bmiller: “This is the sort of causal series that physics can theoretically provide some sort formula to compute the quantitative amount of force derived from the existing person. An essentially ordered series.”
Typical word salad.
---------------------------------
bmiller: "Perhaps not, but he specifically answered that they ARE contributing a "particular amount" of force to the stick being moved. He is logically stuck with that assertion or he will have to admit there are different kinds of causal series." Me: “You lie.” [ includes Stardusty actual, specific answer, below: ] Stardusty: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat WERE all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount." bmiller: “Another typical response from a projector who claimed he'd read the list I posted. Ho hum. / But please explain what you think I got wrong.”
Mkay.
You misrepresented “were all instrumental” as “are contributing a ‘particular amount’ of force’ .
Do you think they mean the same thing? If so, evidence number umpteeneventy that you are made stupider by your dishonesty.
If you agree that the two phrases above don’t mean the same thing, then you have mis-represented what Stardusty had written.
Either way, you remain vile. And profoundly stupid as a result.
Stardusty: "Now, if you disagree then please state where exactly my analysis is mistaken." bmiller: "You can see that here: September 13, 2017 1:13 PM."
No, we can't. We can read your responses to Legion, none of which address the question Stardusty (and I, previously) asked you to address exactly and specifically.
You remain dishonest, which makes you stupider.
bmiller: "A man moves a stick by applying force."
Only in a colloquial sense. The actual forces and events can be described much more precisely than that, while also revealing that the notions of cause and effect and the colloquial terms used can mislead us into not adequately describing all the forces at work.
bmiller: "Science claims to be able to attribute 100% of that force to the existing man."
No, you are simply wrong. Which makes sense, because you remain stupid about what science stipulates, and what it does not. There are other forces at work regarding the motion of the stick -- the stick and the man are subject to gravity which has a role in how the forces applied direct the motion of the stick, etc., the forces that constitute the different objects into their colloquial categories (man, stick), etc. continue to play a role throughout the event, etc.
So, you remain stupid regarding your pronouncements about an event (and the understanding that Stardusty and I possess and that you can't comprehend), a stupidity born of your stubborn refusal to accommodate knowledge that makes you uncomfortable. This appears to be best explained as a stupidity born of your moral weakness, but I can't rule out a simpler form of stupid.
bmiller: "None to deceased ancient ancestors."
If you are going to single out an event (a man moving a stick) for description, then don't become upset that the event you single out (a man moving a stick) necessarily excludes other events that occurred prior. Your attempt to single out an event is a convenient and useful way to analyze events, but your determination that an event can be described using physical description (physics) does NOT mean that prior events are therefore meaningless. On the contrary, ALL physics NECESSARILY assumes a prior event up to the point of the Big Bang, although most physics refines descriptions to more discrete events in which the effects of prior events are either accounted for or are immeasurable, and thus defy description.
You are so dishonest that I am supremely confident that you will not be able to comprehend and absorb what I wrote in the paragraph above. You will not be able to absorb it and consider the information separately from your prior (overly-simplified) understanding, and this is why you will remain as stupid at this point in the discussion as when you began it.
Like Stevek who knows that he is not really a mechanical engineer (even if he can't bring himself to admit this publicly, because he fears losing face, a sign of moral cowardice), you know that you lack the basic understanding of science that people gain from a well-rounded and rigorous education, let alone the more rigorous and in-depth understanding that someone Stardusty possesses. Until you are able to actually fix that, your efforts to rush ahead to conclusions about reality (based on scientific knowledge) will be as frustrating for you as it for those of us who bother to read your comments.
bmiller: "So the type of series causing the man-hand-stick motion is fundamentally different than the series of men begetting sons. The first is referred to as an essentially ordered series while the second is referred to as an accidentally ordered series."
Nope. Your pronouncements are not only wrong, but reveal the extent that you cannot absorb information that threatens your identity, confining you to remaining profoundly stupid unless you can somehow cure yourself of your moral failings.
You misrepresented “were all instrumental” as “are contributing a ‘particular amount’ of force’ .
I suspect that Strawdusty would agree with me that he would consider ancient deceased ancestors instrumental in both the past tense and also the present tense. Otherwise he would be admitting that they *are not* instrumental for the present motion and in agreement with SteveK and I.
"If you are going to single out an event (a man moving a stick) for description, then don't become upset that the event you single out (a man moving a stick) necessarily excludes other events that occurred prior. Your attempt to single out an event is a convenient and useful way to analyze events, but your determination that an event can be described using physical description (physics) does NOT mean that prior events are therefore meaningless."
The man moving the stick is the example from the First Way, but why would I be upset that it excludes prior events? The purpose of the example is to examine the the ultimate cause of the existing stick's motion, that being the Unmoved Mover. Not it's ontological origins, nor the man's. That is a different subject.
And no one said that prior events are meaningless. But not all events are instances of existing material objects in motion (changing from potency to act). For instance, sometimes things that were not in existence come into existence, as when a man begets a son. That kind of change is called generation.
On the contrary, ALL physics NECESSARILY assumes a prior event up to the point of the Big Bang, although most physics refines descriptions to more discrete events in which the effects of prior events are either accounted for or are immeasurable, and thus defy description.
Sure. No one is denying the universe has a history. But as I mentioned not all events are motion in the sense of the First Way.
This was all I read that was worth responding to. The rest was mostly projection.
Cal: >> "Only in a colloquial sense. The actual forces and events can be described much more precisely than that, while also revealing that the notions of cause and effect and the colloquial terms used can mislead us into not adequately describing all the forces at work."
Incoherent babbling doesn't explain anything. Get specific.
>> "Your attempt to single out an event is a convenient and useful way to analyze events, but your determination that an event can be described using physical description (physics) does NOT mean that prior events are therefore meaningless."
Adding prior events to a single event does NOT mean that ALL prior events have a causal relationship to that single event. Some of them ARE meaningless.
Ex: Event 1: Susan picks up the cup and moves it to the sink. Event 2: Henry picks up the cup and moves it to the table.
Accidental series The objects in Event 2 did NOT cause Event 1 to occur, or vice versa. There's no causal relationship. Henry isn't necessary for the motion of Event 1 and Susan isn't necessary to the motion of Event 2. However...
Essential series Henry IS necessary (essential) to the motion of Event 2. Henry is causing the motion. Susan IS necessary (essential) to the motion of Event 1. Susan is causing the motion.
>> "On the contrary, ALL physics NECESSARILY assumes a prior event up to the point of the Big Bang"
Nobody is denying prior events. This is about WHAT is necessary (essential) for motion to occur. Not all prior events are necessary for a motion to occur.
bmiller: "This was all I read that was worth responding to. The rest was mostly projection."
Did you think I was projecting when I asked you:
Me: "Do you think [“were all instrumental” and “are contributing a ‘particular amount’ of force’] mean the same thing?"
