the First Way that states that "ALL that IS moved, is moved by another is false), / or / You don't understand inertia, and think that ALL motion as observed in the current reference frame is the result of a force currently appled within that current frame.”
Legion: “You left out the third and correct option - I understand inertia, and I also understand that what occurred in the past is irrelevant as to whether a motion can be sustained now without being moved by something else, like a caboose rolling over the ground.”
1. It is correct that a caboose traveling at a constant velocity requires a force equal to the friction it encounters to maintain that velocity.
2. It is also correct that an object in motion encountering no friction will continue to maintain its velocity for as long as that scenario remains in effect.
3. It is INcorrect that 2 is irrelevant to the First Way, which states that “But, ALL that IS moved, IS moved by another.” And it is 2 that the First Way appears to violate, thus making the quoted premise unsound. And, as has been pointed out so many times, an argument with an unsound premise is a bad argument.
I’ll say this another way because you don’t seem to be absorbing it.
1. The First Way states that ALL that IS moved (“now,” as you say) is being moved by something else.
2. But we observe many things in motion (planets, satellites, etc.) whose constant velocity is clear evidence that their motion was initiated at some point in the past, and that they continue to move at this constant velocity without slowing down or needing something else to propel them (in the current reference frame).
There is no way to reasonably deny that 1 and 2 immediately above are in conflict. And there is no way that one can disagree with 2 immediately above and claim to have a grasp of the implications of how objects in motion operate (as commonly described under the term inertia).
>> "What does any of this have to do with the First Way?"
It's related to your comment about how long the delay will be before motion occurs on the other end.
Stardusty: "Ok, so Aquinas does beg the question"
I don't know if he does or not per notation. I'll let the wonks figure that one out, since I have no interest in translating the notation and then deciding whether you were correct in your analysis.
What is much more important to me is, does the conclusion of a first mover depend upon circular reasoning in order to be valid, regardless of how it is worded? For example, "I know God exists because the Bible says he does, and the Bible is the word of God so I trust it" is not salvageable logically no matter how you word it. Even if some notation technicality snagged what is technically begging the question in a technical sense - which again, I'm not going to analyze, but those who know the purpose and meaning of the argument have been disagreeing - the argument does not depend upon begging the question.
Basically, if you can't show me where Aquinas begs the question without "4a therefore 4,
4 therefore 4a", then I'm content that the argument does not beg the question. If it did, it would fall apart were the circular reasoning removed.
Stardusty: "Relativity and QM are applicable everywhere. You seem to think they are not. Why?"
General relativity falls apart at the quantum level. Quantum physics falls apart on larger scales. Neither covers every level, so per your definition, they are useless for modern analysis.
Stardusty: "It's the same physics."
With different variables at play producing different outcomes.
Stardusty: "You prefer folk observations to science when analyzing motion. You have thus doomed yourself to misconception."
You have a misconception that you have demonstrated where science contradicts the idea of an essentially ordered series.
Stardusty: "Force is force. There is no such thing as a "sustaining force" outside of your imagination."
You say this because you don't understand how language works. Words describe things. "Sustaining" has a definition, thus any force that meets that definition is a sustaining force. A "harmful force", an "explosive force", an "adequate force", and a "sustaining force" all exist, by definition. You have quite the task ahead of you if you wish to prove otherwise.
Stardusty: "If the cause and effect are not instantaneous and infinity of them would require infinite time."
The argument denies that there are an infinity of secondary causes at work for a given motion.
Stardusty: "You deny the First Way addresses the past, so cause and effect must then be instantaneous."
I have a generator, a switch, and a light bulb. The generator is producing power, the switch is on, and the light bulb is on. For an essentially ordered series, it does not matter when the generator was turned on. It does not matter when the switch was turned on. It does not matter how long the light bulb has been glowing. All that matters is, if the switch or generator are turned off, will the light remain on? If the answer is "no", then we have something that the First Way would analyze.
Stardusty: "When you put away your folk reasoning and learn to think scientifically you will bring your underdeveloped concepts out of the middle ages and into the present day."
You are obviously fond of saying this, but I hope you realize it doesn't reflect reality and amuses me greatly.
Stardusty: "The batter is the first mover of the ball."
You could try to terminate the series there, but it in fact goes on. The locomotive's ability to pull the caboose is dependent upon fuel, tracks, gravity, numerous other things. The staff and hand, the train, these are illustrations only. All of them are actually secondary, since they owe their causal power to other things.
The First Way proposes that there can't be an infinity of such secondary causes, and that there must be a termination point of an unmoved mover, or else nothing could move.
Cal: "2. It is also correct that an object in motion encountering no friction will continue to maintain its velocity for as long as that scenario remains in effect."
Because gravitational forces are always acting on it. A force acting on a body will produce an effect.
Cal: "But, ALL that IS moved, IS moved by another.”
Correct. Per the argument, motion is a potential state becoming an actualized state - change, basically. So, all that is changed is changed by another.
The premise requires "not X, then X". To be moved is to be changed. Nothing changes itself. All that is moved is moved by another = all that is changed is changed by another.
But, let's take a satellite or something physically moving freely without friction. It is true that it will continue indefinitely until something acts upon it to change it (all that is moved is moved by another). The satellite's physical movement was granted to it by someone launching it - it didn't launch itself. So its physical movement is a state that is granted to it by another - all that is moved is moved by another.
Of course, this is not an essentially ordered series, since the satellite's movement is now independent of the thing that moved it, but it is still true that the satellite's movement was by another, and not itself.
That the satellite keeps moving due to inertia does nothing to damage the First Way - its physical motion is a state that will not change unless moved by another.
Cal Metzger said...
" IS moved"
--Anybody have Bill Clinton's number handy?
Actually, Cal, you raise a valid point on the insistence of the theists here that IS means in the present moment. That was actually how Clinton avoided a technical purgery, by answering truthfully with respect to the present moment.
Indeed, if an object was at X before and is at Y now then it IS moved, in the sense that it moved very recently. A theist seems to have trouble understanding that even speaking of X before means we are considering the past, yet it's not in the past, yet it's not instantaneous, yet we are kind of crummny people for suggesting theists don't understand the basics of motion and inertia.
An object coasting along in outer space IS moved, yet it IS not being moved by another.
July 02, 2017 9:17 AM
SteveK said...
>> "What does any of this have to do with the First Way?"
" It's related to your comment about how long the delay will be before motion occurs on the other end."
--Ok, fine, putting aside certain difficulties of the dimensions involved then according to relativity no causal effect can propagate faster than c.
Sound is pressure wave or density wave that propagates, unsurprisingly, at the speed of sound in that medium. So if have a long steel rod and you tap on it on one end you will hear the tapping at the other end according to the speed of sound in steel.
It all takes time.
When I was a little kid I had a toy that was a board with pegs and I could put gears on the pegs such turning one gear made all the other gears turn as in a clockwork. Ideally all the gears turn in the same instant.
So, we can imagine the universe is a rigid clockwork in the notion of an essential series , but that just is not how the universe works.
Causal effects propagate over time, necessarily. The distinction of an essential series breaks down under close analysis of components interacting over time.
July 02, 2017 9:48 AM
Legion: "But, let's take a satellite or something physically moving freely without friction. It is true that it will continue indefinitely until something acts upon it to change it (all that is moved is moved by another). The satellite's physical movement was granted to it by someone launching it - it didn't launch itself. So its physical movement is a state that is granted to it by another - all that is moved is moved by another."
In your example below, the satellite actually WAS launched, and now it IS moving.
The statement imm above is compatible with how we understand motion (inertia).
Or do you mean that when we see a satellite in orbit, that what we observe is the satellite being launched (IS launching) and that it IS moving?
The statement immediately above is not compatible with how we understand motion, but it is compatible with what you said above.
@Strawdusty,
A particular motion has a beginning, middle and end.
When a train begins to move, it is true that the caboose does not move instantaneously as the force of movement is transferred car by car finally to the caboose. This is actually very similar to the example of why Aristotle argues that nothing can move itself if it is made up of parts. The whole does not move instantaneously to begin the motion. However, once each of the cars are in motion, the series as a whole is in motion and the beginning of the motion is over. We are in the middle of the motion as the train moves from one station to the next. When it arrives at the next station and ends the motion, deceleration occurs and the the train slows down reversing the action of the beginning and like the beginning, the deceleration is not instantaneously.
Causal effects propagate over time, necessarily. The distinction of an essential series breaks down under close analysis of components interacting over time.
No, because if the caboose is not moving due to the propagation of the motion along the cars, it is not moving and so is not yet part of the series. This is easily seen because, theoretically, I could unhook the caboose once the engine started to pull and the caboose would not even start to move...therefore it is not part of the moving series.
@Strawdusty,
Indeed, if an object was at X before and is at Y now then it IS moved, in the sense that it moved very recently. A theist seems to have trouble understanding that even speaking of X before means we are considering the past, yet it's not in the past, yet it's not instantaneous, yet we are kind of crummny people for suggesting theists don't understand the basics of motion and inertia.
Strawdusty:"--Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
I don't consider it "crummny", I just consider it "funny" that you can talk about things moving in the present tense while telling your opponents they can't.
An object coasting along in outer space IS moved, yet it IS not being moved by another.
Have you ever heard the term "Vis inertiæ"? Newton disagreed with you:
The Vis inertiæ is a passive Principle by which Bodies persist in their Motion or Rest, receive Motion in proportion to the Force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this Principle alone there never could have been any Motion in the World. Some other Principle was necessary for putting Bodies into Motion; and now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion.
Just search for "Vis inertiæ" in Opticks link to find Sir Isaac's definition. Oh, and by the way, you should look up the Latin term "vis".
Dusty: "Causal effects propagate over time, necessarily."
I'm not denying this. I'm challenging the accuracy of your statement by comparing it to what we know about material science and the behavior of materials.
If a continuously applied force doesn't yield the material to the point of it breaking then we know the "spring" compression slows down on a relative scale to prevent yielding.
Somewhere along the length of the material the rate of compression becomes LESS than the velocity of the end that is moving. At that point the velocity of the end in motion becomes faster than the rate of compression and the entire object is in motion from beginning to end.
I'm suggesting that this transition occurs SOONER than it takes for light to reach the end of the rod. I don't know this for a fact because I have not run the test. I would be interested in seeing this test if you happen to have a link.
Well given the quality of the objections being raised now - mostly revolving around inaccurately telling me I don't understand science when I do - and the fact that we have exceeded 2000 posts, I'm going to conclude that if serious objections to the First Way exist, they will not be presented here.
Thank you, bmiller and SteveK, for your lessons on A-T philosophy and the First Way. It is an interesting argument.
Thank you, Stardusty and Cal, for reinforcing bmiller and SteveK, albeit unknowingly and unwillingly.
I'm out.
SteveK said...
" I'm suggesting that this transition occurs SOONER than it takes for light to reach the end of the rod. I don't know this for a fact because I have not run the test."
--That seems intuitively the case. We tend to think of hard steel as a rigid mass. When we push on one end the other end seems to immediately move.
If I line up 10 solid cubes tight against each other and push on one end it stands to reason the last cube will move instantaneously.
That turns out not to be precisely the case. The problem is that humans can perceive perhaps 10ms. Light travels the distance from Mexico to Canada in that amount of time.
Thus, (3) of the OP requires time at every iteration. In (4) an infinity of such iterations is considered, which necessarily requires consideration of an infinity of time, past time, a very long time ago indeed.
Thus, the notion of an essential series is a perceptual artifact, like instantaneous action at the other end of the rod.
Causation happens in a continual mutual interactive process between a humanly uncountable number of small bodies. Yes, of course, if you take away some part of the process the process stops, but so what?
Cause and effect require time, so an infinity of causes and effects necessarily would require an infinity of time, which is denied as being possible in the First Way, so very obviously the First Way is about the very distant past and the assertion that the distant past cannot extend to an infinite past.
The only way to say the First Way is not addressing the infinite past is to claim cause and effect happen in precisely zero time, such that an infinity of causes and effects would not reach into the past at all.
Perhaps Aquinas had some notion of a perfectly rigid clockwork universe where cause and effect extend in space in zero time to form a universal essential series, but if so, that would only show how utterly useless the First Way is as a modern argument.
July 02, 2017 2:03 PM
Legion of Logic said...
Well given the quality of the objections being raised now - mostly revolving around inaccurately telling me I don't understand science when I do - and the fact that we have exceeded 2000 posts, I'm going to conclude that if serious objections to the First Way exist, they will not be presented here.
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
May 11, 2017 9:00 AM
June 30, 2017 7:08 AM
June 30, 2017 5:45 PM
I still haven't seen anything from Legion to show"
1. Why an assertion of human understanding is somehow not a non sequitur argument for the existence of God.
2. Why an statement of what "everyone" understands is somehow not a false premise.
3. How the U therefore ~~U therefore ~I therefore U sequence of the first way is somehow not begging the question.
4. How an infinity of cause an effect can be anything other than an infinity of past time unless cause and effect happen in precisely zero time.
Legion, you never got through your step by step. Your excuse? We atheists just would not be able to understand. In truth, we have presented a very detailed linguistic, logical, and demonstrable refutation of this deeply flawed medieval argument.
My best guess is that faced with such strong evidence against your faith you have exercised some sort of personal defense mechanism, unable to confront the possibility of being so fundamentally wrong, your instinct is to plug your ears before you hear the truth so many times you can no longer avoid acknowledging it.
You may possibly know that W L Craig has called the Thomistic god "unintelligible" and does not employ the First Way in his approach of so called "Reasonable Faith". Even Craig realizes the First Way is unsound.
July 02, 2017 2:20 PM
Dusty,
>> "If I line up 10 solid cubes tight against each other and push on one end it stands to reason the last cube will move instantaneously. That turns out not to be precisely the case."
I'm not arguing for instantaneous. I'm saying that I'm not convinced that your time delay statement is true. If I'm understanding your statement correctly you're saying the other end of a rod 2LY in length would take 2 years before it would move, regardless of the material and geometry.
I'm saying that would NOT be true IF the rate at which the material is compressing falls below the velocity of the moving end before 2 years have passed. When that occurs depends on the material and the geometry. The more rigid the material the less time it takes for this to happen and the sooner the opposite end will move. In theory it can be instantaneous, but I don't think such a material exists.
Of course, if I'm misunderstanding your time delay statement about motion and the speed of light then I stand corrected.
@Strawdusty,
Cause and effect require time, so an infinity of causes and effects necessarily would require an infinity of time, which is denied as being possible in the First Way,
This is one of the reasons there cannot be an infinite number of moving movers. The other is that as we see something moved, and check what it moving it and see that it is being moved and check each mover from the last in the series to earlier in series, if it goes to infinity we will never find the thing that is actually responsible for the motion....the first mover.
so very obviously the First Way is about the very distant past and the assertion that the distant past cannot extend to an infinite past.
Nonsense. It is not about the distant past nor the "origin of motion because:
1) Aristotle did not believe the universe had an origin
2) Therefore the "first mover" refers to present motion, not the origin of motion
3) All knowledgeable scholars and commentators agree with 1) and 2)
4) Relevant passages of Physics were quoted to confirm 2)
5) The English and Latin verbs of any version of the First Way confirm 2)
The only way to say the First Way is not addressing the infinite past is to claim cause and effect happen in precisely zero time, such that an infinity of causes and effects would not reach into the past at all.
Nonsense. Read the July 02, 2017 12:29 PM post.
Perhaps Aquinas had some notion of a perfectly rigid clockwork universe where cause and effect extend in space in zero time to form a universal essential series, but if so, that would only show how utterly useless the First Way is as a modern argument.