If you do think they mean the same thing, why would you think that? Tell us exactly what makes you think those two phrases in quotes above are equivalent.
If you don't believe those two phrases are equivalent, then you should correct your thinking and modify your position, because you would have been misrepresenting Stardusty's and my position when you represented that the two phrases are somehow equivalent.
That's what reasonable people do.
Do you disagree that that's what reasonable people do -- explain their thinking exactly and precisely and concisely so as to show how what they believe is indeed correct, or realize they had misunderstood and correct their beliefs?
Do you think your response to the questions above will reveal that you are reacting emotionally and with pride and dishonesty, or do you think your response will reveal that you can, sometimes, adopt a position of humility and consistency and rationality?
Deluded Cal: >> "If you don't believe those two phrases are equivalent, then you should correct your thinking and modify your position, because you would have been misrepresenting Stardusty's and my position when you represented that the two phrases are somehow equivalent."
This was already addressed. If Dusty is saying they aren't equivalent then...
bmiller: "Otherwise he would be admitting that they *are not* instrumental for the present motion and in agreement with SteveK and I"
Me: "Do you think [“were all instrumental” and “are contributing a ‘particular amount’ of force’] mean the same thing?"
No.
This is where I think you are projecting. Do you think your response to the questions above will reveal that you are reacting emotionally and with pride and dishonesty, or do you think your response will reveal that you can, sometimes, adopt a position of humility and consistency and rationality?
On the other hand, this is a reasonable question. If you do think they mean the same thing, why would you think that? Tell us exactly what makes you think those two phrases in quotes above are equivalent.
Of course I don't think they mean the same thing. I speak the English language and understand that there is a difference between past tense and present tense. But Strawdusty is claiming that a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past. This is apparent from the list (and thread) I posted from Feser's blog (with links). Linked first here:July 23, 2017 3:15 PM, then here: August 08, 2017 8:52 PM
Did you read and understand my response? I suspect that Strawdusty would agree with me that he would consider ancient deceased ancestors instrumental in both the past tense and also the present tense. Otherwise he would be admitting that they *are not* instrumental for the present motion and in agreement with SteveK and I.
I think that I have represented Strawdusty's concept accurately and it illustrates the dilemma he is left with. 1) Claim that deceased relative move sticks now or 2) Admit that there are 2 different types of causal series.
One further note:
He has so confounded the definitions of "essentially ordered" and "accidentally ordered" that he used the definition of one when referring to the other.
I don't blame you for being confused trying to follow his incoherency.
Something can be "instrumental" from the perspective of history, but not instrumental from the perspective of that something causing a motion.
That's right. As an analogy, a hammer that was used in the past to build a hammer factory and was destroyed does not contribute to a different hammer's momentum/force nailing nails today.
bmiller: “But Strawdusty is claiming that a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past. This is apparent from the list (and thread) I posted from Feser's blog (with links). Linked first here:July 23, 2017 3:15 PM, then here: August 08, 2017 8:52 PM”
Your August 08, 2017 8:52 reference references 21 comments. Where exactly in those comments does Stardusty claim what you say — “that a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past> ?
Cite exactly the words (from the links you provided) he uses that make you think he says, “a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past.”
If you fail to find a citation where he says what you have claimed he said, will you admit that you have misrepresented what he said?
bmiller: “Did you read and understand my response? —> I suspect that Strawdusty would agree with me that he would consider ancient deceased ancestors instrumental in both the past tense and also the present tense. Otherwise he would be admitting that they *are not* instrumental for the present motion and in agreement with SteveK and I.”
Seeing as how a present event in which past events were instrumental can’t involve both in the same frame of time (otherwise one would have not preceded the other), your suspicion seems completely unfounded.
bmiller: “I think that I have represented Strawdusty's concept accurately and it illustrates the dilemma he is left with.”
I’m still waiting to see a citation where Stardusty wrote that “a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past.”
Are you going to provide that quote?
bmiller: [the dilemma is:] “1) Claim that deceased relative move sticks now / or / 2) Admit that there are 2 different types of causal series.”
Ha. Or, simply come to understand that all events are necessarily preceded by prior ones all the way up to the point of the Big Bang. But that would require that you understand basic science.
bmiller: “One further note: / He has so confounded the definitions of "essentially ordered" and "accidentally ordered" that he used the definition of one when referring to the other. / I don't blame you for being confused trying to follow his incoherency.”
You are so stupid that you think that you are pointing out a lone individual’s misunderstanding, when in fact the individual who misunderstands is you, and what you fail to understand is a vast body of knowledge that can’t be appreciated or understood without first understanding basic science. Truly, reading your comments is like listening to a caveman claim that virtually the entire world is too stupid to understand that a 747 cannot possibly fly.
Your August 08, 2017 8:52 reference references 21 comments. Where exactly in those comments does Stardusty claim what you say — “that a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past> ?
Of course I never claimed to be quoting him, only to be summarizing his position which can be ascertained from the context of the thread.
Strawdusty's post July 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM "Consider the deceased father of the man moving the stick." --Ok, let's
Here Strawdusty agrees the topic is a man moving a stick in the present and the relationship of that movement with the deceased father.
Strawdusty's post July 19, 2017 at 7:14 AM The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount.
The man is moving the stick by applying force. Strawdusty attributes to the deceased relatives "some particular amount" of that force. Now it is possible that he is saying that in the past they anticipated that the man would be moving the stick and somehow traveled time to supply it, or they may be supplying it from heaven. He didn't elaborate, but I assumed he didn't mean heaven or time travel.
Are you going to provide that quote?
No. Do you still think there is no difference between quoting someone and presenting their position accurately?
Ha. Or, simply come to understand that all events are necessarily preceded by prior ones all the way up to the point of the Big Bang. But that would require that you understand basic science.
Hey, I didn't create the dilemma. Strawdusty did. Basic science holds that force moves things. If deceased relatives are responsible for moving things now then they must be providing a force, otherwise, how are they responsible for moving things now?
But you never did answer this question. Maybe we can reach an agreement when you tell me exactly which of these you agree with:
Do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I agree.
Or do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I disagree.
The relevant question is exactly what is causing the force moving the stick. I claim that only an existent being can cause the force. Do you claim otherwise?
Oh. And of course you end with more projection. Poor Little Cal. Will you ever grow up?
@bmiler, As I thought, you seem to be suffering from a garden variety reading comprehension problem:
Stardusty: “The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount.” bmiller: “The man is moving the stick by applying force.”
Colloquially, your statement above is true. In reality, the event is far more complicated. But so far this is fine. Unfortunately, you go on:
bmiller: “Strawdusty attributes to the deceased relatives "some particular amount" of that force.”