No need to guess. You have the links to the original sources.
@SteveK,
Regarding the travel of force in a steel beam.
Wouldn't the force travel at the speed of sound in the material?
If you tap a beam with a hammer on one end, you won't hear the hum till the speed of sound ends up at the other end, right?
SteveK said...
" In theory it can be instantaneous,"
--I don't know of any such theory, but you might be speaking more generally as in "ideally".
" Of course, if I'm misunderstanding your time delay statement about motion and the speed of light then I stand corrected."
--Well, there is a delay between cause and effect in the real world. So in (3)and (4) an infinity of elements in this causal sequence is considered, therefore an infinity of time is considered.
The only way around this is to assert instantaneous (zero time) causal propagation. So the first way must be about the past series of causes, and must consider the first mover as having acted in the very distant past.
Clearly, a first mover must have acted prior to any motion, else it is not first. Things have been moving for a very long time, so the first mover must have imparted the fist motion before any other motion. How is this not glaringly obvious?
July 02, 2017 3:31 PM
@bmiller
>> "Wouldn't the force travel at the speed of sound in the material?"
I'm not sure that is the relevant question to ask. With a perfectly rigid material there is no compressibility due to force so both ends begin to move simultaneously no matter how long it is. I know that no such material exists but in that situation the speed of sound or light have nothing to do with it as far as I can tell - unless those things put a limit on material rigidly.
@Legion,
Thank you for engaging and trying to help our atheist friends understand the First Way.
You've diligently recorded the list of inanities you've encountered. I think I can bring the list to an even 100 with the ones I have. Future anthropologists will find it valuable when researching the extinct gnu's.
I'll try to make a recording of the simian hoots we encounter now that you've announced you're leaving the thread. I see one has started already ☺
@Strawdusty,
Clearly, a first mover must have acted prior to any motion, else it is not first. Things have been moving for a very long time, so the first mover must have imparted the fist motion before any other motion. How is this not glaringly obvious?
The booster rocket for the Voyager is not now causing the capsule to move although it once did. Gravity and inertia are presently the cause of Voyager's motion.
How is this not glaringly obvious?
Dusty: "I don't know of any such theory, but you might be speaking more generally as in "ideally".
The speed of light is not a cause, it's an observed reality. If something is limiting how rigid and incompressible a physical material can be, it's not the speed of light. If there is no known thing limiting material rigidity, then in theory it can be perfectly rigid.
@SteveK,
I'm not sure that is the relevant question to ask. With a perfectly rigid material there is no compressibility due to force so both ends begin to move simultaneously no matter how long it is. I know that no such material exists but in that situation the speed of sound or light have nothing to do with it as far as I can tell - unless those things put a limit on material rigidly.
Quantum entanglement appears to show that things can cause effects faster than the speed of light, so there may be other instances out there also.
@Cal
@Dusty
You MUST explain how inertia proves the FW false in terms of the argument itself. I specifically referred you to 2a-2f. This is where you are claiming inertia proves the argument wrong. Spell it out. How?
Let's look at 2a only and focus on "in potency".
2a Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency[9] to that towards which it is moved.
The object moving under inertia is in potency, but how do YOU mean that? You'll need to be specific. For example...
Is it in potency toward moving? No, it actually is moving. The FW doesn't apply.
Is it in potency toward moving in the opposite direction? Yes. The FW applies.
Is it in potency toward being 3 inches to the right? If it is actually moving to the right unopposed, no. The passing of time is all it takes to realize this so nothing requires changing. If nothing is changing the FW doesn't apply.
In summary, you'll need offer details as to what it in potency. Without that we have no idea what you are attempting to argue.
SteveK said...
@Cal
@Dusty
" You MUST explain how inertia proves the FW false in terms of the argument itself. "
--Fair enough, but the problem is that seemingly simple words can be interpreted in different ways. By one interpretation, there might not be a problem, by another interpretation there might be.
Cal recently brought up the seeming simple word "is". I mentioned Bill Clinton as a famous example of the ambiguity of that word.
Does "is" refer to this instantaneous moment, or a perceived ongoing event in the recent past that is expected to continue, or an existence irrespective of time?
Another word is "moved". Do that mean presently moving, or does it mean something moved in the past but is now stationary, or does it mean a cause of motion, or does it mean a thing that was caused to move?
Another word is "act". Is that a mere state of material existence, or does it mean that a material object is doing some specific thing, or does it mean that a material object is in a particular state?
There is the further question of whether one can properly consider a potential to exist in any sense outside of human imagination.
One can doubt, further, that objects somehow possess properties, as the notion of a property can be considered to be a human analytical tool and not an existent object, rather, an abstraction.
"I specifically referred you to 2a-2f."
--Ok, but given all these ambiguities I just kind of moved on to some other points I thought were more tractable. It's not that your outline is unimportant, it's just that I don't really feel like engaging in talking past each other. I prefer to make sure we are speaking the same language first.
The reason for the ambiguities is that Aquinas used very few words, and he did not follow a modern format for construction of a clear logical argument. If he had considered all possible misinterpretations of his words, and used longer sentences with more qualifiers then all this effort spent on clarifications would not be needed.
But Aquinas wrote in the style of the day, which is just one long run on tersely worded paragraph for the whole argument.
July 02, 2017 6:39 PM
SteveK said...
So, considering 2
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.[10]
--Here we need to know what "is" means, and moves means. If moves means that a thing is moving and act means that a thing is changing then under the concept of inertia that doesn't work because an object that is moving is not itself changing, rather, it is only moving to another location according to some reference frame, the reference frame being arbitrary, such that one could define a reference frame wherein the object is stationary.
Under inertia an object in uniform motion is not changing its intrinsic properties.
But "moves" can be used in other senses, so I am not drawing any particular conclusions yet.
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act.
--So here "to move" seems to mean to be a cause of motion in something else. "To move" means to bring some other thing from a potential to an actual state.
Or maybe Aquinas means that to move is to bring that thing to an actual state, so in that case something else is the cause of this change.
In ordinary language "to move" means "to change position within a reference frame", which would be incompatible with 2c under inertia, because the object does not change its intrinsic properties when in uniform motion so it isn't realizing a potential as 2c calls for. So there is a conflict between 2c and inertia, on that definition set.
There is no conflict with 2c under Aristotle, because in that case "to move" is a process of continually realizing new potentials. Since Aquinas was Aristotelian in his thinking it is reasonable to conclude Aquinas fashioned 2c to be compatible with Aristotle and it is now incompatible with Newton.
However, if you go through the argument and pay very close attention to all the tenses and objects you might be able to massage the interpretation into a form that is fully compatible with inertia.
July 02, 2017 6:39 PM
>> "Fair enough, but the problem is that seemingly simple words can be interpreted in different ways."
That's why we look at the way Aquinas intended the terms. If you argue against the FW using some other understanding, you're not arguing against the FW. If you're asking what these terms mean, you must not understand the argument enough to declare that you've rebutted it.
I admit that it's not an easy topic to understand. Metaphysics is not physics. I can't point to the essence of a rubber ball and expect you to easily grasp what I mean by 'essence'. It must be described and explained.
For an object under inertia, what potential are YOU talking about such that it is being reduct to act? That object is in potential toward MANY things. If you don't know which potential is being reduced to act, then you can't successfully argue that one of the 2a-2f statements is false.
This is how good arguments work.
Inertia cannot be an object being reduced from potential to actual in the same sense because that sets up a logical contradiction in the FW that is impossible. See statements 2e and 2f below.
We need to understand in what sense YOU mean. YOU tell us in what sense the object is being reduced from potential to actual.
2e "But it is not possible that the same thing be simultaneously in act and in potency in the same sense, but only in a different sense."
2f "It is therefore impossible that, in the same way and same sense, a thing is moving and is moved,[12] or in other words, that it moves itself."
A body at rest is the mirror image of inertia. Like a body under inertia, no obvious potentials are being actualized. The body isn't changing shape, becoming heavier, smaller, etc. A body at rest is already at rest so you cannot say it's 'in potency' towards being at rest. The FW doesn't apply. No change is occurring.
Likewise a body in motion is already in motion so what potential are YOU talking about?
@Strawdusty,
So, considering 2
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.[10]
--Here we need to know what "is" means, and moves means. If moves means that a thing is moving and act means that a thing is changing then under the concept of inertia that doesn't work because an object that is moving is not itself changing, rather, it is only moving to another location according to some reference frame, the reference frame being arbitrary, such that one could define a reference frame wherein the object is stationary.
It is true that local motion at a constant velocity is relative to the inertial reference frame. So something can be said to be moving or not moving depending on their inertial reference frame. If there is no perceived motion, then there is no motion to explain is there? It's not like Aristotle was not aware of this since he describes the situation of a passenger on a ship going down the river and how the passenger is not in motion wrt the ship, but is wrt to the river bank. Depending whether you are considering motion wrt to the ship or the bank you will either have motion to explain or not.
@Strawdusty,
The reason for the ambiguities is that Aquinas used very few words, and he did not follow a modern format for construction of a clear logical argument. If he had considered all possible misinterpretations of his words, and used longer sentences with more qualifiers then all this effort spent on clarifications would not be needed.
The version of the argument from the ST is for students who already understood the terminology. That's why the OP added footnotes, to help those who had not completed the course to understand. Maybe it would have been better if he had presented the version from the SCG for those who had not done the studies.
Does this help you understand the argument better?
"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."
stevek: "A body at rest is the mirror image of inertia."
Sigh. A body at rest has inertia the same as a body in motion has inertia. Inertia is an object's resistance to a change in its state of motion. Inertia is related proportionally to an object's mass. "A body at rest is the mirror image of inertia" makes no practical sense, and reveals yet again that you don't understand very basic physics.
You would have learned this if you had ever taken a real physics course. Which is a basic requirement before taking more advanced mechanical engineering courses.
Where did you get your mechanical engineering degree exactly?
Or did you mean something else when you claimed earlier that you were a mechanical engineer?
What does it say about someone who feels that lying is the best chance he has to argue a point?
Is someone who lies while arguing a point more likely to be on the right side or the wrong side of an argument?
@Strawdusty,
But "moves" can be used in other senses, so I am not drawing any particular conclusions yet.
In ordinary language "to move" means "to change position within a reference frame", which would be incompatible with 2c under inertia, because the object does not change its intrinsic properties when in uniform motion so it isn't realizing a potential as 2c calls for. So there is a conflict between 2c and inertia, on that definition set.
Aquinas following Aristotle listed 3 specific categories in his discussion of "motion/change" which Legion listed some time back. Quality, quantity and local motion.
The version of the First Way from the ST uses changes of quality and local motion. The fact is that when the category under discussion it local motion rather than quality, qualitative changes are not under discussion. While a thing is under local motion it may or not be experiencing qualitative change at the same time. Discussing one category does not mean the other categories do or do not change also, it merely means they are not the subject of a particular discussion.
☝
In other words, you could be driving down the road singing "Proud Mary" with your hair on fire. Because your hair is on fire doesn't mean someone along the side of the road won't perceive both things as well as being able to form an opinion on your singing ability. ☹
SteveK said...
" We need to understand in what sense YOU mean. YOU tell us in what sense the object is being reduced from potential to actual."
--I don't mean actual and potential. To me those are just archaic and useless terms. It is true that physicists still refer to potential energy in a system where work has been done against a field to in effect store energy, but that sense of potential means a real storage of energy sort of like your bank balance is a potential withdrawal.
Physicists who study causation simply do not employ A-T language.
So, the only reason I use A-T language is because it is used in the First Way and that is the topic of the OP. Translating A-T language to modern language is problematic because the A in A-T was simply wrong.
I don't understand why you are focusing on my understanding of the words. If you think you know the sense and tense Aquinas meant, fine, perhaps you can expand his sentences to remove the ambiguity, although doing so is an implicit admission that Aquinas was at best a very bad writer who was incapable of presenting an argument unambiguously.
July 03, 2017 8:46 AM
SteveK said...
" A body at rest is the mirror image of inertia."
--I don't know what that means. F=ma expresses the process of accelerating from rest.
July 03, 2017 9:07 AM
Blogger bmiller said...
" If there is no perceived motion, then there is no motion to explain is there?"
--So, if we don't feel ourselves moving there is no need to explain our rotational, orbital, galactic, or cosmic motion in that case.
Any assertion of a first mover that fails to account for all these motions, perceived or not, is a failed assertion.
July 03, 2017 10:38 AM
@Strawdusty,
--So, if we don't feel ourselves moving there is no need to explain our rotational, orbital, galactic, or cosmic motion in that case.
Any assertion of a first mover that fails to account for all these motions, perceived or not, is a failed assertion.
No.
If you want to discuss local motion, you have to specify what the local motion is in relation to. So if you are sitting in a chair, you are not in motion with respect to the chair. You are however in motion with respect to the moon, and in a different respect in motion to the sun, and in another different respect to a particular star.
So if you are not moving wrt to something, then there is no motion in this respect. If you want to choose a different set of referents where motion is present between/among them, then an explanation is needed as to why and how these things are in motion wrt each other.
☝
So discussing rotational motion is different than discussing orbital motion and so on, as is evident as you acknowledged by listing different speeds for each while discussing the caboose.
One can discuss the qualified cause of rotational motion without referring to the qualified cause of orbital motion etc. However, while discussing each of these motions we must come to a first mover.
Blogger bmiller said...
" One can discuss the qualified cause of rotational motion without referring to the qualified cause of orbital motion etc. However, while discussing each of these motions we must come to a first mover."
--What is the first mover for the orbital motion of the Earth?
July 03, 2017 2:01 PM
Legion: "Well given the quality of the objections being raised now - mostly revolving around inaccurately telling me I don't understand science when I do..."
That's a pretty shabby characterization.
The OBJECTIONS have overwhelmingly specified flaws found in the First Way -- flaws that violate the rules of good argument. These have been described in detail and with rigor (including frequent citation of previous unanswered criticisms) by Stardusty, and they have often been reiterated less formally by me.
The SPECULATIONS about the understanding and psychology of all participants in this discussion is tangential, but it deserves consideration. After all, anyone who thinks in today’s world that people change their minds based solely on the presentation of rational argument has revealed themselves to be a kind of fool.
Legion: “… - and the fact that we have exceeded 2000 posts, I'm going to conclude that if serious objections to the First Way exist, they will not be presented here."
This statement reminds me of another farewell address.
Emperor Hirohito, in his surrender address to the Japanese people: “Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to insure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.”
Legion: “Thank you, Stardusty and Cal, for reinforcing bmiller and SteveK, albeit unknowingly and unwillingly.”
bmiller and stevek are pretty relentless liars, among other things. That you would join forces with them speaks volumes about your character and acumen.
Legion: “I’m out.”
Ha. I have another prediction to make.
@Cal
If you cannot understand what I meant by "mirror image" - it's right there in my comment- then I suggest signing up for a high school English class.
Dusty
>> "I don't understand why you are focusing on my understanding of the words."
I explained that an object is in potency toward many things. I gave a few example statements to get you thinking. As it applies to inertia, which potential and in what sense are you talking about?
@Strawdusty,
--What is the first mover for the orbital motion of the Earth?
Per Newtonian mechanics the Earth is held in orbit around the sun due to the force of gravity. Gravity is considered a natural motion under A-T metaphysics and so it is due to the nature of material bodies as opposed to violent or forced motion. Whatever is responsible for the nature or form of the thing being the kind of thing it is the first mover.
The last time this was discussed was here: May 18, 2017 8:37 PM.
@Cal,
Ha. I have another prediction to make.
Simian hoots recorded.
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
--What is the first mover for the orbital motion of the Earth?
Per Newtonian mechanics the Earth is held in orbit around the sun due to the force of gravity. Gravity is considered a natural motion under A-T metaphysics and so it is due to the nature of material bodies as opposed to violent or forced motion. Whatever is responsible for the nature or form of the thing being the kind of thing it is the first mover.
--So what is the first mover of the orbital motion of the Earth, specifically?
July 03, 2017 6:04 PM
I believe that is discussed in the Second Way, the cosmological argument. Is that correct bmiller?
@Strawdusty,
--So what is the first mover of the orbital motion of the Earth, specifically?
Per the First Way, the Unmoved Mover. Per the First Way, the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate thing that moves all moved movers.
@SteveK,
I believe that is discussed in the Second Way, the cosmological argument. Is that correct bmiller?
I'm not sure what you're referring to. If it's what is the ultimate cause of motion, then the First Way has this covered. The Second Way deals in efficient causes, which with material causes, is what moderns think they deal in exclusively. But I would argue that they implicitly embrace the other 2 causes.
miller said...
@Strawdusty,
--So what is the first mover of the orbital motion of the Earth, specifically?
" Per the First Way, the Unmoved Mover. Per the First Way, the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate thing that moves all moved movers."
--Then, what specifically moved the Earth such that it began its orbital motion? Was that the first mover, or something else, say mover X1?
Did the first mover move mover X1 or was it another mover, say mover X2?
How many movers must we consider before we get to the first mover?
X1, X2, X3...Xn
Since the First way states this cannot go on to infinity n would then be a finite number.
How big in n?
How many of these movers can you identify, specifically, by name?
July 03, 2017 7:13 PM
stevek: "@Cal If you cannot understand what I meant by "mirror image" - it's right there in my comment- then I suggest signing up for a high school English class."
Ha.
stevek's entire comment: "A body at rest is the mirror image of inertia. Like a body under inertia, no obvious potentials are being actualized. The body isn't changing shape, becoming heavier, smaller, etc. A body at rest is already at rest so you cannot say it's 'in potency' towards being at rest. The FW doesn't apply. No change is occurring. / Likewise a body in motion is already in motion so what potential are YOU talking about?"
Your words reveal that you have no basic science understanding, let alone the technical expertise of a mechanical engineer.
Where did you get your mechanical engineering degree exactly?
Or did you mean something else when you claimed earlier that you were a mechanical engineer?
What does it say about someone who feels that lying is the best chance he has to argue a point?
Is someone who lies while arguing a point more likely to be on the right side or the wrong side of an argument?
@Strawdusty,
--Then, what specifically moved the Earth such that it began its orbital motion? Was that the first mover, or something else, say mover X1?
Did the first mover move mover X1 or was it another mover, say mover X2?
How many movers must we consider before we get to the first mover?
X1, X2, X3...Xn
The First Way is silent about what may or may not have caused motion in the past. It only addresses the present motion.
Since the First way states this cannot go on to infinity n would then be a finite number.
The First Way does not address motions of the past. An example I mentioned earlier was the booster rocket for the Voyager capsule. The booster could now be scrap metal or in a museum so it is not now causing the capsule to move so is not part of the essentially ordered series presently causing the motion, the booster not being essential for the present motion to continue.
At one point in time, the booster was essential to the motion of the capulse and so was once part of the essentially ordered series responsible for the movement. Once it ran out of fuel and separated, it was no longer essential to the motion, so no longer part of the essentially ordered series. It then became part of an accidentally ordered series that could be considered responsible for the motion. But accidentally ordered series are not under consideration in the First Way. Aquinas following Aristotle considered it theoretically possible for such a series to be infinite, but again, the First Way considers only the essentially ordered series.
How big in n?
How many of these movers can you identify, specifically, by name?
These questions are irrelevant to the First Way.
Happy Fourth of July.
☝
Since the First way states this cannot go on to infinity n would then be a finite number.
To be very explicity about things. The First Way does not state that the series you're referring to "cannot go on to infinity" because it is not discussing that type of series. It is discussing what is causing present movement.
From the SCG version:
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.
Notice that the question is "what causes the sun to move", not what has caused the sun to move.
SteveK said...
Dusty
>> "I don't understand why you are focusing on my understanding of the words."
" I explained that an object is in potency toward many things. I gave a few example statements to get you thinking. As it applies to inertia, which potential and in what sense are you talking about?"
--By certain usages 2a through 2f is invalid under inertia.
To illustrate any particular interpretation of Aquinas requires the addition or substitution of words, since his original words were so very terse and ambiguous.
2b. But, a thing moves (is presently in motion) only insomuch as it is in act (presently has kinetic energy after having been acted upon by a force over time).
2c. In fact, to move (to be changing position continuously, to be in motion) is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act (to impart kinetic energy in a thing by applying a force over time).
2b by this wording is compatible with inertia, but 2c is incompatible with inertia in the case of uniform motion.
So, Steve, choose your poison. Try to expand the ambiguous words of 2a through 2f such that they are clear and unambiguous, yet they appear in the same order as the original argument, adding nothing, subtracting nothing.
Further, it is necessary in this effort to be consistent. If you change the meaning of the same word to be different meanings in different sentences that would be the fallacy of equivocation.
Also, the expanded or explained argument needs to be meaningful and sensible and lead in to the rest of the First Way.
And, crucially, all your expansions need to be fully compatible with modern science.
Good luck, you are going to need it.
July 03, 2017 5:18 PM
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
How many of these movers can you identify, specifically, by name?
" These questions are irrelevant to the First Way."
--So, the first way is unable to identify any movers, and unable to connect the asserted first mover with any observed motion.
July 04, 2017 9:43 AM
bmiller said...
" To be very explicity about things. The First Way does not state that the series you're referring to "cannot go on to infinity" because it is not discussing that type of series. It is discussing what is causing present movement."
--What is presently causing the present orbital movement of the Earth?
Is it the first mover moving the Earth in its orbit in the present?
If not the first mover, then some other mover is moving the Earth in the present, say mover X1?
Is the first mover moving X1 in the present, or is X2 moving X1 that moves the Earth, all in the present?
How many members are there to this set moving things in the present?
X1, X2, X3...Xn, Xfm
How many of these movers acting in the present can you specifically name, or in some way specifically and explicitly identify?
July 04, 2017 9:58 AM
@Strawdusty,
--So, the first way is unable to identify any movers, and unable to connect the asserted first mover with any observed motion.
No, as I posted previously:
Per Newtonian mechanics the Earth is held in orbit around the sun due to the force of gravity. Gravity is considered a natural motion under A-T metaphysics and so it is due to the nature of material bodies as opposed to violent or forced motion. Whatever is responsible for the nature or form of the thing being the kind of thing it is the first mover.
I later clarified that as the Unmoved Mover.
It seems that what you define as "first mover" is different from what Aquinas defines as the Unmoved Mover, and hence the confusion.
@Strawdusty,
How many of these movers acting in the present can you specifically name, or in some way specifically and explicitly identify?
If any particular X is in motion, it is not the Unmoved Mover. Per Newtonian physics, the earth moves due to gravity in orbit due to gravity. Per A-T, this is considered a natural motion, due to the sun and earth having the particular form of material bodies. As such, the cause of the form is the ultimate cause of the motion, that being the Unmoved Mover.
If you want to propose another theory than gravity, we can discuss that. But it should be apparent from this quote from the First Way, that the particular mechanism of a particular motion must ultimately trace back to the Unmoved Mover. See how it is agnostic as to what moves the sun?
From the SCG version:
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.
>> "Good luck, you are going to need it."
I'm not the one who is attempting to critique the argument. If you don't understand it, do some research. Perhaps when you do that you can explain how inertia proves 2a-2f false.
I will leave you to your studies. I'm out.
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
How many of these movers acting in the present can you specifically name, or in some way specifically and explicitly identify?
" If any particular X is in motion, it is not the Unmoved Mover. "
--So, the motion of the Earth in orbit is not due to the first mover, it just is, all on its own, and always has been, simply natural, and does not require a first mover, now, or ever.
" From the SCG version:
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."
--So the sun moves, evidently, presently. Yet this is somehow not the sort of natural motion that requires no first mover? Something must be moving the sun in the present because it is in some sense non-natural motion?
I must admit I am flabbergasted you would choose this example.
The evident motion of the sun. Really? You are arguing from the evident motion of the sun? Seriously? Wait a second, hold on, the phone is ringing, it's the dark ages calling...
This is what it comes down to for you, the sun is evidently moving in the present, so its motion in the present must be caused by something.
Is X1 moving the sun with the first mover moving X1? If so, and you name or specifically identify what X1 is?
Or is the first mover directly moving the sun in the present such that we see the sun rise in the east, get moved along by the first mover as it arcs across the sky throughout the day very evidently, and then sets in the west?
Seriously? The sun?
July 04, 2017 10:37 AM
SteveK said...
"Perhaps when you do that you can explain how inertia proves 2a-2f false."
--Already done as recently as
July 04, 2017 9:58 AM
...and many times prior, references available upon request.
July 04, 2017 11:55 AM
@Strawdusty,
" If any particular X is in motion, it is not the Unmoved Mover. "
--So, the motion of the Earth in orbit is not due to the first mover, it just is, all on its own, and always has been, simply natural, and does not require a first mover, now, or ever.
No. Please reread what I wrote.
If any particular X is in motion, it is not the Unmoved Mover. Per Newtonian physics, the earth moves due to gravity in orbit due to gravity. Per A-T, this is considered a natural motion, due to the sun and earth having the particular form of material bodies. As such, the cause of the form is the ultimate cause of the motion, that being the Unmoved Mover.
The Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of the present motion.
--So the sun moves, evidently, presently. Yet this is somehow not the sort of natural motion that requires no first mover? Something must be moving the sun in the present because it is in some sense non-natural motion?
All motion requires the Unmoved Mover ultimately, whether the motion is considered natural or violent.
This is what it comes down to for you, the sun is evidently moving in the present, so its motion in the present must be caused by something.
Yes.
Is X1 moving the sun with the first mover moving X1? If so, and you name or specifically identify what X1 is?
As I mentioned:
If you want to propose another theory than gravity, we can discuss that. But it should be apparent from this quote from the First Way, that the particular mechanism of a particular motion must ultimately trace back to the Unmoved Mover. See how it is agnostic as to what moves the sun?
From the SCG version:
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.
Or is the first mover directly moving the sun in the present such that we see the sun rise in the east, get moved along by the first mover as it arcs across the sky throughout the day very evidently, and then sets in the west?
Seriously? The sun?
As we previously discussed relative motion, it is apparent that the sun moves wrt the earth. Both the earth and sun move wrt the moon and so on. Only from the inertial reference frame of center of rotation of the sun does the sun appear not to move and even then one would observe the surface moving.
When discussing the motion of the sun wrt the earth's reference frame, we can refer to the motion as the sun moves in relation to the horizons on a daily basis or to the annual position of the sun in the sky. According to Newtonian physics, the rotation of the earth on it's axis accounts for the former and the earth's orbit around the sun accounts for the later. Gravity and inertia. The Unmoved Mover ultimately being responsible for both, whether considered natural motion or violent motion.
bmiller said...
" All motion requires the Unmoved Mover ultimately, whether the motion is considered natural or violent."
--So, the Earth is in natural motion now, so the first mover is not moving it now, but its motion requires a first mover "ultimately".
What are the specific causal links between the first mover and the present motion of the Earth in orbit?
Xfm, X1, X2, X3...Xn, Enm
Xfm first mover
X1 1st subsequent mover
Xn nth subsequent mover
Enm Earth in natural motion
Can you name and specifically describe X1, Xn, and as many intermediate movers as you know of and can specifically identify and name?
July 04, 2017 1:30 PM
@Strawdusty,
" All motion requires the Unmoved Mover ultimately, whether the motion is considered natural or violent."
--So, the Earth is in natural motion now, so the first mover is not moving it now, but its motion requires a first mover "ultimately".
That is incorrect.
For the sake of argument, let's consider that the earth is moved around the sun due to gravity.
The Unmoved Mover is ultimately responsible for natural motion of existent material things. In the present case, the earth is moved by gravity due to it's form. The form exists due to the Unmoved Mover.
☝
In a similar manner animate things move due to their form.
stevek: "I'm not the one who is attempting to critique the argument."
You are attempting to defend the argument from the criticism offered -- pointing out the many ways in which the First Way obviously violates the rules of good argument.
You have failed. Thoroughly.
stevek: "If you don't understand it, do some research."
We do understand the argument -- that's why we can recognize the many ways in which it violates the rules of good argument. We also understand how to consistently apply the rules of good argument, basic science, history, etc. These are all fields in which the apologists here have demonstrated that they are witless.
stevek: "Perhaps when you do that you can explain how inertia proves 2a-2f false."
Because you are too witless to understand a criticism doesn't mean that it hasn't been explained.
stevek: "I will leave you to your studies. I'm out."
If I were a sincere apologist (I know, absurd), I would do everything I could to dissociate my apologetics from the kind of behavior and ignorance you have displayed here throughout.
Yes, you should stay away, until you have learned to think as an adult. I would start with trying to take and pass a basic science course.
bmiller said...
" The Unmoved Mover is ultimately responsible for natural motion of existent material things. In the present case, the earth is moved by gravity due to it's form. The form exists due to the Unmoved Mover."
What are the specific causal links between the first mover and the present motion of the Earth in orbit?
Xfm, X1, X2, X3...Xn, Enm
Xfm first mover
X1 1st subsequent mover
Xn nth subsequent mover
Enm Earth in natural motion
Can you name and specifically describe X1, Xn, and as many intermediate movers as you know of and can specifically identify and name?
July 04, 2017 3:35 PM
@Strawdusty,
What are the specific causal links between the first mover and the present motion of the Earth in orbit?
This was my previous response:
For the sake of argument, let's consider that the earth is moved around the sun due to gravity.
The Unmoved Mover is ultimately responsible for natural motion of existent material things. In the present case, the earth is moved by gravity due to it's form. The form exists due to the Unmoved Mover.
Why do you think this does not answer your question?
Earth in natural motion
due to earth's form
due to Unmoved Mover.
bmiller said...
" Why do you think this does not answer your question?"
--Because you are evading a specification of the causal chain.
Earth in natural motion
--What events of the form of Earth give it motion?
due to earth's form
--What events created or imparted this form?
due to Unmoved Mover.
--What did the unmoved mover do specifically to shape this form?
Was there a single event, say, the big bang at which time the first mover imparted form to all things, and has been hands off since?
Was it the formation of our galaxy that gave form to the Earth, with the first mover imparting form in that process?
Was it the formation of our solar system that gave form to the Earth, with the first mover imparting form in that process?
Are all these scientifically evidenced processes illusory and the first mover actually imparted form to the Earth an instant ago?
@Strawdusty,
" Why do you think this does not answer your question?"
--Because you are evading a specification of the causal chain.
I am giving you the AT account of how the Unmoved Mover of the First Way keeps things in existence and changing.
I can tell from some of your questions you want an answer about how things happened in the past. The First Way is not a discussion about how things happened in the past, only about what is causing change now.
Let me address your specific response one by one"
Earth in natural motion
--What events of the form of Earth give it motion?
I can't tell what you're asking. What does the phrase "events of the form" mean?
Aristotle has 2 basic explanations for motion; natural and violent.
Basically (and not exhaustively)
1) Violent motion is when a material thing collides with another is pushing, pulling, twisting etc another.
2) Natural motion is what happens when nothing impedes a material object from the type of motion it will naturally do as being the type of thing it is.
due to earth's form
--What events created or imparted this form?
The First Way does not discuss the creation of a particular thing. It only assumes that material things exist and that they move.
due to Unmoved Mover.