This is where your reading comprehension problem begins. Because in Stardusty's statement above he does NOT in fact indicate that ancestors are moving the stick — he merely indicates that prior events occurred that brought us to the point where a man moves a stick — among them, a grandfather, a father, and the previous heartbeat. Without each of these predecessors, the event singled out as the man moving the stick would not be about to occur.
That is all. Nowhere does Stardusty claim (as you have apparently misread) that predecessors per se are actually there moving the stick — only that those predecessors were all necessary (instrumental) for the components of the event to be in place when the event occurs.
Your problem above is a basic SAT level reading comprehension problem, one that you would get wrong with your answer on the test. As further evidenced by your expanded interpretation below:
bmiller: “Now it is possible that he is saying that in the past they anticipated that the man would be moving the stick and somehow traveled time to supply it, or they may be supplying it from heaven. He didn't elaborate, but I assumed he didn't mean heaven or time travel.”
Moving on:
Me: “Are you going to provide that quote?” bmiller: “No. Do you still think there is no difference between quoting someone and presenting their position accurately?”
As seen above, your problem lies in your basic reading comprehension problem. Asking for a quote helps to see where your reading fails to accurately portray the plain reading of the text.
bmiller: “Hey, I didn't create the dilemma. Strawdusty did.”
As we see more plainly now, you created the "dilemma" with your basic reading comprehension problem.
bmiller: “Basic science holds that force moves things. If deceased relatives are responsible for moving things now then they must be providing a force, otherwise, how are they responsible for moving things now?”
Since you misunderstood the text, this is a twisted problem of your invention. Since you don't understand basic science, your question is also malformed.
The point made by Stardusty (and myself) is that when one singles out a particular event for description, one is still left with necessary prior events that allowed that particular event to occur; a man CANNOT move a stick without first having arrived at the place where the stick will be moved, the atoms that make up the stick were assembled from components in the atmosphere over decades or centuries, those atoms were created in a star billions of years ago, and on and on and on all the way back to the Big Bang. Very simple, stuff. So simple, it's inescapable. Your not being able to comprehend it is the only thing that needs explanation, and I have offered my explanations for in prior comments.
bmiller: “The relevant question is exactly what is causing the force moving the stick. I claim that only an existent being can cause the force. Do you claim otherwise?”
As seen by reading your comments prior and this one, the actual problem in this particular issue is your reading comprehension (which is multiplied by other errors and deficiencies that I've gone over at some length).
You seem to think that these questions are somehow trenchant. They’re not, but at the risk of not being complete in my responses I’ll address them more specifically:
bmiller: “But you never did answer this question. Maybe we can reach an agreement when you tell me exactly which of these you agree with: / Do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I agree.”
“Particular amount” basically means isolating something for the purposes of description and explanation. Since examining something in particular necessarily means isolating the thing (in this case, an event), the question is nonsensical; the thing being described is a man moving a stick, which necessarily isolates a continuous stream (reality) into an event (the man moving the stick) which by the nature of describing events introduces and terminates within the frames being described.
bmiller: “Or do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I disagree.”
Well, since force is normally defined as the amount of work needed to set an object in motion in a given direction over a particular amount of time, and since the event being described is particular to the time frame in which the stick is moved, then the question (again) doesn’t really make sense — it’s like asking, “Do you think that objects outside a square are inside it?”
bmiller: “The relevant question is exactly what is causing the force moving the stick. I claim that only an existent being can cause the force. Do you claim otherwise?”
With regard to physics, an “existent being” is redundant. Something is real, or it is not.
Your error is basically that you appear to think that because we conveniently categorize the complexity of reality (real things, over time) into particular groupings (a man, a stick, a moving stick), when a category no longer applies over time then things actually leave or enter reality. This is a kind of stupidity, as it demonstrates that you lack the flexibility and understanding to adapt the more precise and useful and accurate descriptions offered by scientific description.
bmiller: “Strawdusty attributes to the deceased relatives "some particular amount" of that force.”
Cal:"This is where your reading comprehension problem begins. Because in Stardusty's statement above he does NOT in fact indicate that ancestors are moving the stick — he merely indicates that prior events occurred that brought us to the point where a man moves a stick — among them, a grandfather, a father, and the previous heartbeat. Without each of these predecessors, the event singled out as the man moving the stick would not be about to occur.
That is all. Nowhere does Stardusty claim (as you have apparently misread) that predecessors per se are actually there moving the stick — only that those predecessors were all necessary (instrumental) for the components of the event to be in place when the event occurs."
The only quibble Strawdusty had with my representation was when I assumed he meant the "particular amount" of force being applied by deceased relatives was measurable so I have to assume I got it right. I think he found himself committed to that position by following his logic to it's end. Now he's stuck.
However, if you want to adopt the position that deceased relatives do not supply a "particular amount" of the force of a stick being moved by a decendent, then I think that is a quite reasonable position to take.
The point made by Stardusty (and myself) is that when one singles out a particular event for description, one is still left with necessary prior events that allowed that particular event to occur; a man CANNOT move a stick without first having arrived at the place where the stick will be moved, the atoms that make up the stick were assembled from components in the atmosphere over decades or centuries, those atoms were created in a star billions of years ago, and on and on and on all the way back to the Big Bang. Very simple, stuff. So simple, it's inescapable. Your not being able to comprehend it is the only thing that needs explanation, and I have offered my explanations for in prior comments.
I have no trouble comprehending any of this and I have not disagreed with any of it. Why in the world do you think I disagree?
The disagreement we have is that Strawdusty claims there is only one type of causal series while SteveK and I claim there are 2.
So I agree with you that long deceased relatives do not supply any force to a man moving a stick in the present. Only the form and matter of the man is responsible for that force.
I also agree with you that long deceased relatives are responsible in some way for the man. But it is in a different way than the way the man moves the stick by way of his form and matter.
So when you mention that "a man CANNOT move a stick without first having arrived at the place where the stick will be moved", I completely agree. He would not exist to move the stick if his father had not existed. His father would not have existed if his grandfather had not existed and so on. So they are not responsible for the movement as a series per se (essentially ordered) as you note, but only as a series per accidens (accidentally ordered).
“Particular amount” basically means isolating something for the purposes of description and explanation. Since examining something in particular necessarily means isolating the thing (in this case, an event), the question is nonsensical; the thing being described is a man moving a stick, which necessarily isolates a continuous stream (reality) into an event (the man moving the stick) which by the nature of describing events introduces and terminates within the frames being described.
Well, since force is normally defined as the amount of work needed to set an object in motion in a given direction over a particular amount of time, and since the event being described is particular to the time frame in which the stick is moved, then the question (again) doesn’t really make sense — it’s like asking, “Do you think that objects outside a square are inside it?”