--What did the unmoved mover do specifically to shape this form?
The First Way does not discuss the creation of a particular thing. It only assumes that material things exist and that they move.
Was there a single event, say, the big bang at which time the first mover imparted form to all things, and has been hands off since?
Was it the formation of our galaxy that gave form to the Earth, with the first mover imparting form in that process?
Was it the formation of our solar system that gave form to the Earth, with the first mover imparting form in that process?
The First Way does not discuss the creation of a particular thing. It only assumes that material things exist and that they move.
As you can see, I am giving a consistent answer to all questions related to past events, origins of motion etc. That is not because I am evading your questions, but because the First Way is the topic of discussion and the First Way is not a discussion of what motion happened in the distant past but only about present motion.
Are all these scientifically evidenced processes illusory and the first mover actually imparted form to the Earth an instant ago?
No, the First Way does not say past events were illusory. It doesn't address past events at all.
Once more for the record, Aquinas thought it not possible to prove the universe had a beginning by science alone. Aristotle argued that the universe always existed and has always been in motion so it would be absurd to think that he argued for a "first mover" that caused a "first motion" because he thought no such thing as a "first motion" ever happened.
☝
AT philosophy discusses 4 ways of explaining how things exist called the 4 causes.
1) The material cause
2) The formal cause
3) The efficient cause
4) The final cause
The material cause is the stuff material things are made from.
The formal cause is the nature or essence of the particular material thing.
The efficient cause is how the material thing came into existence.
The final cause is what the material thing tends to do.
Does this help?
bmiller: "The First Way is not a discussion about how things happened in the past, only about what is causing change now."
Nope.
One CANNOT observe motion in a current given reference frame without referring to the change in position prior, and one can't refer to a prior position without involving time.
Your version of the First Way would fail on soundness; all present change involves prior events. Necessarily.
@Cal,
One CANNOT observe motion in a current given reference frame without referring to the change in position prior, and one can't refer to a prior position without involving time.
Then complain to Strawdusty.
Strawdusty:"--Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion."
@Strawdusty,
Was there a single event, say, the big bang at which time the first mover imparted form to all things, and has been hands off since?
Let me try this.
When the past was the present, the Unmoved Mover was then, as now, the ultimate mover for motion and has been continuously for each moment of time (if you consider time composed of moments).
bmiller: "The First Way is not a discussion about how things happened in the past, only about what is causing change now."
Me: "Nope. / One CANNOT observe motion in a current given reference frame without referring to the change in position prior, and one can't refer to a prior position without involving time.
bmiller: "Then complain to Strawdusty. / Strawdusty:"--Every caboose is moving at 1,300,000mph, or 483,000mph, or only 66,000mph if you only want to think of orbital motion." "
Yup. Moving at 1,300,000 mph (even in orbital motion!) means referring two at least two reference frames, one of which is necessarily prior.
Your interpretation of the First Way (as has been pointed out to you so many times now) fails on soundness.
bmiller: "When the past was the present, the Unmoved Mover was then, as now, the ultimate mover for motion and has been continuously for each moment of time (if you consider time composed of moments)."
This fails on Occam's razor (a principle of good argument).
We observe objects moving now without an invisible extra ultimate mover (motion can be explained entirely without need for an invisible, undetectable ultimate mover).
Go fish.
@Cal,
Yup. Moving at 1,300,000 mph (even in orbital motion!) means referring two at least two reference frames, one of which is necessarily prior.
Then I really don't know what you are complaining about. The First Way discusses things changing in the present, just like a caboose moving at 1,300,000 mph, not the origin of all motion in the universe.
@Cal,
We observe objects moving now without an invisible extra ultimate mover (motion can be explained entirely without need for an invisible, undetectable ultimate mover).
The Unmoved Mover is necessary to ultimately explain motion and so is detectable. As for being invisible, what color is gravity and inertia?
Then I really don't know what you are complaining about. The First Way discusses things changing in the present, just like a caboose moving at 1,300,000 mph, not the origin of all motion in the universe.
Should have been all motion in the universe in the distant past
bmiller: "Then I really don't know what you are complaining about. The First Way discusses things changing in the present, just like a caboose moving at 1,300,000 mph, not the origin of all motion in the universe."
You seem incapable of grasping that any change in which the current reference frame is the present (the latest reference frame) NECESSARILY involves a prior (in the past ) reference frame.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to talk about change without reference to the past. If the First Way pretends otherwise, then the First Way fails to be sound. And arguments that fail on soundness are bad arguments.
bmiller: "The Unmoved Mover is necessary to ultimately explain motion and so is detectable."
??????????
Then why does one have to argue for a First Mover if the First Mover can be detected (and not inferred)?
bmiller: "As for being invisible, what color is gravity and inertia?"
By invisible I mean undetectable (and extraneous). What use is an explanation that explains nothing?
@Cal,
Then I really don't know what you are complaining about. The First Way discusses things changing in the present, just like a caboose moving at 1,300,000 mph, not the origin of all motion in the universe.
You seem incapable of grasping that any change in which the current reference frame is the present (the latest reference frame) NECESSARILY involves a prior (in the past ) reference frame.
I don't know where you get that I deny past motion. We've all been able to discuss a caboose traveling at a certain velocity rationally without referring to the "first motion" of the universe.
@Cal,
bmiller: "As for being invisible, what color is gravity and inertia?"
By invisible I mean undetectable (and extraneous). What use is an explanation that explains nothing?
How did you detect gravity? Was it a certain size and shape?
bmiller: "Then I really don't know what you are complaining about. The First Way discusses things changing in the present, just like a caboose moving at 1,300,000 mph, not the origin of all motion in the universe."
then...
bmiller: "I don't know where you get that I deny past motion. We've all been able to discuss a caboose traveling at a certain velocity rationally without referring to the "first motion" of the universe."
We get that you're denying past motion when you say that the First Way discusses things changing in the present.
Motion in the present = reference to a prior reference frame (past).
ANY attempt to trace back to a First Mover NECESSARILY goes back into the past.
NO discussion of a First Mover is possible without going back and back and back all the way to the beginning.
Because that is how motion works. It goes back, and back, and back, in space (which is also time).
Your contuned inability to grasp this simple fact invalidates any supposed defense you might have purported of the First Way, because one has to understand the paradox itself before one can hope to offer an explanation (which, in the case of the First Way, fails in a virtual buffet of violations of good argument).
Me: "By invisible I mean undetectable (and extraneous). What use is an explanation that explains nothing?"
bmiller: "How did you detect gravity? Was it a certain size and shape?"
Nope. But it has a testable effect.
What test do you use to detect the First Mover? How should we be able check for ourselves that there is a first mover, in the same what that we can examine for ourselves that there is a thing like gravity?
@Cal,
We get that you're denying past motion when you say that the First Way discusses things changing in the present.
No I'm not denying it. It's simply not what the First Way discusses.
ANY attempt to trace back to a First Mover NECESSARILY goes back into the past.
It doesn't go into the ancient past as was explained here: July 04, 2017 6:25 PM
Once more for the record, Aquinas thought it not possible to prove the universe had a beginning by science alone. Aristotle argued that the universe always existed and has always been in motion so it would be absurd to think that he argued for a "first mover" that caused a "first motion" because he thought no such thing as a "first motion" ever happened.
bmiller: "How did you detect gravity? Was it a certain size and shape?"
Nope. But it has a testable effect.
How do you test for gravity and inertia?
Me: "We get that you're denying past motion when you say that the First Way discusses things changing in the present.
bmiller: "No I'm not denying it. It's simply not what the First Way discusses."
Which is what "deny" means. Denying that a prior (past) reference frame is NECESSARY when discussing motion with a current (present) reference frame is IMPOSSIBLE. To express otherwise is to confess to being a kind of idiot, or, in the case of an argument, to indicate that you are unsound.
Sic.
bmiller: "It doesn't go into the ancient past as was explained here: July 04, 2017 6:25 PM / Once more for the record, Aquinas thought it not possible to prove the universe had a beginning by science alone."
Irrelevant. The First Way discusses motion, which requires two reference frames, one of which NECESSARILY refers to the past. You are denying that the First Way involves prior (past motion) -- which ANY discussion of motion NECESSARILy does. Claiming that Aquinas's First Way somehow denied this premise either makes that argument unsound or you appear to be a kind of fool.
bmiller: "Aristotle argued that the universe always existed and has always been in motion so it would be absurd to think that he argued for a "first mover" that caused a "first motion" because he thought no such thing as a "first motion" ever happened."
By Aristotle above I take you to mean Aquinas, as we are talking about the First Way. If Aquinas did as you say then he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Because in the First Way, which we are discussing, it says, "But [a series in motion] CANNOT proceed to infinity."
So, on the one hand, we have Aquinas writing, "But [a series in motion] CANNOT proceed to infinity."
and on the other hand we have you saying,
bmiller: "[Aquinas] argued that the universe always existed and has ALWAYS BEEN IN MOTION..."
These two sentences contradict one another. Directly.
bmiller: "How do you test for gravity and inertia?"
Take a basic physics class and find out!
bmiller said...
" Aristotle argued that the universe always existed and has always been in motion so it would be absurd to think that he argued for a "first mover" that caused a "first motion" because he thought no such thing as a "first motion" ever happened."
--I was not aware of those specific points. Do you have any references handy for that by any chance? What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?
July 05, 2017 8:03 PM
@Cal,
Which is what "deny" means. Denying that a prior (past) reference frame is NECESSARY when discussing motion with a current (present) reference frame is IMPOSSIBLE. To express otherwise is to confess to being a kind of idiot, or, in the case of an argument, to indicate that you are unsound.
Here are 3 statements.
1) The earth moved in the ancient past.
2) The earth has been moving since the ancient past.
3) The earth is now moving.
Each are intelligible to English speakers. The first talks only about motion in the past without mentioning present motion (past tense). The second refers to motion in the past continuing into the present (present perfect tense). The third refers to motion in the present without referring to past motion (present tense).
You seem to be telling me that people who use present tense statemeNts are idiots or deny there can be past tense statements or present perfect tense statements. Is that right?
Which is what "deny" means.
This is a present tense statement. Does it mean that "deny" only now has a meaning and did not in the past?
Denying that a prior (past) reference frame is NECESSARY when discussing motion with a current (present) reference frame is IMPOSSIBLE.
Do you mean that "denying that a prior (past) reference frame is NECESSARY...." actually means that your statement is impossible since the statement does not refer to denial in the past. Is this what you actually mean?
So, on the one hand, we have Aquinas writing, "But [a series in motion] CANNOT proceed to infinity."
and on the other hand we have you saying,
bmiller: "[Aquinas] argued that the universe always existed and has ALWAYS BEEN IN MOTION..."
These two sentences contradict one another. Directly.
That's my point (present tense). If Aquinas and Aristotle were arguing for an infinity of time sequenced events stretching back to the ancient past then it would be a direct contradiction. The infinity they were referring to was an infinite series of moving movers simultaneously in motion and therefore is not a contradiction. I've posted the relevant quotes before, from Physics. Should I do it again?
☝
Infinity can refer to an unlimited extent of time, but also to an unlimited quantity.
It is to the number of moving movers the First Way is referring to when referring to infinity, not to time.
From Merriam Webster:
Definition of infinity
1 a : the quality of being infinite
b : unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity : boundlessness
2: an indefinitely great number or amount ... an infinity of stars
bmiller: "The earth is now moving... refers to motion in the present without referring to past motion (present tense)."
No. The earth cannot now be moving without it having a prior reference frame against which it's motion is registered. All prior reference frames regarding motion are necessarily in the past.
The fact that we use the shorthand present tense to describe motion in the present DOES NOT alter the fact that the present tense, NECESSARILY, involves a prior reference frame (past) with regard to present motion.
Language DOES NOT trump physics. (Language is an imperfect tool that we use to describe physics. More precise terms get us closer to approximating the description of physical events. Your insistence that grammar alters the facts of physics is one of the stupider things I've come across in these discussions.)
bmiller: "The infinity they were referring to was an infinite series of moving movers simultaneously in motion and therefore is not a contradiction."
Which fails because it is unsound. If that's what they argued for, then they did not understand the relationship between space and time (motion). And any argument built on their misunderstanding would be a bad argument, because they would be operating from an unsound premise.
You seem to not be able to grasp a simple fact about arguments, or reality, or both.
@Strawdusty,
--I was not aware of those specific points. Do you have any references handy for that by any chance? What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?
Wikipedia has a summary with footnotes indicating where in Physics to look.
The ancient philosopher Aristotle argued that the world must have existed from eternity in his Physics as follows. In Book I, he argues that everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. Therefore, if the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into evidence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. As this assumption is self-contradictory, Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.[1]
In Book VIII, his argument from motion is that if an absolute beginning of motion should be assumed, the object to undergo the first motion must either
(A) have come into existence and begun to move, or
(B) have existed in an eternal state of rest before beginning to move.[2]
Option A is self-contradictory because an object cannot move before it comes into existence, and the act of coming into existence is itself a "movement," so that the first movement requires a movement before it, that is, the act of coming into existence. Option B is also unsatisfactory for two reasons.
First, if the world began at a state of rest, the coming into existence of that state of rest would itself have been motion.
Second, if the world changed from a state of rest to a state of motion, the cause of that change to motion would itself have been a motion.
He concludes that motion is necessarily eternal.
[1]Physics I, 7
[2]Aristotle in Physics VIII, 1, 251a, 8-20
@Cal,
bmiller: "The earth is now moving... refers to motion in the present without referring to past motion (present tense)."
No. The earth cannot now be moving without it having a prior reference frame against which it's motion is registered. All prior reference frames regarding motion are necessarily in the past.
The fact that we use the shorthand present tense to describe motion in the present DOES NOT alter the fact that the present tense, NECESSARILY, involves a prior reference frame (past) with regard to present motion.
I don't think I've ever met anyone who insisted that all present tense action verbs are really present perfect tense. But yet you "have been using" (present perfect) present tense all throughout this discussion. Curious.
Language DOES NOT trump physics. (Language is an imperfect tool that we use to describe physics. More precise terms get us closer to approximating the description of physical events. Your insistence that grammar alters the facts of physics is one of the stupider things I've come across in these discussions.)
The language of physics uses the present tense all the time without referring to the ancient past. We've already discussed things being at rest or in motion while discussing inertia, gravity and instantaneous velocity. We can also talk past motion referring to the present and physics does that also.
bmiller: "The infinity they were referring to was an infinite series of moving movers simultaneously in motion and therefore is not a contradiction."
Which fails because it is unsound. If that's what they argued for, then they did not understand the relationship between space and time (motion). And any argument built on their misunderstanding would be a bad argument, because they would be operating from an unsound premise.
It is meant in this sense:
When a locomotive engine is pulling a train, each car experiences tension which causes the following car to move. There cannot be an infinite number of train cars experiencing tension unless there is a locomotive to provide the source of all the cars.
Sorry:
Should have been:
We can also talk about past motion without referring to the present and physics does that also.
Is this absolute crap still going on?
So I see Psycho Strawdusty asks bmiller:
"" Aristotle argued that the universe always existed and has always been in motion so it would be absurd to think that he argued for a "first mover" that caused a "first motion" because he thought no such thing as a "first motion" ever happened."
--I was not aware of those specific points. Do you have any references handy for that by any chance? What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?"
To show what autistic morons we have here, I will quote *myself* from *way* *way* back in the thread:
"that is, he is *still* laboring under the idea that the First Way is concerned with temporal beginnings. When this was explicitly denied by everyone here, is explicitly denied by St. Thomas and all his commentators. All, without exception. St. Thomas even wrote a little tract explicitly arguing that it is *impossible* to prove that the universe was *not* infinite in the past. And Aristotle (you know, the inventor of the First Way) actually held that the universe was indeed infinite in the past. And *then* he writes to bmiller such stuff as:
"Like a child, you seem to think that implying that I am as confused as you are (if that's what I am, then what are you!) should distract from your patent ignorance. I don't think you're fooling anyone."
I have met my share of delusional morons haunting the internet, but man..."
The date is: February 13, 2017 2:55 PM.
This would be hilarious if it were not tragic.
Me: "The fact that we use the shorthand present tense to describe motion in the present DOES NOT alter the fact that the present tense, NECESSARILY, involves a prior reference frame (past) with regard to present motion."
bmiller: "I don't think I've ever met anyone who insisted that all present tense action verbs are really present perfect tense. But yet you "have been using" (present perfect) present tense all throughout this discussion. Curious."
I have no idea how you could have concluded what you have based on what I wrote. Bizarre.
bmiller: "The language of physics uses the present tense all the time without referring to the ancient past."
Motion in the present necessarily involves a prior (past) reference frame. A prior reference frame refers to the past. The "ancient past" is a problem of your invention for the language of physics, but the fact that motion NECESSARILY takes us back to the past, and the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion, does present a problem for apologists who’d like to avoid this necessary implication.
bmiller: "We've already discussed things being at rest or in motion while discussing inertia, gravity and instantaneous velocity."
So what? You reading and sometimes using those words gives me no confidence that you understand the concepts that underlie them.
bmiller: "We can also talk past motion referring to the present and physics does that also."
You just seem to be saying things that have no relation to what I've written, nor does it even seem like you're trying to assemble a defense of the First Way.
Do you have something to say regarding a defense of the First Way from the criticism offered here?
bmiller: "It is meant in this sense: / When a locomotive engine is pulling a train, each car experiences tension which causes the following car to move."
Things move, yes. We all agree to that because we observe it, and this premise appears sound. But you are denying that the First Way introduces the implications of the past in reference to observed motion, which would make the argument unsound. Even in your example of tension in a train this appears to be a simultaneous event but is not. When the engine starts to pull, the tension travels through the cars not instantly, but at some velocity equal to or less than the speed of light (speed of sound?). In the same instant that the engine stops pulling the first car, there is a similar lag before each subsequent car is released from the force that was being applied by the engine. If you were to arbitrarily pick any point along the train, the force that you would identify that comes from the engine is present only because of a prior force applied — NEVER a concurrent one.
There is no simultaneity of motion. All motion is described in reference frames that NECESSARILY account for time. If the First Way denies that motion is confined only to the current reference frame (the present), and does not account for the fact that all motion occurs over time (which NECESSARILY includes a prior (past) reference frame), then the First Way is, by the rules of good argument, unsound.
Apologists: "The reasons you think that the First Way is a bad argument are mistaken because of your misunderstanding of what the argument REALLY says."
Skeptics: "Like?"
Apologists: "Objects in motion need to be pushed all the time."
Skeptics: "If the argument says that, the argument is observably wrong."
Apologists: "When the argument says "motion" it only means motion right now, without reference to a prior reference frame."
Skeptics: "If the argument says that, the argument is incoherent."
Apologists: "When the argument says motion now, that has nothing to do with time."
Skeptics: "Without time, there is no motion. If the argument says that, the argument is incoherent."
Every instance I can think of where apologists have claimed that skeptics fail to understand the First Way boils down to the First Way being unsound or incoherent.
Thus, the only people who seem to fail understand the First Way appear to be apologists.
Imagine my surprise.
bmiller said...
" Wikipedia has a summary with footnotes indicating where in Physics to look."
--Very interesting. Thanks for the reference.
Aristotle asserted the natural state of motion is rest.
"Based on observation Aristotle asserted that object stay in motion only if they are pushed, but left to themselves object come to a state of rest. So the state of “rest” is the natural state of motion to which all things return. "
http://faculty.uml.edu/flonberg/95.103/Class10_09.pdf
Aristotle also stated matter is eternal and motion is eternal
" Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.[1]"
" He concludes that motion is necessarily eternal."
[1]Physics I, 7
[2]Aristotle in Physics VIII, 1, 251a, 8-20
Therefore, on the Aristotelian view, the conclusion is obvious, some mover has always and is now in the present moving all things.
So, the First Way was disproved by Newton, since Newton disproved Aristotle.
Inertia disproves the First Way, because inertia disproves the notion that the natural state of motion is rest.
Legion got a bit hot under the collar at the suggestion he does not understand inertia. Here is a list of some people who do not or did not understand inertia.
bmiller
Legion of Logic
SteveK
Grodrigues
Aquinas
Aristotle
All Thomists
Friction is an illusion in the sense that it is merely a macro observation of frictionless subatomic interactions. Ultimately, there is no such thing as friction.
Motion is never lost, it is merely transformed.
Take for example, a sealed bottle of compressed gas, say a steel oxygen bottle. The molecules of oxygen are at all times bouncing about madly. The inside of the bottle, if you could see it, would look like a crazy chaotic beehive of molecules endlessly bouncing off each other with no loss of motion.
The natural state of motion is, in truth, to continue in whatever motion the object is presently moving. Motion is self sustaining, Newton showed us, building upon Galileo,
There simply is no need for a first mover, on the assertion of eternal matter and eternal motion. In that case all the motion of the universe has always existed and will always exist, as everything in the universe keeps bouncing off each other, just like the molecules inside the steel oxygen bottle.
July 06, 2017 12:05 PM
"Legion got a bit hot under the collar at the suggestion he does not understand inertia. Here is a list of some people who do not or did not understand inertia.
bmiller
Legion of Logic
SteveK
Grodrigues"
Hilarious. A delusional, autistic ignorant kook -- this is demonstrably true -- telling me, a phd in mathematical physics with actual, real research under his belt, I do not understand inertia. Hilarious.
And I am off again. Let the idiotic madness continue.
grod: "Hilarious. A delusional, autistic ignorant kook -- this is demonstrably true -- telling me, a phd in mathematical physics with actual, real research under his belt, I do not understand inertia. Hilarious."
Pretend pretend pretend.
I've noticed that's what shabby people reliably do when they realize they can't actually support a claim that fails according to the rules of good argument.
@Cal Metzger:
"I've noticed that's what shabby people reliably do when they realize they can't actually support a claim that fails according to the rules of good argument."
Funny you mention that, since there was no evidence presented at all that I have anywhere failed to understand inertia -- neither will there be, because there simply isn't. So I guess that makes you a very "shabby people", right?
grodrigues said...
" since there was no evidence presented at all that I have anywhere failed to understand inertia"
--Ok, so you realize that the First Way is not a sound argument for a First Mover in the present, since the First Way is founded on the Aristotelian views:
1. Matter is eternal.
2. Motion is eternal.
3. The natural state of matter is rest.
On inertia there simply is no need for a first mover, and since you understand inertia you understand that the First Way is thus unsound.
Thank you for clearing that up.
July 07, 2017 8:49 AM
"Thank you for clearing that up."
I do not know what Psycho Strawdusty imagines I "cleared up", but I notice that once again, when shown that he fabricates lies, he changes the subject, fabricates yet more crap, and does not have the intellectual decency to either put up or retract it.
And now I am really off. Feeding trolls is making injury to our gracious host.
rodrigues said...
Hilarious...delusional... autistic... ignorant... kook... idiotic... madness ... Psycho Strawdusty... fabricates... lies... fabricates... crap... does not have the intellectual decency
--Say there grod, was that the basis of your PhD thesis? How did the defense go?
The First Way is founded on the Aristotelian views:
1. Matter is eternal.
2. Motion is eternal.
3. The natural state of matter is rest.
On inertia there simply is no need for a first mover, and since you understand inertia you understand that the First Way is thus unsound, right?
grod: "Funny you mention that, since there was no evidence presented at all that I have anywhere failed to understand inertia -- neither will there be, because there simply isn't. So I guess that makes you a very "shabby people", right?"
Funny that you misunderstood that I wrote, "Pretend pretend pretend," and noted that that is what shabby people do who avoid argument in favor of, well, pretending -- pretending that they know something they won't express, pretend that they have accomplished something they haven't, pretend that they have somehow provided sufficient evidence, demonstrations and arguments, pretend that they have left the discussion, etc.
Pretend pretend pretend.
@Cal,
Me: "The fact that we use the shorthand present tense to describe motion in the present DOES NOT alter the fact that the present tense, NECESSARILY, involves a prior reference frame (past) with regard to present motion."
bmiller: "I don't think I've ever met anyone who insisted that all present tense action verbs are really present perfect tense. But yet you "have been using" (present perfect) present tense all throughout this discussion. Curious."
I have no idea how you could have concluded what you have based on what I wrote. Bizarre.
It's because you said that present tense involves the (past).
Motion in the present necessarily involves a prior (past) reference frame. A prior reference frame refers to the past. The "ancient past" is a problem of your invention for the language of physics, but the fact that motion NECESSARILY takes us back to the past, and the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion, does present a problem for apologists who’d like to avoid this necessary implication.
Can we now just move on, since it's now apparent that "the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion" is no longer on the table?
I could talk more about the locomotive example if you like.
@Strawdusty,
--Very interesting. Thanks for the reference.
You're welcome.
Regarding the pdf:
"Based on observation Aristotle asserted that object stay in motion only if they are pushed, but left to themselves object come to a state of rest. So the state of “rest” is the natural state of motion to which all things return. "
Do you have any references handy for that by any chance? What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?
Don't you think it would odd for Aristotle to hold that motion was eternal at the same time he held that "rest" is the natural state of motion of all things?
bmiller: "Can we now just move on, since it's now apparent that "the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion" is no longer on the table?"
By "apparent... no longer on the table" above you would mean, if you understood how objects behave in reality, "unavoidable."
You consistently appear so stupid that you don't realize your deficiencies. This is best explained by the Dunning Kruger effect, of which you are a classic example.
bmiller: "I could talk more about the locomotive example if you like."
I think you are a bore. It's tedious reading your comments. I only respond to them because I am compulsive, not because your evident ignorance and stupidity deserve serious consideration; I just don't like it when shabby people pretend.
@Cal,
bmiller: "Can we now just move on, since it's now apparent that "the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion" is no longer on the table?"
By "apparent" above you would mean, if you understood how objects behave in reality, "unavoidable."
Ok, I'll let you go on then.
I only respond to them because I am compulsive,
Do you mean clinically compulsive? I hope you're just kidding.
bmiller said...
" Do you have any references handy for that by any chance? "
--I was hoping you might have them!
"What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?"
--There are about a gazillion secondary sources, I was hoping you might know the specific primary source. I will keep looking.
The pdf I sent you was just one of many, many secondary sources easily available by searching on a few related term like Aristotle Motion Rest Natural Place.
" Don't you think it would odd for Aristotle to hold that motion was eternal at the same time he held that "rest" is the natural state of motion of all things?"
--Not on a first mover, and in particular, not on a first mover in the present.
Remember, inertia did not come along as established physics until Newton (Galileo).
Motion in the present only needs a first mover in the present if motion will end on its own.
If the whole universe would grind to a halt on its own then it would need a mover to keep it going for all eternity and that mover would still be needed to keep things moving in the present moment.
So here are some sets of ideas that go together:
Set 1.
Matter is eternal.
Motion is eternal.
The natural state of matter is rest (the universe will grind to halt on its own).
A first mover is needed in the present and always has been needed.
Set 2.
Matter is eternal.
Motion is eternal.
The natural state of matter is to continue moving (the stuff of the universe will bounce against each other forever like molecules of gas in a sealed bottle).
No first mover is needed now or ever.
The natural state of matter is to move toward its natural place, per Aristotle. Once at its natural place, then it will stop and remain motionless unless subjected to force, hence forced motion. Remove the force and you will remove the motion. Hence the need for a terrestrial first mover to account for all the motions we see. A number of citations are available here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/#5
This source, like the pdf and a plethora of others, states clearly:
"The fundamental assumption in Aristotelian physics was that the natural state of sublunary matter is rest."
However, Aristotle did allow for a sort of circular uniform motion beyond the moon:
"In contrast to earthly motions, in the supralunary regions of the heavens the natural state of motion was circular,"
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/aristotle-physics.html
Here is a slide showing Galileo as contradicting Aristotle on motion:
http://images.slideplayer.com/35/10491446/slides/slide_2.jpg
So, yes, Aristotle thought the natural state of an object is at rest, which leads to a conclusion of a first mover in the present. He also thought that matter is eternal and motion is eternal therefore the first mover has always been moving things.
Inertia means that the natural state of an object is to continue the motion it is in, which eliminates the need for a first mover in the present, and thus disproves the First Way as an argument for a first mover in the present.
July 07, 2017 6:33 PM
bmiller: "Can we now just move on, since it's now apparent that "the First Way is supposed to be about the origin of all motion" is no longer on the table?"
Me: "By "apparent" above you would mean, if you understood how objects behave in reality, "unavoidable."
bmiller: "Ok, I'll let you go on then."
You don't seem to understand the ramifications of what you argue.
1. Did the big bang happen?
2. Is the big bang when we understand motion to have begun?
3. If the First Mover wasn't involved in the events that began at the big bang, then the first mover CANNOT be the first mover, because there is a prior mover.
Hmmmm.
@Strawdusty,
"What primary source does that appear in, or is it more of a scholarly analysis of a body of Aristotle's works?"
--There are about a gazillion secondary sources, I was hoping you might know the specific primary source. I will keep looking.
The pdf I sent you was just one of many, many secondary sources easily available by searching on a few related term like Aristotle Motion Rest Natural Place.
Yes, seems there is a lot of "fake news" out there doesn't it?
I've seen a lot of distortions and I don't think they are intentional. The particular one you pointed to was from a physics course, so the instructor was probably not familiar with what Aristotle taught first hand.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/#5
This source, like the pdf and a plethora of others, states clearly:
"The fundamental assumption in Aristotelian physics was that the natural state of sublunary matter is rest."
Couldn't find that quote at the SEP site.
It is difficult to unwind all the various misunderstandings.
But let me point out a couple issues from the first pdf.
1.Aristotle asserted that object stay in motion only if they are pushed
This is false. Aristotle listed 2 types of motion, violent and natural. Only the first required an accidental agent. I think this mistake is made because someone confused "the corpuscular philosophy" with Aristotle.
2. but left to themselves object come to a state of rest
Don't know where he got this unless it refers to the tendency of things in natural motion to move toward the center. On the earth, that is the center of the earth which is called gravity.
3. Galileo's incline experiment always results with the ball coming to rest anywhere on earth.
4. The Leap to the Ideal
If the author wants to compare what Galileo thought would happen in an ideal situation without friction, gravity, and air resistance, with what Aristotle thought happens with those conditions, then it is apples to oranges.
" Don't you think it would odd for Aristotle to hold that motion was eternal at the same time he held that "rest" is the natural state of motion of all things?"
The reason I asked this question is because Aristotle considered everything material constantly changing in some manner (not necessarily locomotion), so something material frozen in an unchanging state would be an exception.
More later.
@Cal,
You don't seem to understand the ramifications of what you argue.
1. Did the big bang happen?
2. Is the big bang when we understand motion to have begun?
3. If the First Mover wasn't involved in the events that began at the big bang, then the first mover CANNOT be the first mover, because there is a prior mover.
The Unmoved Mover of the First Way is to he understood in this way:
Everything that is moving at the present moment is ultimately being moved by the Unmoved Mover.
Every motion at a moment in the past (when that past moment was actually the "now" moment) was ultimately in motion due to the Unmoved Mover.