Other than the fact you have the definition of force wrong, how does a question regarding the source of a motive force not "really make sense"? F=ma is the formula used to compute the force of one existing material object impressed upon another existing material object. If you think deceased relatives don't qualify as as *existing material objects*, then the answer to the question would simply be that you too disagree with the statement on those grounds. Which is why I disagree with it. It seems you don't want to answer a very simple question.
bmiller: “The relevant question is exactly what is causing the force moving the stick. I claim that only an existent being can cause the force. Do you claim otherwise?”
With regard to physics, an “existent being” is redundant. Something is real, or it is not.
But you didn't answer the question. Again. You neither agreed or disagreed with my claim. This is called dodging the question.
Cal >> "Seeing as how a present event in which past events were instrumental can’t involve both in the same frame of time (otherwise one would have not preceded the other), your suspicion seems completely unfounded."
Prove that the past event is causally instrumental - meaning the past event caused a next event that caused a next event...which caused the present event.
We've cited numerous examples where past events are not causally linked to present events - thus proving that there are 2 kinds of causal series (essential/accidental), and thus proving that Cal and Dusty are wrong. Not just "in my opinion, wrong" but scientifically, verifiably wrong.
I think your observation that the term instrumental is key. In order for something to be instrumental in a causal series it must be present in the series as well as to lack causal power in itself.
" We've cited numerous examples where past events are not causally linked to present events - thus proving that there are 2 kinds of causal series (essential/accidental), and thus proving that Cal and Dusty are wrong. " --Every causal series is an "accidental" causal series. Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal. Causal influences propagate no faster than c. Thus, no series of events can occur within the limit as t goes to zero.
bmiller said.. September 18, 2017 6:37 PM.
" In order for something to be instrumental in a causal series it must be present in the series" --Human perception of "present" is in fact an internal model of recent past events, imagined near future events, all linked to the incoming temporal sensory data stream, but perceptually these are combined into a temporally static experience that is temporally inaccurate.
" as well as to lack causal power in itself." --All things acting in our perceived present lack causal power in themselves. All "actors" derive their causal power from temporally previous causal influence propagations.
Dusty Repeating your claim doesn't refute the clear examples given that demonstrate that you are verifiably wrong. You claim to value science so why not show it?
--Every causal series is an "accidental" causal series.
Then supply the formula used to derive the "particular amount" of force applied by deceased relatives to the stick being moved today.
" In order for something to be instrumental in a causal series it must be present in the series" --Human perception of "present" is in fact an internal model of recent past events, imagined near future events, all linked to the incoming temporal sensory data stream, but perceptually these are combined into a temporally static experience that is temporally inaccurate.
What a load of Woo. Present in the sentence quoted means existing as a part of the existing series. Such as the man, the hand and the stick. Not deceased relatives.
If you claim there is no difference: Then supply the formula used to derive the "particular amount" of force applied by deceased relatives to the stick being moved today.
--All things acting in our perceived present lack causal power in themselves. All "actors" derive their causal power from temporally previous causal influence propagations.
Then supply the formula used to derive the "particular amount" of force applied by deceased relatives to the stick being moved today.
@Strawdusty, --Every causal series is an "accidental" causal series.
" Then supply the formula used to derive the "particular amount" of force " --Under classical physics, that is the some 100 year old ToR, there is no lower limit on size of causal influences, so in that sense everything in the universe is causally influencing everything else according to propagation no faster than c in an n body problem with n some number times the number of fundamental particles in the universe.
Causal influences progress temporally. In principle every fundamental object is part of the causal series for every other fundamental object. To isolate any particular molecule from the past and trace its influence on another molecule in our perceived present is in principle a finite part of this n body problem, but both the calculation and the measurement of such is generally beyond human capabilities.
Thus, besides being immeasurable it is also incalculable.
Thus, besides being immeasurable it is also incalculable.
Ah, more dissembling. This "particular amount" is now not only "immeasurable" "it is also incalculable".
Physicists claim to be able to account completely for the force of the man moving the stick without reference to deceased relatives. You claim otherwise, but cannot give any formula nor a way to validate your theory. This sounds like an unscientific load of Woo to me.
Now it's one thing to disregard present scientific theories when pressing an argument, but it's another to claim that science is on your side when it clearly is not.
There is a sense that deceased relatives are responsible for the man moving the stick, but it is not a direct causation (per se). They are responsible for the existence of the man in the first place but do not have to be physically present in order for the man to move the stick and so are responsible in a different sense (per accidens).
Delusional Dusty doesn't know the physics of causality. The multitude of tiny forces acting on an object have their relative influence, but they aren't cumulatively causing sticks to move. We know that the cumulative influences of the father/grandfather were all present just prior to the motion - yet they didn't move the sticks. Why? Because the cumulative influences aren't capable. That's the science. Don't be a science denier.
Life on earth cannot exist without the sun. It's necessary and has influence, but only a science denier like Dusty would TRY to argue that the sun is moving sticks, trains, golf balls, cups, etc.
bmiller: “The only quibble Strawdusty had with my representation was when I assumed he meant the "particular amount" of force being applied by deceased relatives was measurable so I have to assume I got it right.”
What?
Here’s how it actually went down:
bmiller: “…entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some physically measurable force to your golf swing." Stardusty: “—Liar. I never said the force was physically measurable. Every causal series is "accidental". A cause is instrumental to the effect only in the senses that it is part of a temporal causal series or that the the cause is simultaneous with the effect in the limit as t goes to zero.”
It is pointed out that you are a liar, how you lied, what the correct representation in fact is (how you got wrong), and after that explicit interaction you sum it up as, “I have to assume I got it right”!
As I think I’ve said before, you dishonesty makes you appear even stupider.
bmiller: “However, if you want to adopt the position that deceased relatives do not supply a "particular amount" of the force of a stick being moved by a decendent, then I think that is a quite reasonable position to take.”
Only someone ignorant of basic science would think that because physical reality is unavoidably preceded by events that go all the way back to the Big Bang, this unavoidable determinism is equivalent to “a stick being moved by a descendent”. Your attempt to misrepresent reveals your dishonesty, and your misrepresentation reveals how ignorant you truly are of basic science.
Cal: >> "Only someone ignorant of basic science would think that because physical reality is unavoidably preceded by events that go all the way back to the Big Bang, this unavoidable determinism is equivalent to “a stick being moved by a descendent”. "
Which means a particular past isn't necessarily involved in causing a particular motion. Which means some past events are irrelevant to the FW argument, and some are relevant. We've been saying this for a very long time. Delusional Dusty is the one denying this.
Can we ignore Delusional Dusty and get back to discussing reality?
Me: “ “Particular amount” basically means isolating something for the purposes of description and explanation. Since examining something in particular necessarily means isolating the thing (in this case, an event), the question is nonsensical; the thing being described is a man moving a stick, which necessarily isolates a continuous stream (reality) into an event (the man moving the stick) which by the nature of describing events introduces and terminates within the frames being described.” bmiller: “This seems to say that when physics is used to calculate force it is engaged in nonsense.”
Um, no. Only someone genuinely weird (an apologist, for instance) would think that.
bmiller: “There seems to be a lot of that nonsense going on.”
Tell me about it.
bmiller: “Here is a site that explains the physics of hockey sticks. These calculations are used to design hockey sticks that don't break. Should hockey stick designers include calculations for the force (F-ma) supplied by deceased relatives or not?”
Nope. They should design hockey sticks for the events in which the use of hockey sticks will be isolated. Your question reveals that you a) don’t understand what I’ve written above, and b) don’t understand basic science (by which I also mean you don’t understand the context or relevancy of scientific processes as they are applied).
Me: “Well, since force is normally defined as the amount of work needed to set an object in motion in a given direction over a particular amount of time, and since the event being described is particular to the time frame in which the stick is moved, then the question (again) doesn’t really make sense — it’s like asking, “Do you think that objects outside a square are inside it?”
bmiller: “Other than the fact you have the definition of force wrong…”
How exactly does my definition get force wrong?
Me: “…how does a question regarding the source of a motive force not "really make sense”?”
Because force equations aren’t normally used as historical tools, and if they were to be then then they are limited by the extent to which those contributing forces can still be measured.
bmiller: “F=ma is the formula used to compute the force of one existing material object impressed upon another existing material object.”
So what?
bmiller: “If you think deceased relatives don't qualify as as *existing material objects*, then the answer to the question would simply be that you too disagree with the statement on those grounds. Which is why I disagree with it. It seems you don't want to answer a very simple question.”
Is there a question in there? I basically see a lot of attempts by you to save face and pretend that through all this you somehow have a relevant point to make and that you understand things like basic science and the rules of argument, etc.
It is pointed out that you are a liar, how you lied, what the correct representation in fact is (how you got wrong), and after that explicit interaction you sum it up as, “I have to assume I got it right”!
Once again Strawdusty falsely accused me of *misquoting* him here: Stardusty: “—Liar. I never said the force was physically measurable.
I said he *thought* something, not that he had *said* that something. However since he added that stipulation after almost 2 months into the discussion, I revised my interpretation accordingly after that. He still in fact insists that deceased relatives somehow apply a particular amount of force to sticks moving in the present. Although now he has dissembled further to say that the force is not only immeasurable, but incalculable.
However you reliably continue to project your own shortcomings.
bmiller: “However, if you want to adopt the position that deceased relatives do not supply a "particular amount" of the force of a stick being moved by a decedent, then I think that is a quite reasonable position to take.”
Only someone ignorant of basic science would think that because physical reality is unavoidably preceded by events that go all the way back to the Big Bang, this unavoidable determinism is equivalent to “a stick being moved by a decedent”. Your attempt to misrepresent reveals your dishonesty, and your misrepresentation reveals how ignorant you truly are of basic science.
Do you deceased relatives apply force to moving sticks now or not? I claim physics says no. What is your claim?
Um, no. Only someone genuinely weird (an apologist, for instance) would think that.
I can only read what you wrote: ""Particular amount” basically means isolating something for the purposes of description and explanation. Since examining something in particular necessarily means isolating the thing (in this case, an event), the question is nonsensical;Since examining something in particular necessarily means isolating the thing (in this case, an event), the question is nonsensical;"
The question was "Do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks?"
I think the question is very easy to answer with a yes or no. It seems your answer is that the question involves categorical differences and in that case the answer would be a simple yes "relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks". Can I assume that yes is your answer then?
How exactly does my definition get force wrong?
F=ma. You described force over time which is called impulse. It was covered in the hockey stick article.
Because force equations aren’t normally used as historical tools, and if they were to be then then they are limited by the extent to which those contributing forces can still be measured.
I agree. Which is why things that don't exist are not considered by physics as contributing to the force of moving things in the present. There are at least 2 different series of causation and apparently you agree.
Is there a question in there? I basically see a lot of attempts by you to save face and pretend that through all this you somehow have a relevant point to make and that you understand things like basic science and the rules of argument, etc.
No there isn't a question. It's an observation that you were dodging the questions I asked before.
It seems that you now agree with me in your latest post where you differentiate between "force equations" and "historical tools". I may not agree with what you consider "historical tools", but we agree there are categorical differences between the 2 causal series.
So if we both agree that there are 2 categorically different causal series, what are you arguing with me about?
bmiller: “I said he *thought* something, not that he had *said* that something….Although now he has dissembled further to say that the force is not only immeasurable, but incalculable.”
What a caricature of projection you are. You accuse Stardusty of dissembling in the same paragraph in which you begin by dissembling. You do not understand what it is to be a liar, what it means to dissemble, and as can be seen by your posts, being aware of psychological phenomenon doesn’t mean one can recognize it or correct it in oneself.
bmiller: “However you reliably continue to project your own shortcomings.”
It’s truly amazing to behold.
bmiller: “Do you deceased relatives apply force to moving sticks now or not? I claim physics says no. What is your claim?”
This question is just so stupid it’s hard to know how to respond to it. It’s been pointed out over and over that events occur over time, so the first part (an event occurring that simultaneously impacts a subsequent event) assumes simultaneity, but since simultaneity of events in a causal series is EXACTLY what we point out is wrong (unsound) regarding the First Way, then you should have your answer. The answer is, No, “deceased relatives” do not apply force to moving sticks now. So your question merely reiterates how you remain unable to absorb or consider an interpretation (basic science) that is different than what you understood prior, which is another way of saying that you remain stupid.
bmiller: “The question was "Do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks?"
I know.
bmiller: “I think the question is very easy to answer with a yes or no. It seems your answer is that the question involves categorical differences and in that case the answer would be a simple yes "relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks". Can I assume that yes is your answer then?”
Actually, questions that reveal a fundamental misunderstanding are ALWAYS difficult to answer with a yes or a no, because doing so implies that the question itself is well formed.
For instance, “Do ghosts sleep?” is not an easy question to answer with a yes or a no, because the question itself reveals that the person asking the question is fundamentally wrong about something that invalidates the scenario in which there could be a correct answer.
Your inability to grasp what we are explaining (basic science) concerning how physical events are described is revealed by your question, “Do you deceased relatives apply force to moving sticks now or not?” in the same way that a superstitious and credulous person’s inability to discern reality is revealed by the question, “Do ghosts sleep?”
Me: “How exactly does my definition get force wrong?” bmiller: “F=ma. You described force over time which is called impulse.”
I thought we were talking about moving sticks, which occurs over time.
bmiller: “Which is why things that don't exist are not considered by physics as contributing to the force of moving things in the present. There are at least 2 different series of causation and apparently you agree.”
You remain fundamentally confused, as explained above. There are not two different series of causation. There are only events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang. Your inability to grasp this alternative concept isn’t a sign of your being correct; it’s a signal that you remain stupid on a subject that you are supposedly trying to grasp.