When you consider it in this fashion, however many moments ever occurred, each needed a first mover in the sense of the First Way.
Regardless, Aristotle thought that matter and motion was eternal, so he would not have considered the Big Bang to have happened if it meant that that was the point in time when motion began. So in the sense that a first mover could have caused a "first motion" would have caused him to dispute it. So it would not make sense to think the First Way would be about a "first motion" of the universe.
bmiller said...
The pdf I sent you was just one of many, many secondary sources easily available by searching on a few related term like Aristotle Motion Rest Natural Place.
" Yes, seems there is a lot of "fake news" out there doesn't it?"
--No, there really isn't. The assertion of fake science professors is most commonly made by a con man attempting to pass off a fraud, somebody like Kent Hovind, for example.
1.Aristotle asserted that object stay in motion only if they are pushed
" This is false. Aristotle listed 2 types of motion, violent and natural. Only the first required an accidental agent. I think this mistake is made because someone confused "the corpuscular philosophy" with Aristotle."
--No, the mistake was yours. Natural motion on Earth does not persist. Once an object gets to it's natural place it stops. From there it requires a force to move it and after the force is removed it stops.
So, objects on Earth only stay in motion if they are pushed. That statement about Aristotle is correct. You are mistaken.
2. but left to themselves object come to a state of rest
" Don't know where he got this "
--Your unfamiliarity does not constitute a "fake". It just means you have not yet learned the subject matter.
"If the author wants to compare what Galileo thought would happen in an ideal situation without friction, gravity, and air resistance, with what Aristotle thought happens with those conditions, then it is apples to oranges"
--The surface of the Earth is ideal in that motion is never lost, only transformed. Motion continues indefinitely on the surface of the Earth. That is one of the things Aristotle got wrong.
An object in motion on Earth will stop, but it's motion is really only transferred to other objects either as molecular kinetic energy (heat), or some other form of energy transfer. That is why the First Way fails as an argument for a first mover in the present.
July 08, 2017 7:15 PM
@Strawdusty,
Remember, inertia did not come along as established physics until Newton (Galileo).
The observation that things continued to move after violent motion ceased has been observed throughout history. It was also an observable fact that when an arrow was shot, the arrow did not travel indefinitely. We know today that it fell to earth due to the resistance of air and to gravity. Know what Aristotle thought? The same thing.
Discussion of the phenomenon continued with the theory of impetus in place before Galileo. After all, weapons of war were continuously being improved so it's not as if technology did not advance because Newton had not codified his laws of motion.
But what would Aristotle have thought an object would do in the absence of gravity and air resistance?
More later.
@Strawdusty,
" This is false. Aristotle listed 2 types of motion, violent and natural. Only the first required an accidental agent. I think this mistake is made because someone confused "the corpuscular philosophy" with Aristotle."
--No, the mistake was yours. Natural motion on Earth does not persist. Once an object gets to it's natural place it stops. From there it requires a force to move it and after the force is removed it stops.
So, objects on Earth only stay in motion if they are pushed. That statement about Aristotle is correct. You are mistaken.
Well, if I drop a ball from a tower according to Aristotle, it needs no agent to push it as it falls to the earth. If I carry the ball up the tower, then I am the agent responsible for that violent motion. So both types of motion are observable on the earth.
" Don't know where he got this "
--Your unfamiliarity does not constitute a "fake". It just means you have not yet learned the subject matter.
If you know the subject matter, by all means tell me what he means.
"If the author wants to compare what Galileo thought would happen in an ideal situation without friction, gravity, and air resistance, with what Aristotle thought happens with those conditions, then it is apples to oranges"
--The surface of the Earth is ideal in that motion is never lost, only transformed. Motion continues indefinitely on the surface of the Earth. That is one of the things Aristotle got wrong.
An object in motion on Earth will stop, but it's motion is really only transferred to other objects either as molecular kinetic energy (heat), or some other form of energy transfer. That is why the First Way fails as an argument for a first mover in the present.
Really. Do you have a primary source from Galileo's writings where he expressed these thoughts wrt to the incline experiment?
If you know the subject matter, by all means tell me what he means.
Or rather, "where he got this".
bmiller said...
SP An object in motion on Earth will stop, but it's motion is really only transferred to other objects either as molecular kinetic energy (heat), or some other form of energy transfer. That is why the First Way fails as an argument for a first mover in the present.
" Really. Do you have a primary source from Galileo's writings where he expressed these thoughts wrt to the incline experiment?"
--It doesn't matter.
No, you are not some great scholar of Aristotle here to tell all those stupid professors how they all got the history of science wrong.
Inertia and the conservation of mass/energy disproves the First Way as an argument for a first mover in the present. Aristotle did not invent inertia, nor did he come up with F=ma, or the Newtonian principles (laws) of motion.
Aristotle had a number of wrong ideas. Everybody who knows the history of science knows that, except, apparently, you.
Inertia and the conservation of mass/energy disproves the line of argument that proceeds
2g
3
4b
4a
4
The conclusion of 4 is false as an argument for an infinite regress in the present, the present taken to mean not strictly this instant, rather, within the human perception of the recent past such that we sense a set of recent temporal events as being in the present.
Motion does go to infinity in the sense that a circle goes to infinity in the present.
Here is how motion really works:
X1 moves X2
X2 moves X3
... moves Xn
Xn moves X1
Put another way, everything just keeps bouncing off everything else, no first mover required. That's because of inertia and the conservation of mass/energy.
Motion is not a linear chain that must come to terminus. Motion is a multibody process that comes around upon itself. It is a circle, a mobius strip, a sealed bottle of gas, or whatever analogy one wishes to use.
Motion is not a straight line series of events that starts at one place and ends at another place. There is no first mover because there is no first motion, just an eternity of motion that always has been moving and always will be moving without loss because of inertia and the conservation of mass/energy.
July 08, 2017 8:42 PM
@Strawdusty,
" Really. Do you have a primary source from Galileo's writings where he expressed these thoughts wrt to the incline experiment?"
--It doesn't matter.
It matters since the topic under discussion was Galileo vs Aristotle.
No, you are not some great scholar of Aristotle here to tell all those stupid professors how they all got the history of science wrong.
Some get it right and some get it wrong as should be apparent when they disagree. For instance, the pdf seems to mention only violent motion, while the SEP article correctly mentions both violent (forced in the article) and natural motions. The SEP also referenced primary sources to indicate where their analysis is derived from while the pdf does not. So no telling where the pdf author got his info.
@Strawdusty,
Inertia and the conservation of mass/energy disproves the First Way as an argument for a first mover in the present.
Inertia and conservation of momentum affirm the First Way according to Newton:
The Vis inertiæ is a passive Principle by which Bodies persist in their Motion or Rest, receive Motion in proportion to the Force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this Principle alone there never could have been any Motion in the World. Some other Principle was necessary for putting Bodies into Motion; and now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion.
In case you didn't look up the Latin term "vis" it means "force".
Aristotle did not invent inertia
Are you sure about that? What did Aristotle theorize would happen to a moving object in the absence of gravity and air resistance?
Aristotle had a number of wrong ideas. Everybody who knows the history of science knows that, except, apparently, you.
Sure he had some wrong ideas. The First Way is not one of them.
@bmiller
It's not fair to quote Newton in order to disprove Cal and Dusty's claim about inertia. Now they will have to abandon their claim.
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
SP Inertia and the conservation of mass/energy disproves the First Way as an argument for a first mover in the present.
" Inertia and conservation of momentum affirm the First Way according to Newton:"
--Not as an argument for a first mover in the present.
The Vis inertiæ is a passive Principle by which Bodies persist in their Motion or Rest, receive Motion in proportion to the Force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this Principle alone there never could have been any Motion in the World. Some other Principle was necessary for putting Bodies into Motion; and now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion.
--Note Newton said "was necessary". Thus, in the distant past either motion has always existed or in the distant past there was a first mover.
Newton's discoveries do not rule out a first mover in the distant past.
Newton's discoveries together with conservation of mass/energy rule out a first mover in the present.
July 09, 2017 7:53 AM
SteveK said...
@bmiller
" It's not fair to quote Newton in order to disprove Cal and Dusty's claim about inertia. Now they will have to abandon their claim."
--You claim to be a mechanical engineer. So, perhaps you will put your alleged engineer skills to work on identifying the first mover inside a bottle of compressed gas, say, a sealed steel tank of Argon.
When you allegedly studied for your alleged engineering skills you undoubtedly studied what are called the ideal gas laws. You surely took chemistry and understand that Argon is a monoatomic gas. The pressure against the walls of the tank are accounted for by the collisions of the Argon atoms against the wall. At all times the atoms of Argon are bouncing madly about in a beehive of motion, collisions, and activity that never ceases, never slows down, and remains the same in total as long as the tank remains sealed and the temperature is constant.
Where is the first mover in the tank that keeps all those atoms moving in the present?
According to Newton, there is no first mover, every atom just keeps bouncing off each other and the tank wall, in principle, without end.
Please put your engineering skills to work and identify the first mover that keeps the atoms of Argon moving inside the sealed tank so they don't all just stop and fall to the bottom.
July 09, 2017 8:54 AM
@Strawdusty,
" Inertia and conservation of momentum affirm the First Way according to Newton:"
--Not as an argument for a first mover in the present.
The Vis inertiæ is a passive Principle by which Bodies persist in their Motion or Rest, receive Motion in proportion to the Force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this Principle alone there never could have been any Motion in the World. Some other Principle was necessary for putting Bodies into Motion; and now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion.
--Note Newton said "was necessary". Thus, in the distant past either motion has always existed or in the distant past there was a first mover.
Newton's discoveries do not rule out a first mover in the distant past.
It's unclear to me what your objection is. Perhaps you can rephrase it.
This quote from Opticks refers to inertia as having existed in the past as well as being in operation now. Since the First Way is discussing present motion and only an Unmoved Mover at the present moment, then the relevant part of the quote is "now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion."
Whether or not Newton considered there to be a "first motion" in the distant past is irrelevant to the First Way.
@Strawdusty,
Motion does go to infinity in the sense that a circle goes to infinity in the present.
Here is how motion really works:
X1 moves X2
X2 moves X3
... moves Xn
Xn moves X1
Depending on how you set the context for this series there could be different responses as to why this would not be physically possible.
The most straight forward response is that inanimate things do not move themselves. If I removed each of the X's one at a time from Xn...X3 and finally X2, I am left with X1 moving itself so it is both potentially moving and actually moving in the same respect at the same time, which is of course impossible.
Another response is the First Law of Thermodynamics:
First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind (machines that produce work without the input of energy) are impossible.
bmiller said...
" "now they are in Motion, some other Principle is necessary for conserving the Motion."
--Newton did not fully appreciate the extent of the ramifications of his discovery. That is not unusual in science, since the discoverer of a principle typically dies within a historically short time, and others continue to apply that principle more thoroughly.
Conservation of matter/energy is the further principle. Motion persists unless acted upon, but sometimes the kinetic energy of motion is transformed into some other form of energy. There is no net loss of energy, and thus no need for a first mover.
" Whether or not Newton considered there to be a "first motion" in the distant past is irrelevant to the First Way."
--Right, what Newton thought is unimportant. What matters is the application of his discoveries, which make a first mover in an "essential" series completely uncalled for.
July 09, 2017 10:31 AM
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
Motion does go to infinity in the sense that a circle goes to infinity in the present.
Here is how motion really works:
X1 moves X2
X2 moves X3
... moves Xn
Xn moves X1
" Depending on how you set the context for this series there could be different responses as to why this would not be physically possible."
--The above series is how a sealed bottle of gas works. All the molecules just keep bouncing off each other.
" The most straight forward response is that inanimate things do not move themselves. "
--They are already moving, per Aristotle, motion is eternal as is matter. The stuff of the universe has always been moving. The series above is a highly simplified illustration of the fact that all the bits of stuff in the universe keep bouncing off each other.
" First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, "
--The series is a closed system.
July 09, 2017 10:42 AM
Dusty
>> "They are already moving, per Aristotle, motion is eternal as is matter."
I don't like when shabby people pretend so my compulsion here is to correct you for your own benefit so you can stop pretending to know what Aristotle said.
Per Book 8, Aristotle thought this only of circular motion because it did not involve change. He argues that anything changing cannot be infinite or eternal. Aristotle did not think that rectilinear motion or a compound of rectilinear and circular motion was eternal.
"Therefore that which turns back in traversing a rectilinear course must in so doing come to a stand. Consequently there cannot be a continuous rectilinear motion that is eternal."
"Now rotatory motion can be eternal: but no other motion, whether locomotion or motion of any other kind, can be so, since in all of them rest must occur and with the occurrence of rest the motion has perished."
http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics8.htm
Your "X1 moves X2" example is an example changing reflexive motion that Aristotle did not think was eternal. See Section 18 of Book 8.
http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics8.htm#18
Blogger SteveK said...
Aristotle "Therefore that which turns back in traversing a rectilinear course must in so doing come to a stand. Consequently there cannot be a continuous rectilinear motion that is eternal."
--Right, the natural state of matter is rest.
Aristotle "Now rotatory motion can be eternal: but no other motion, whether locomotion or motion of any other kind, can be so, since in all of them rest must occur and with the occurrence of rest the motion has perished."
--Right, circular motions of the heavenly bodies are natural.
http://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/Physics8.htm
So there you have some examples of the muddled thinking of Arisitotle, thinking that circular motion was fundamentally different than rectilinear motion.
" Your "X1 moves X2" example is an example changing reflexive motion that Aristotle did not think was eternal."
--Right, he was wrong about that too. For example the case of the sealed tank of Argon, wherein X1 moves X2....moves Xn moves X1 just keeps going absent any friction or loss
To your references we can add these kindly provided by
bmiller said...
Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.[1]
In Book VIII,
He concludes that motion is necessarily eternal.
[1]Physics I, 7
[2]Aristotle in Physics VIII, 1, 251a, 8-20
July 06, 2017 12:05 PM
So, putting it all together Aristotle thought
1.Matter is eternal.
2.Motion is eternal.
3.Rectilinear motion must come to a stand (rest).
4.Objects move to their natural place.
5.Forced or violent motion is possible but it must come to a stand (rest).
6.A first mover is thus required.
The exact details of what muddled notions Aristotle thought are not terribly important to show the First Way is wrong as an argument for a first mover in the present.
Haines also asserts clearly that the sequence of movers described in 2g through 5 are an "essential" series, meaning cause and effect happens at the same time. That assertion alone is so patently false that it utterly destroys the First Way on modern knowledge of inertia, conservation of matter/energy, and the time sequence of causation.
July 09, 2017 2:22 PM
bmiller: “The Unmoved Mover of the First Way is to he understood in this way: Everything that is moving at the present moment is ultimately being moved by the Unmoved Mover.”
“Ultimately being moved” is more of the kind of equivocation we see in the First Way. If the First Way means that everything moving now is being pushed by something that goes back to a first mover, the First Way is demonstrably wrong. So, this means that the First Way fails.
bmiller: “Every motion at a moment in the past (when that past moment was actually the "now" moment) was ultimately in motion due to the Unmoved Mover.”
Hey, you finally agree with me! Something moving now NECESSARILY was at a different position in a prior reference frame. Congratulations!
bmiller: “When you consider it in this fashion, however many moments ever occurred, each needed a first mover in the sense of the First Way.”
Or they go on ad infinitum. You just repeat the same mistake the First Way makes; begging the question.
bmiller: “Regardless, Aristotle thought that matter and motion was eternal, so he would not have considered the Big Bang to have happened if it meant that that was the point in time when motion began.”