If you were to take a basic (high school) physics course, with lab work, I think you would understand things as they have been explained to you. But racing off half-cocked to read whatever physics-y article you can find on the internets isn’t a real substitute for the kind of fundamental grasp of basic science that you obviously lack.
bmiller: “No there isn't a question. It's an observation that you were dodging the questions I asked before.”
Cal: >> "It’s been pointed out over and over that events occur over time, so the first part (an event occurring that simultaneously impacts a subsequent event) assumes simultaneity, but since simultaneity of events in a causal series is EXACTLY what we point out is wrong (unsound) regarding the First Way, then you should have your answer."
It's been stated many times that a time delay between cause and effect does not affect the soundness of the FW argument. Yours is an invalid criticism.
>> "The answer is, No, “deceased relatives” do not apply force to moving sticks now."
The question is did they at one time apply a force responsible for causing sticks to move in some later time frame? A simple Yes/No will suffice
Cal: "There are not two different series of causation. There are only events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang."
This is demonstrably false. The examples we've cited demonstrate that SOME past events do NOT cause SOME future events. That means there are 2 different series - one where a past event causes a future event, and one where a past event does not cause a future event. Accidental vs. Essential.
You are clearly too stupid to understand this since we've made you aware of it several times. Perhaps you should go back to school and observe the physics experiment that will prove this to your satisfaction.
This is the point of contention: bmiller: “Basic science holds that force moves things. If deceased relatives are responsible for moving things now then they must be providing a force, otherwise, how are they responsible for moving things now?”
Cal: The point made by Stardusty (and myself) is that when one singles out a particular event for description, one is still left with necessary prior events that allowed that particular event to occur; a man CANNOT move a stick without first having arrived at the place where the stick will be moved, the atoms that make up the stick were assembled from components in the atmosphere over decades or centuries, those atoms were created in a star billions of years ago, and on and on and on all the way back to the Big Bang.
Yes, in this case physics does single out the particular force (f=ma) responsible for moving the stick, and none of the force is from deceased relatives.
You want to insert "prior events" into the equation but they don't fit. Events are historical circumstances that lead up to the present, but there is no *physics* related grounds for attributing historical events to a force that is solely attributable to the matter and form of a man acting in the present.
You acknowledge that here: Because force equations aren’t normally used as historical tools, and if they were to be then then they are limited by the extent to which those contributing forces can still be measured.
And you are correct that force equations and historical records are different.
But then you make this statement: You remain fundamentally confused, as explained above. There are not two different series of causation. There are only events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang. Your inability to grasp this alternative concept isn’t a sign of your being correct; it’s a signal that you remain stupid on a subject that you are supposedly trying to grasp.
OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives. After all, with the information on the site provided, we have all we need to do the calculation of causation due to Sidney. You should be able to use the same technique to calculate the force of "events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang".
Where is the formula? Where the theory of how one would even compute this? What a load of Woo.
It's apparent that Cal has no idea what Strawdusty's position is.
Strawdusty has to maintain that deceased relatives *are* responsible for sticks presently moving or admit that they are not instrumental in present movement and thereby have to admit there are 2 different causal series.
Cal implicitly disagrees with and undercuts Strawdusty while trying do defend what he thought Strawdusty's position was.
@bmiller It really is entertaining to watch these guys implode. Dusty doesn't come around any more because he can only make himself look worse by opening his mouth.
bmiller: “Do you deceased relatives apply force to moving sticks now or not?" stevek: "The question is did they at one time apply a force responsible for causing sticks to move in some later time frame? A simple Yes/No will suffice"
Your inability to comprehend basic science and the straightforward rules of argument, based on a combination of ignorance and your moral failings, makes you both so stupid that you don't even seem to understand what the question is that you somehow think is relevant to this tenuous "defense" of the First Way.
I would say that apologetics makes one stupid, but this case, it's two.
Pull yourselves together. Try and write precisely and concisely. Try to carefully frame your rebuttal to the criticisms offered. That exercise, undergone honestly, is the only way either of you will start a journey back from the vast stupidity in which you wander.
bmiller: “OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner.”
Reread what I wrote, then define what you mean by causation. Carefully and precisely. Let’s see how that works out for you.
bmiller: “Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives.”
What is the method you are using to calculate the force of the event you describe? Does that method allow for measuring what you ask for — the effect of a “ ‘particular amount’ of that force due to his deceased relatives”? If that’s the case, then you have your answer. If you’re saying that you don’t know what the method is that could derive the measurement and calculation you ask for, then your question is likely incoherent or intractable. And that is a problem for the person posing the “question,” not those who can’t make sense of his thoughts, either.
bmiller: “After all, with the information on the site provided, we have all we need to do the calculation of causation due to Sidney.”
Do we? What’s the calculation that you’re using, and what are the measurements?
bmiller: “You should be able to use the same technique to calculate the force of "events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang”.”
Sure, I could do the math. What’s the calculation, and what are the measurements?
———
It’s obvious that you don’t understand the rules of argument, basic science, and that you are made even stupider by your dishonest questions.
You have made yourself so stupid that you think that imagining incoherent or intractable questions constitutes a real rebuttal, but all it does is demonstrate that you can’t think very clearly, and that you believe that an argument from ignorance (what I ask for is unanswerable, therefore, my argument wins!) is not a known fallacy.
Why don’t you try careful thinking, and honesty? Don’t you want to appear smart, rather than stupid?
@bmiller Notice that Cal is asking you to "carefully and precisely" explain what you mean - when neither Cal or Dusty have done this.
All attempts to get them to carefully and precisely explain exactly how they know the relatives are causing sticks to move have gone unanswered. All we get are vague and evasive answers, like the one Cal just gave us, but never a careful and precise answer.
I suggest you don't take the bait. Let Cal carefully and precisely explain how they know this is true. After all, they are the self-proclaimed experts of physics.
stevek: "All attempts to get them to carefully and precisely explain exactly how they know the relatives are causing sticks to move have gone unanswered. All we get are vague and evasive answers, like the one Cal just gave us, but never a careful and precise answer."
And the incessant apologetic projection continues unabated.
Quote the passage where you think that Stardusty or I have said that we "know the relatives are causing sticks to move." Compare whatever you cite with the words you use -- that we "know the relatives are causing sticks to move." Understand that your paraphrase, compared to what we have written, will demonstrate how your dishonesty confuses your stupid mind even further.
I predict that what you cite will demonstrate (yet again) that you lack basic reading comprehension skills -- that you don't even possess the ability to understand basic terms used consistently, and to employ anything like a consequent precision in your thinking. And that that is how your dishonesty makes you even stupider.
SteveK is right. You are evading telling us how deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick.
After all you said that the 2 types of causation are *not* different: You remain fundamentally confused, as explained above. There are not two different series of causation.
You made the statement. Defend it. Which portion of a force moving a stick in the present is from deceased relatives?
I wonder if Little Cal got himself so confused that he thinks *we* asserted that deceased relatives move sticks in the present a "particular amount". Otherwise why ask us to supply the formula we just asked him and Strawdusty to supply?
It seems the poor boy got himself twisted in a knot :-)
@bmiller As you know, I've proposed various interpretations of Dusty's statement and every one has been rejected as "not what we believe". I've proposed that Dusty means:
a) the Big Bang caused the motion b) the deceased relatives caused the motion c) the alive relatives caused the motion d) none of these things caused the motion
Every one of these interpretations has been labeled "not what we believe". One day I hope to get the careful and precise explanation - but so far Cal and Dusty have not done that.
I suspect they are either pretending to know the physics of causality or are too embarrassed to tell us.
Let's go back to Dusty's agreement with Legion and identity where his thinking is demonstrably wrong.
Legion: "So, I think to summarize Stardusty, we would have something like this:"
Legion: "60 years after grandparents had a child, their grandchild moved a stick. Had the grandparents not had a child, the stick would have never moved."
Prerequisite events/motions are not synonymous with the physics of causality. Several examples have been cited that prove they are not the same. To pick one example, teeing up a golf ball is a prerequisite for one day, MAYBE, getting the ball to move off the tee, however that prerequisite event/motion doesn't cause the ball to move off the tee. One series is instrumental in causing the motion, the other is not.
Legion: "6 years after parents had a child, he moved a stick. Had the parents not had a child, the stick would have never moved."
Same comment as above.
Legion: "A child moves a stick. Had the child's nerves not carried impulses between the brain and hand, the stick would have never moved."
Here we are talking about a causal series that produces the specific motion. The nerves, brain and hand are instrumental in causing the motion. This is not a prerequisite event/motion so that the stick MIGHT one day MAYBE be moved. These things guarantee the stick moves rather than maybe, one day, possibly moving.
Legion: "In all cases, Stardusty is (I think) saying the causes leading up to the child moving the stick are prior to the effect of the stick moving, so they are not categorically different from one another. And presumably, what appears to be an ongoing effect of the child waving the stick around is in fact a series of effects being caused by temporally prior causes. Thus, no essentially ordered series exists with a child moving a stick, as the ongoing effect is illusory when the details are examined in more precise detail."
Demonstrably false. A simple physics experiment can demonstrate the two different categories. One is a series that guarantees the motion, the other is a series that doesn't guarantee the motion.
As you quoted Legion: Legion: "In all cases, Stardusty is (I think) saying the causes leading up to the child moving the stick are prior to the effect of the stick moving, so they are not categorically different from one another.
This was Strawdusty's response: Is that about right, Stardusty?" --Hallelujah!!! Can I have an amen?-)
I guess Cal is not in the *Amen* corner.
But really, Cal has never had any opinion of his own and has never demonstrated he has a clue of what he is criticizing. In fact, he doesn't even understand the actual position he claims to support (Strawdusty's).
Are all *atheist* arguments really *this* bad. How lame.
bmiller: "Demonstrably false. A simple physics experiment can demonstrate the two different categories. One is a series that guarantees the motion, the other is a series that doesn't guarantee the motion."
All events are related to their prior events. You are stuck with this vapid discovery in which events that don't occur don't occur (duh), or that events like what you describe (a person swinging a golf club) occur without being related to prior events.
To his credit, Legion seems to understand perfectly well what Stardusty had said. It's amazing how easy feats of apprehension are when one simply approaches them without duplicity and pride. It's almost as if there's a relationship between honesty and intelligence. Who knew!?
Legion: "60 years after grandparents had a child, their grandchild moved a stick. Had the grandparents not had a child, the stick would have never moved."
"Prerequisite events/motions are not synonymous with the physics of causality. Several examples have been cited that prove they are not the same. To pick one example, teeing up a golf ball is a prerequisite for one day, MAYBE, getting the ball to move off the tee, however that prerequisite event/motion doesn't cause the ball to move off the tee. One series is instrumental in causing the motion, the other is not."
--Like the typical theist time confuses you. When analyzing a time sequence of events the theist typically has a very difficult time abstractly moving forward and backward in time and keeping the sequence of events logically ordered.
Legion was speaking in a retrospective sense. Today we see the child moved the stick so it stands to reason that there was a causal series that led up to that observed fact and that granddad having sex with grandma was a part of the series.
Each step in a causal series requires a temporal process, a physical motion of objects changing position over time, requiring exchanges of energy, and the sex act is no exception.
There is no humanly available method to either calculate or measure such forces of past events on a microscopic scale, thus they are incalculable and immeasurable while at the same time being finite temporal processes, or "accidental" causal series.
Every series is an "accidental" causal series. Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, inside which a series cannot "fit".
Cal: >> "All events are related to their prior events."
This statement has nothing to do with the physics of causality. I have a repeatable physics experiment that can demonstrate the two categories that Dusty denies.
When can we expect your careful and precise explanation? If we ever get it, I expect it will include the term "illusion" because that's what you'll need to explain away the physics experiment.
Deluded Dusty >> "Like the typical theist time confuses you"
An observable physics experiment does not confuse anyone.
>> "Today we see the child moved the stick so it stands to reason that there was a causal series that led up to that observed fact and that granddad having sex with grandma was a part of the series."
That is your claim to prove so get busy.
What we have done is shown that you are wrong about there being only one category. The examples we've cited show that there are clearly two series - essential and accidental. If your claim were to be believed then we would observe this following
Deluded Dusty's theory: "Today we see the child moved the golf ball from the tee so it stands to reason that there was a causal series that led up to that observed fact and that placing the ball on the tee was a part of the series."
*Bzzt* Wrong. Observably wrong. Placing the ball on the tee is NOT part of the series that moved the ball from the tee. It's accidental to the essential series that causes the motion from the tee.
When can we expect your careful and precise explanation?
Cal: I've cited several examples that you can test via experimentation. I'll leave it to you to carry out the experiment in order to convince yourself that the results I stated are accurately described.
When can we expect your careful and precise explanation of the causality? Unlike you, I've explained how observation can demonstrate that Dusty is wrong. You and Dusty have done nothing - literally.
Again, all we get from Cal and Dusty are vague and evasive answers but never a careful and precise answer that explains HOW the relatives cause the motion.
When can we expect your careful and precise explanation? You SAY that you know the physics of causality. Are you bluffing? The answer appears to be 'yes'.
stevek: "I have a repeatable physics experiment that can demonstrate the two categories that Dusty denies." Me: "Oh, do tell."
Me: "Still waiting. / Or will this take as long as it has for you to admit that you lied about being a mechanical engineer?"
stevek: "I've cited several examples that you can test via experimentation. I'll leave it to you to carry out the experiment in order to convince yourself that the results I stated are accurately described."