Which is neither here nor there because we aren’t discussing what you think some ancient person believed. We are discussing the reason for believing things. And those reasons are supposedly in the First Way, but they fail for the reasons we have described.
bmiller: “So in the sense that a first mover could have caused a "first motion" would have caused him to dispute it.”
Oh, do tell. And how would he have disputed it? I thought you were supposed to trying to defend the First Way?
bmiller: “So it would not make sense to think the First Way would be about a "first motion" of the universe.”
If it doesn’t make sense to you then you don’t understand how objects move in reality — that they necessarily involve a prior reference frame (prior time), and that if one is to ask the question of what moves something now, one necessarily goes back in time until either a first mover, or an infinite series. That is the paradox. You should know this by now if you’re going to try and defend an argument that supposedly explains a paradox — it’s handy to understand what the question actually is / involves.
Pretend pretend pretend.
@Strawdusty,
" Depending on how you set the context for this series there could be different responses as to why this would not be physically possible."
--The above series is how a sealed bottle of gas works. All the molecules just keep bouncing off each other.
" The most straight forward response is that inanimate things do not move themselves. "
--They are already moving, per Aristotle, motion is eternal as is matter. The stuff of the universe has always been moving. The series above is a highly simplified illustration of the fact that all the bits of stuff in the universe keep bouncing off each other.
If you wanted to illustrate molecules moving in a bottle of gas, then X1 moves X2 etc back to X1 is not what is actually going on at any particular instant in time. X1 does not simultaneously move X2 while Xn is moving X1 at a particular instant. When a series of moving movers is involved, the First Way is addressing an essentially ordered series, not a time ordered series.
Over time, Xn may bang into X1 again, but in the meantime X1 is either moving naturally or violently by something other than itself, so it cannot move itself as part of an essentially ordered series.
@Strawdusty,
“Ultimately being moved” is more of the kind of equivocation we see in the First Way. If the First Way means that everything moving now is being pushed by something that goes back to a first mover, the First Way is demonstrably wrong. So, this means that the First Way fails.
There is no equivocation. The First Way is about an essentially ordered series of instrumental movers, which requires an ultimate mover to move the series in the present moment. The First Way does not "mean that that everything moving now is being pushed by something that goes back to a first mover". Things can be forced into motion or move via natural motion.
bmiller: “When you consider it in this fashion, however many moments ever occurred, each needed a first mover in the sense of the First Way.”
Or they go on ad infinitum. You just repeat the same mistake the First Way makes; begging the question.
You are conflating infinite time with an infinite number of instrumental movers in motion as part of an essentially ordered series. The First Way is uses infinite in the latter sense. Since infinite time is not part of the discussion of the First Way, it says nothing one way or the other about whether time had a beginning or not. So yes, looking only at the First Way, time could have had a beginning or not. No way of telling since it does not address the subject.
bmiller: “So in the sense that a first mover could have caused a "first motion" would have caused him to dispute it.”
Oh, do tell. And how would he have disputed it? I thought you were supposed to trying to defend the First Way?
I've posted the Wikipedia link above that explains how Aristotle came to that conclusion.
I'm only defending the First Way as understood by Aristotle, Aquinas and all knowledgeable commentators and critics.
bmiller: “So it would not make sense to think the First Way would be about a "first motion" of the universe.”
If it doesn’t make sense to you then you don’t understand how objects move in reality — that they necessarily involve a prior reference frame (prior time), and that if one is to ask the question of what moves something now, one necessarily goes back in time until either a first mover, or an infinite series.
Well my point has always been (present perfect tense) that it would not make sense for Aristotle to write a book that starts out defending eternal motion and then end it by contradicting himself by insisting that motion had a beginning. That's a different question than how it makes sense to you that present tense is the same as present perfect tense.
bmiller said...
" If you wanted to illustrate molecules moving in a bottle of gas, then X1 moves X2 etc back to X1 is not what is actually going on at any particular instant in time."
--Indeed.
" X1 does not simultaneously move X2 while Xn is moving X1 at a particular instant."
--Very true.
" When a series of moving movers is involved, the First Way is addressing an essentially ordered series,"
--There is no such thing.
" not a time ordered series."
--Every causal series is a time ordered series.
" Over time, Xn may bang into X1 again,"
--Indeed.
" but in the meantime X1 is either moving naturally or violently by something other than itself, so it cannot move itself as part of an essentially ordered series."
--There is not such thing.
I have had an epiphany of sorts. Your worldview is so utterly foreign to any person who has grown up in the modern era and has absorbed modern science from childhood that it has taken me some 2100 posts to realize that this utterly foreign and long ago discarded notion persists in the minds of a segment of our population.
You think there is a thing called an "essential" series.
You have an Aristotelian world view.
In your view motion somehow requires something to keep it going.
In your view a series of cause and effect can happen simultaneously, with a chain reaction of cause and effect in a long series all happening at the same instant.
These notions lead you the the conclusion that a first mover in the present is required, ant it is this notion of an "essential" series that Aquinas took for granted, as did his intended audience, so much so that it is not explicitly stated in this ancient argument, because it was universally understood as such among that culture at that time, and it remains so much a part of your worldview that modern knowledge of motion and energy and causality are completely blocked from your cognition.
This is much worse than I had heretofore realized. The depth of your retrograde worldview is so low I am no longer confident I can find the words to introduce you to modern thought.
I propose to simply start with this.
There is no such thing as an "essential" series. Every multibody series of objects acting as motion causes and effects is necessarily a time ordered series.
July 09, 2017 4:39 PM
@Strawdusty,
There is no such thing as an "essential" series. Every multibody series of objects acting as motion causes and effects is necessarily a time ordered series.
Of course there is such a thing as an essentially ordered series. Inertia and gravity are presently responsible for the motion of Voyager right now and so are essential to the present movement of the capsule. The booster rocket that initially launched Voyager on it's journey is, at the present time, not responsible for Voyager's motion and so is not essential for Voyager to continue on it's journey. It's either scrap metal, in a museum or in the ocean...I didn't check.
In this particular case, gravity and inertia are part of the essentially ordered series responsible for Voyager's present motion. The booster rocket could be considered part of an accidentally ordered series responsible for Voyager's present motion, but since it is not presently responsible, it is not essential for that movement.
These are concepts we use all the time, but perhaps you've never heard them expressed in these terms before.
Stardusty: "This is much worse than I had heretofore realized. The depth of your retrograde worldview is so low I am no longer confident I can find the words to introduce you to modern thought."
It's worse than that; I don't think that apologists actually understand how arguments work, and (perhaps more importantly) they don't respect facts -- apologists are typically narcissists, and respecting intersubjectivity clashes with this disorder.
Apologists want two things: to retain their silly beliefs, and to be regarded as smart. Anything that doesn't offer one of these options will be disregarded or dismissed by them.
This simple theory explains EVERYTHING that has transpired here.
@Strawdusty,
This is a link to various physics problems involving free body diagrams. Check out #3
It is a problem used in physics classes to determine the various tensions present in couplings among the various cars in the train. Two things that are relevant to the discussion are that 1) It relates to the forces that are causing motion in a series of things that are not causing motion themselves (other than the locomotive). 2) The tension between the car couplings is different. The locomotive is supplying force for both cars, while the tension between cars 1 and 2 is half that, the conclusion being that car 1 is pulling car 2. This is what is meant by an essentially ordered series, being that car 1 is instrumental in moving car 2.
You may also be interested in the other problems as well as they use "free body diagrams" routinely used in physics courses.
If pdf's are not your thing, then here is a
video that shows the same concept.
bmiller said...
" Of course there is such a thing as an essentially ordered series."
--Greek mythology. That is all an "essentially" ordered series is. It has no more reality than the gods on mount Olympus.
" Inertia and gravity are presently responsible for the motion of Voyager right now"
--Gravity is not "responsible right now".
This is a good quality animation that shows how a spacecraft interacts with bodies in gravitational fields.
https://www.space.com/36980-nasa-nicer-mission-neutrons-stars-and-gps-for-the-galaxy-teaser-trailer.html
While the animation takes a couple minutes the process actually takes years. As the spacecraft gains energy the planets lose energy in a time sequence of events.
Cause and effect are always, necessarily, a time ordered series.
There is no such thing as an "essential" series. That notion is ancient Greek mythology, nothing more.
" These are concepts we use all the time"
--No scientist uses the concept of an "essential" series. All planetary scientists, space mission scientists, and physicists of all sorts do not use this ancient Greek myth in any serious professional work.
", but perhaps you've never heard them expressed in these terms before."
--This is not an issue of my lack of familiarity with terminology. The issue is that you are living your life under the misconception of ancient Greek mythology.
July 09, 2017 6:28 PM
@bmiller
Re: free body diagrams
I was taught that same ancient, outdated mythology in science class.
@SteveK,
Re: free body diagrams
I was taught that same ancient, outdated mythology in science class.
You must be an ancient Greek then. I'm interested in your secrets to longevity. Anything you'd care to share?
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
" This is a link to various physics problems involving free body diagrams. Check out #3"
--No mention of an "essential" series there because that is just an ancient Greek myth.
" It is a problem used in physics classes to determine the various tensions"
--Students learn what is called "statics". These a simplified and idealized problems known to yield answers that are only close, not fully accurate. The professor will say something like "to a first approximation we can model this system as..." and then the student solves those problems.
No representation is made that these are intended to be thorough scientific investigations of the entire dynamic process being modeled.
More detailed analysis is covered in what is called "dynamics", but that is also presented as only approximate modeling.
There is no such thing as an "essential" series. Every causal series is necessarily a complex time ordered series. The actual number of atomic elements in a causal series such a locomotive pulling a train is roughly on the order of 10^24 * 10^n with n equal to the kilograms of mass involved. Since a locomotive uses an oxidation reaction one would need to consider the number of electrons in each atom as well. So, to accurately analyze the series is humanly impossible. The only way to get any useful work done is to employ models.
You will not find any mention of an "essential" series in a modern discussion of causality because it is obvious that a causal series is necessarily a process over time.
present in couplings among the various cars in the train. Two things that are relevant to the discussion are that 1) It relates to the forces that are causing motion in a series of things that are not causing motion themselves (other than the locomotive). 2) The tension between the car couplings is different. The locomotive is supplying force for both cars, while the tension between cars 1 and 2 is half that, the conclusion being that car 1 is pulling car 2. This is what is meant by an essentially ordered series, being that car 1 is instrumental in moving car 2.
You may also be interested in the other problems as well as they use "free body diagrams" routinely used in physics courses.
If pdf's are not your thing, then here is a
video that shows the same concept.
July 09, 2017 8:01 PM
Blogger SteveK said...
@bmiller
Re: free body diagrams
" I was taught that same ancient, outdated mythology in science class."
--In engineering you never realized that statics is an approximate model?
Did you move on to dynamics? Do you realize that was only an approximate model too?
Where in all your engineering practice and education did you ever get the idea that a real causal series was really one of these simplifications and the series really happened in zero time?
In engineering you never got the fact that nothing happens in zero time?
An "essential" series is just an ancient Greek myth. Don't you understand that?
July 09, 2017 8:21 PM
Whatever your complain is, I cannot muster any sympathy for it because they are teaching this ancient mythology in the science classroom. If they are doing that, then your objection is hollow. It's not the myth you think it is.
Dusty seems to think that Aristotle forgot to properly consider time - and in doing so it invalidates his arguments. Dusty is ignorant. Aristotle spills a lot of ink looking at time and writing various proofs related to time. Here's one from Book 6.
Aristotle: "We will now show that nothing can be in motion in a present"
Now that Dusty knows that Aristotle agrees, Dusty can now stop relying on the statement "nothing happens in zero time" as a rebuttal. It's not a rebuttal.
Science is loaded to the hilt with simplified and idealized teachings: atomic models, ideal gas laws, frictionless surfaces, point mass, unchanging objects, uniform density.
On the one hand we are told to rely on science for knowledge about the physical world. On the other hand, Dusty is arguing that it's all a myth.
When we rely on the teachings of science and it fits Dusty's agenda to accept these simplified idealized notions, that's good. No pushback, no rebuttal, no disagreement.
When we point out the fact that Aristotle is teaching the same thing using ancient, and philosophical language, that's not good because Aristotle is a doofus for relying on simplified idealized notions that are a myth.
It would be nice if the skeptics here showed some consistency.
@Strawdusty,
" This is a link to various physics problems involving free body diagrams. Check out #3"
--No mention of an "essential" series there because that is just an ancient Greek myth.
The diagram illustrates the concept. The first car being essesential to the movement of the last.
No representation is made that these are intended to be thorough scientific investigations of the entire dynamic process being modeled.
The diagram is used to calculate coupler tension. Different diagrams would be used to investigate different things.
You will not find any mention of an "essential" series in a modern discussion of causality because it is obvious that a causal series is necessarily a process over time.
The free body diagrams illustrate the principle regardless of what one calls it.
@bmiller
Dusty: "Your worldview is so utterly foreign to any person who has grown up in the modern era. You think there is a thing called an "essential" series."
bmiller: "The diagram illustrates the concept. The first car being essesential to the movement of the last."
It's got to be embarrassing to discover that ones "epiphany" is demonstrated to be false each and every day. It's not foreign at all. The question now is will Dusty do anything to correct his flawed thinking?
stevek: "It would be nice if the skeptics here showed some consistency."
You're not a mechanical engineer. Yet you claimed you are. That makes you a liar. That's inconsistency enough, isn't it?
Or do you think suppose that constantly lying is showing some consistency?
In a twisted and bizarre way, I suppose it is.
@Stardusty, I think that it's not so much that steveK and his ilk are ignorant of the Enlightenment and a modern world view.
It's more than that.
They don't understand argument, and facts, and perhaps most challenging of all, they don't value consistency, epistemic humility, and honesty.
You can argue with people who don't agree with you; but it's impossible to argue with people who are dishonest.
Stevek knows he's a liar. And yet he isn't bothered by it the way it would bother you and I -- the way that would prevent us from doing it, or correcting it.
You can make an ignorant person aware, but you can't make an immoral person moral. At least I don't think I can.
Returning to this discussion:
Aristotle did not invent inertia
Are you sure about that? What did Aristotle theorize would happen to a moving object in the absence of gravity and air resistance?
It has been argued that Newton's First Law of Motion refuted Aristotle. If so, we would expect Newton to point that out.
But on the contrary, he actually credits Aristotle and other ancient Greeks for originating the basic idea.
As he expressed here:
"All those ancients knew the first law [of motion] who attributed to atoms in an infinite vacuum a motion which was rectilinear, extremely swift and perpetual because of the lack of resistance...Aristotle was of the same mind, since he expresses his opinion thus [in On The Heavens, 3.2.301b]: 'If a body, destitute of gravity and levity, be moved, it is necessary that it be moved by an external force. And when it is once moved by a force, it will conserve its motion indefinitely'. And again in Book IV of the Physics, text 69, [i.e. Physics 4.8.215a19] speaking of motion in the void where there is no impediment he writes: 'Why a body once moved should come to rest anywhere no one can say. For why should it rest here rather than there ? Hence either it will not be moved, OR it must be moved indefinitely, unless something stronger impedes it"
From one of Newton's Scientific Papers in The Portsmouth Collection
bmiller said...
" The diagram illustrates the concept. The first car being essesential to the movement of the last."
--No, simplified diagrams illustrate approximate models.
SP You will not find any mention of an "essential" series in a modern discussion of causality because it is obvious that a causal series is necessarily a process over time.
" The free body diagrams illustrate the principle regardless of what one calls it."
--No, simplified diagrams do not illustrate an "essential" series. The diagrams are inaccurate and only idealizations as first order approximations. They are not serious studies of causation.
July 10, 2017 10:57 AM
bmiller said...
SP Aristotle did not invent inertia
" Are you sure about that?"
--Yes.
Aristotle had some bits and pieces that were close or at least on the right track.
People followed Aristotle for some 2000 years not because they were stupidly following nonsense, but because to the ordinary observer a very great deal of what Aristotle said seemed to comport with reality. Aristotle was one of the most brilliant and accomplished thinkers of all time.
Aristotle did not link his general notion that in some circumstances things keep moving to his other ideas about natural motion, how things are forced to move, how things accelerate while they are falling, and the true effects of viscous resistance to falling objects of different weights.
Aristotle did not understand inertia beyond a very superficial inkling that sometimes things keep moving.
July 11, 2017 12:25 PM
@Strawdusty,
" The diagram illustrates the concept. The first car being essential to the movement of the last."
--No, simplified diagrams illustrate approximate models.
SP You will not find any mention of an "essential" series in a modern discussion of causality because it is obvious that a causal series is necessarily a process over time.
" The free body diagrams illustrate the principle regardless of what one calls it."
--No, simplified diagrams do not illustrate an "essential" series. The diagrams are inaccurate and only idealizations as first order approximations. They are not serious studies of causation.
The diagrams are how physics have always been taught and discussed from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein. Check out Newton's Principia page 356 for example where he uses a diagram to illustrate how pressure is propagated through a fluid with a series of labeled circles representing fluid particles forming a series of moving movers.
If you want to maintain that the way physics has been taught throughout history has always been wrong up to and including today then you have an odd point of view. How would you teach it without free body diagrams?
@Strawdusty,
" Are you sure about that?"
--Yes.
Well Newton did mention Lucretius also so maybe he was giving them both credit for it. ☺
Aristotle did not link his general notion that in some circumstances things keep moving to his other ideas about natural motion, how things are forced to move, how things accelerate while they are falling, and the true effects of viscous resistance to falling objects of different weights.
Hmm. I'm not sure what the criticism is wrt linking things. He actually did extensive studies on "viscous resistance to falling objects of different weights." so can you explain what you mean by this?
Aristotle did not understand inertia beyond a very superficial inkling that sometimes things keep moving.
Since Newton's First Law assumes ideal conditions where no other forces are in play, how do you think Aristotle's view under these conditions is "a very superficial inkling" compared to Newton's since Newton credits the ancient Greeks (including Aristotle) for originating the idea?
bmiller said...
" Since Newton's First Law assumes ideal conditions where no other forces are in play, how do you think Aristotle's view under these conditions is "a very superficial inkling" compared to Newton's "
--Because Newton didn't simply make a narrow assertion and then apply it inconsistently as Aristotle did.
Newton showed how to apply the concept of inertia consistently for every sort of motion in every place, including terrestrial motion, so-called natural motion, elliptical and parabolic motion, as well as rectilinear motion. He also quantified acceleration and its relationship to inertia uniformly both for so called forced motion and natural motion.
By comparison Aristotle had only a vague inkling about inertia.
July 11, 2017 8:38 PM
bmiller: "If you want to maintain that the way physics has been taught throughout history has always been wrong up to and including today then you have an odd point of view?"
This is what I mean by dishonesty. Apologists are dishonest. bmiller is another apologist.
bmiller doesn't care about ideas, and learning per se. bmiller cares about the social utility of his jottings, and how it can elicit the approval of his shabby little group of fellow apologists.
That explains every one of his comments so far. It probably always will. Because while it's possible to fix ignorance, it's much harder to fix morality. And unfortunately, the two are intertwined.
@Cal,
bmiller: "If you want to maintain that the way physics has been taught throughout history has always been wrong up to and including today then you have an odd point of view?"
This is what I mean by dishonesty.
I don't know what you're talking about. Aristotle used free body diagrams in Physics.
@Strawdusty,
" Since Newton's First Law assumes ideal conditions where no other forces are in play, how do you think Aristotle's view under these conditions is "a very superficial inkling" compared to Newton's "
--Because Newton didn't simply make a narrow assertion and then apply it inconsistently as Aristotle did.
Newton thought Aristotle accurately described motion in ideal conditions. After Aristotle the idea was further refined and developed. If you read Aristotle's Physics you will notice it reads more like what we would consider Philosophy or Philosophy of Science. That's why Legion had been emphasizing the First Way should be understood as a metaphysical argument rather than a physics argument, owing to how we use the word physics today.
Cal Metzger said...
@Stardusty, I think that it's not so much that steveK and his ilk are ignorant of the Enlightenment and a modern world view.
It's more than that.
They don't understand argument, and facts, and perhaps most challenging of all, they don't value consistency, epistemic humility, and honesty.
You can argue with people who don't agree with you; but it's impossible to argue with people who are dishonest.
Stevek knows he's a liar. And yet he isn't bothered by it the way it would bother you and I -- the way that would prevent us from doing it, or correcting it.
You can make an ignorant person aware, but you can't make an immoral person moral. At least I don't think I can.
July 10, 2017 12:58 PM
--I agree that there is strong evidence that SteveK is not a mechanical engineer. His use of technical terms is very vague, and engineers are notorious for speaking accurately on technical matters. He displays a knowledge of physics commensurate with middle school or at best high school education. A mechanical engineer must take several semesters of calculus for engineers, physics for engineers, statics, dynamics, numerical methods, and advanced courses in analysis. SteveK displays no such background whatsoever.
Grod is even more grandiose. He claims to be a phd [sic] in mathematical physics (ROTFLMAO). Grod doesn't actually make arguments that display this knowledge, rather, he just drops by to issue long lists of name calling, imply he has some great knowledge that would decimate his name calling target's arguments if only he took the time to present them, and then leave.
Of course one could make various excuses, so who knows? But the evidence is strongly against them both.
Cal Metzger said...
bmiller: "If you want to maintain that the way physics has been taught throughout history has always been wrong up to and including today then you have an odd point of view?"
This is what I mean by dishonesty. Apologists are dishonest. bmiller is another apologist.
bmiller doesn't care about ideas, and learning per se. bmiller cares about the social utility of his jottings, and how it can elicit the approval of his shabby little group of fellow apologists.
That explains every one of his comments so far. It probably always will. Because while it's possible to fix ignorance, it's much harder to fix morality. And unfortunately, the two are intertwined.
July 12, 2017 5:42 AM
--Not quite.
While I generally stay away from psychological assertions because they are ultimately unprovable, there certainly is a preponderance of evidence, a very strong correlation, between your hypotheses and all the comments we have seen here.
But, you might want to consider adding a feature to your analysis. Bmiller and legion will switch to a fairly constructive mode when they seem to feel they are taking on the role of educator. Typically bmiller will use the argumentation techniques of a YEC, quote mining, intentionally cutting out critical qualifiers to reverse the meaning of what was said, and generally disjointed argumentation.
However, it seems like he fancies himself somewhat of an expert on Aquinas and Aristotle. When the discussion puts him into a perceived roll of educator he actually becomes temporarily reasonable.
It doesn't last. Once the perceived education period turns to pointing out all the flaws in what he has just "taught" he goes right back to his scattered, disjointed irrationalities.
I don't quite know what happened to Legion One possibility is that he was getting close to another major shift in his worldview and withdrew as a defense mechanism.
bmiller said...
" That's why Legion had been emphasizing the First Way should be understood as a metaphysical argument rather than a physics argument, owing to how we use the word physics today."
--Their is no metaphysical merit to the first way. The notion of a necessity for an ontological infinite series in the absence of a first mover is simply nonsense. No clear explanation for this assertion has ever been made.
Why does there supposedly need to be a long ontological chain of causation in the present moment? The very notion is incoherent and meaningless.
The only coherent notion of the necessity for a first mover in the present is on the notion that motion will come to a rest, at least terrestrially. If that were true then a strong argument could be made that there is some undiscovered force that keeps things moving against this asserted property of motion to naturally end terrestrially.
That notion is false. Motion does not end at all, terrestrially or anyplace else, it always continues or is transformed.
Inertial
Conservation
These simple facts eliminate the need for a first mover in the present to overcome an asserted property of motion to end.
July 12, 2017 7:31 PM
@Strawdusty,
Why does there supposedly need to be a long ontological chain of causation in the present moment?
There doesn't.
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.
See. There only needs to be one thing.
The only coherent notion of the necessity for a first mover in the present is on the notion that motion will come to a rest, at least terrestrially. If that were true then a strong argument could be made that there is some undiscovered force that keeps things moving against this asserted property of motion to naturally end terrestrially.
In fact Aristotle and Newton both reached the same conclusion. Things "came to rest terrestrially" due to air resistance and gravity. But neither of them argued for a first mover on that basis.
That notion is false. Motion does not end at all, terrestrially or anyplace else, it always continues or is transformed.
Maybe it's time to consider what we are referring to.
Motion is something that material things do, right?
No material things, no motion, right?
Then what is a material thing?
Are you a material thing? Can you ever stop moving? How about when you're dead?
I suggest that your idea of a material thing is different from Aristotle or Newton.
bmiller said...
" 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.
See. There only needs to be one thing."
--The sun is moving, therefore the first mover moves the sun, therefore god
You are an idiot.
July 14, 2017 10:39 PM
☝
NAA (not an argument)
stardusty: "You are an idiot."
bmiller: "NAA (not an argument)"
Nope. Nor do I think it was intended to be. Sometimes mundane observations serve as their own explanation, though.
Sic.
@Cal,
Nope. Nor do I think it was intended to be. Sometimes mundane observations serve as their own explanation, though.
That comment sounds like it came from someone:
Who doesn't care about ideas, and learning per se.
Who cares about the social utility of his jottings, and how it can elicit the approval of his shabby little group of fellows
Of such people it has been said "It's possible to fix ignorance, it's much harder to fix morality. And unfortunately, the two are intertwined."
In other words it sounds like a [sic] derogatory comment.
bmiller: "That comment sounds like it came from someone: Who doesn't care about ideas, and learning per se."
All evidence to the contrary.
bmiller: "Who cares about the social utility of his jottings..."
I do care about the social utility of my jottings. That should be self-evident from commenting on a public blog, shouldn't it?
bmiller: "...and how it can elicit the approval of his shabby little group of fellows"
We are all social creatures. I am interested in what Stardusty thinks, because he possesses knowledge that I do not, and because he has a sharp intellect, and because he can offer me insights that I wouldn't discover on my own.
I am not very interested in what you think you know, because you are a pretender. You you fail to be consistent, you are dishonest, you are ignorant of basic knowledge, and you are very often confused to the point of being irrelevant.
I am interested in how you fail to think clearly, because I think your pathological failures at rationality reveal the forces at work in all of our thinking, and I hope to learn to think more clearly by trying to modulate the forces that so obviously run rampant with you.
bmiller: "Of such people it has been said "It's possible to fix ignorance, it's much harder to fix morality. And unfortunately, the two are intertwined." "
That is one of my operating theories, recently, yes. I think it is a less well-known explanation because psychologists shy away from these kind of conclusions.
bmiller: "In other words it sounds like a [sic] derogatory comment."
I agree that the explanation is not flattering to the apologist.
Also, it looks like you don't understand how to use the term "[sic], nor that I have made it clear that I don't shy away from the derogatory ramifications of my puted explanation.
You remain a hot mess. It's my guess you will always be so, because you seem to have a sickness that I don't know how to fix.
@Cal,
Let me know when you have an actual argument regarding the First Way and/or "learning per se".
Otherwise, I am only interesting in responding to your posts in order to trigger your compulsion to have the last word....which BTW, I will have!
bmiller: "Let me know when you have an actual argument regarding the First Way and/or "learning per se"."
One doesn't provide an "argument" that the an argument doesn't abide by the rules of good argument. You fail to even understand that basic fact.
One provides criticism -- criticism that shows how an argument fails to abide by the rules of good argument. Criticism that has been provided, over and over and over and over, in detail and countless permutations, without a single meaningful response from apologists such as yourself here.
This is understood because you are a kind of idiot -- the kind who are best explained by their ugly moral character.
In other words, you are an apologist.
And apologists aren't just ugly -- they are profoundly stupid, in only the way that people who won't allow that 2 + 2 = 4 can be stupid.
@Cal,
Like I said. If you ever want to do anything other than whine, insult and complain, let me know and I'll engage constructively.
And apologists aren't just ugly
If you only knew how pretty I really am you would be ashamed 😎
Let's see, we've had the
a) time delay criticism (so?)
b) motion occurs over time criticism (not contested by anyone)
c) I don't understand what Aquinas means by "act" and "potency" and "change" criticism (not my problem)
d) macro-level is an illusion criticism (as if)
e) absence of evidence is evidence of absence criticism (mkay)
f) nobody serious person uses the term "essential series" criticism (irrelevant)
g) Newton proves the argument is false criticism (Newton agrees with Aristotle)
h) Newton didn't understand his own theory criticism(sez you)
i) everything has always been in motion criticism (your separate claim to argue)
j) essential series don't exist in reality criticism (see that free body diagram)
k) free body diagrams are just an approximate model criticism (since when are scientific models/approximations false?)
l) you're an idiot criticism (so?)
m) things act to move themselves criticism (logically impossible given the setup of the argument. See 2e and 2f)
n) an infinite regress is possible criticism (logically impossible given the setup of the argument. See 4a and 4b)
None demonstrate that the FW argument fails to be a good argument.
SteveK said...
" None demonstrate that the FW argument fails to be a good argument."
--Your straw man list is pointless.
You can find summaries of my actual arguments here:
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
May 11, 2017 9:00 AM
June 30, 2017 7:08 AM
June 30, 2017 5:45 PM
stevek: "Let's see, we've had the.... "
Nope. You're just a liar, which inhibits your ability to think and present thoughts clearly.
stevek: "None demonstrate that the FW argument fails to be a good argument."
The criticisms offered ALL point out the ways in which the First Way fails to abide by the rules of good argument -- rules that you have already agreed MUST be obeyed in order for an argument to be a good one.
Your misrepresentation and false appraisal is meaningless to a discussion of the First Way. Which stands on its own, and fails according to the rules of good argument.
That you would state otherwise reflects not just your muddled thinking, but the poor character which motivates how you engage with the topic.
Not until you value consistency, and ideas themselves (independent of you), will you be able to engage in an intellectual topic. Until then, your views are interesting only in how they reveal how individuals act shabbily and think poorly -- and how those two habits are inextricably intertwined.
>> March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
o) God must have moved when he changed his mind criticism (not an example of potency being reduced to act)
p) I don't understand the unmoved mover to be God criticism (you're not part of the group referenced by "all")
>> March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
q) the FW says ALL things causing motion are in motion criticism (no, it doesn't say that)
>> March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
c) I don't understand what Aquinas means by "act" and "potency" and "change" criticism (not my problem)
>> May 11, 2017 9:00 AM
a) time delay criticism (so?)
c) I don't understand what Aquinas means by "act" and "potency" and "change" criticism (not my problem)
e) absence of evidence is evidence of absence criticism (mkay)
g) Newton proves the argument is false criticism (Newton agrees with Aristotle)
>> June 30, 2017 7:08 AM
r) begging the question criticism (your rephrasing of the FW created a problem)
>> June 30, 2017 5:45 PM
b) motion occurs over time criticism (not contested by anyone)
d) macro-level is an illusion criticism (as if)
f) nobody serious person uses the term "essential series" criticism (irrelevant)
j) essential series don't exist in reality criticism (see that free body diagram)
k) free body diagrams are just an approximate model criticism (since when are scientific models/approximations false?)
l) you're an idiot criticism (so?)
Post a Comment