It's real simple, Cal. You and Dusty claim to know the physics of causality. Dusty has made a claim that he hasn't given any evidence for. Naturally, I'm skeptical of his claim - as we all should be. Reality suggests he's wrong so I'm maintaining my skepticism until he can demonstrate what he claims.
If you're too stupid to be able carry out an experiment, the very least you can do is carefully and precisely explain the physics of how relatives cause sticks to move.
Can you or Dusty do that or are you both pretending to know the physics of causality?
@stevek, I respond to bmiller's comments more often than yours because while I think that bmiller suffers from the same problems as you (ignorance, and a stupidity borne of moral turpitude) he does sometimes seem to have the ability to recognize the problems in his thinking.
On the other hand, you appear genuinely too stupid (either by dint of intellect, or greater shabbiness of character, or the combination of the two that I have theorized about) for me to respond to most times.
Your latest spate of comments may be the most egregious example of your comments being beneath need of any response.
You don't know what you don't know, and you are too shabby to realize the extent to which your stupidity is a burden on others. And as I've said before, even my awesome power have their limits.
stevek: "More evasion. More claims. More projecting. More bluster"
Um hm.
stevek (just prior): "I have a repeatable physics experiment that can demonstrate the two categories that Dusty denies." Me: "Oh, do tell." stevek (evading and refusing to do what he claimed he would do prior): "I've cited several examples that you can test via experimentation. I'll leave it to you to carry out the experiment in order to convince yourself that the results I stated are accurately described."
Above Stevek can't fulfill his claim, evades, blusters, and (quelle surprise!) projects this shabbiness onto someone else.
Only a profoundly stupid person would be unable to see it.
Until you can back up your claims with evidence or a careful and precise explanation of the physics, I remain unconvinced that your claims are actually true.
Since you're unwilling to do that, I guess we're done.
Legion was speaking in a retrospective sense. Today we see the child moved the stick so it stands to reason that there was a causal series that led up to that observed fact and that granddad having sex with grandma was a part of the series.
The causal series that led up to his existence involved his generation by his ancestors. The causal series moving the stick involves only the matter and form of the man, not deceased relatives, at least according to science. So, the decision of the man, the nerves and contracting muscles are all instrumental in moving the stick. It is only incidental that the man had so and so for a grandfather.
Since we can theoretically calculate the force of the moving stick due to the man's matter and form, then we should likewise be able to theoretically calculate the force of the moving stick due to the man's deceased relatives if the 2 types of causation are the same. Since we cannot, then the 2 series must be different. The later is incidental (per accidens or accidental) and the former is essential (per se).
There is no humanly available method to either calculate or measure such forces of past events on a microscopic scale, thus they are incalculable and immeasurable while at the same time being finite temporal processes, or "accidental" causal series.
No, there simply is no scientific theory that attributes any "particular amount" of the force of a man moving a stick to deceased relatives. No more than unicorns are doing it.
It seems when science contradicts crank atheistic theories atheists merely dump science. I'm not surprised.
It's all up to you. Will you keep pretending or will you follow through on your claims?
Yeh, you know where I'll put my money. All Little Cal is capable of is pretty lame ad hominem attacks. If only he had some clever insults it wouldn't be so boring.
Meanwhile Cal refuses defend his position and tell us: How deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick.
stevek: "Suit yourself, Cal. / Until you can back up your claims with evidence or a careful and precise explanation of the physics, I remain unconvinced that your claims are actually true. / Since you're unwilling to do that, I guess we're done."
As demonstrated above (as in, just read what you wrote, and your obvious inability to justify what you wrote):
You are a liar. You are a coward. You are stupid.
Congratulations on being the poster child for why apologist are the worst kind of people.
bmiller: "All Little Cal is capable of is pretty lame ad hominem attacks. If only he had some clever insults it wouldn't be so boring. / Meanwhile Cal refuses defend his position and tell us: / How deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick."
How's it feel to have stevek (the moron and revealed liar -- "I'm a mechanical engineer.") -- as your only ally in your apologetics? Does the contemptible company you keep make you feel smart, or does it make you feel stupid?
If it makes you feel smart, does it ever occur to you that your estimate reveals to everyone that you are sincerely stupid?
Once again, lame boring ad hominem attacks instead of answering the relevant question and defending your claim"
How deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick.
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be educated in science having actually studied it rather than just demonstrating your lack of education by spouting nonsense?
bmiller: "How deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick."
That you think that the above is my position is only evidence for how stupid you are, and how empty your supposed defense of the First Way remains.
Do you see how what you call an ad hominem -- that you are stupid and shabby in the way that all apologetics are both stupid and shabby -- is tied directly to your inability to grasp and represent my position correctly?
What you do is what you are. And you and stevek both write stupid and shabby comments. I do not apologize for your confusing that fact with an ad hominem, in the same way that I don't apologize for you being shabby and stupid.
To summarize: Cal and Dusty have offered no evidence, no mathematical equations and no careful and precise explanation to support their claims. The rules of good argument dictate that criticisms that rest on unsupported claims of this kind do nothing to weaken ANY argument. Therefore the FW argument has not been shown to be unsound or invalid.
stevek: "Cal and Dusty have offered no evidence... "
You lie. We have pointed out that the First Way fails by not being sound, as it contradicts physical reality (which is about as much evidence as one can offer).
stevek: "...and no careful and precise explanation to support their claims."
You lie. Stardusty has offered careful explanations in prior comments here, and has also offered links back to those comments many, many times.
You lie, and you are know liar -- Stevek: "I'm a mechanical engineer."
I have pointed out that Dusty's story contradicts physical reality. Physical reality demonstrates there are two categories of causal series - accidental and essential. As you said, that is about as much evidence as one can offer.
The careful and precise explanation of the physics would settle our disagreement. You both claim to know the physics of causality better than us, so what's stopping you from settling this once and for all?
You must be pretending. That's the only rational explanation.
That you think that the above is my position is only evidence for how stupid you are, and how empty your supposed defense of the First Way remains.
You claim that "There are not two different series of causation." here: September 21, 2017 4:53 AM You remain fundamentally confused, as explained above. There are not two different series of causation.
But you still have not responded to this: OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner.
A man applies force to a hockey stick via the causal series of his decision, nerves, muscles etc (form and matter). If the causal series is the same, then deceased relatives must also be present in this series. How exactly are deceased relatives present in the physical act of that force? This is logical consequent of your claim.
We've long ago established you have denied science. I want to hear your science fiction answer.
The science fiction answer is relatives impart a magical force that lingers around and causes babies to move to Canada, drink beer and pick up a hockey stick. Coincidentally, the science fiction answer is also the naturalist answer and the atheist answer.
Because atheists are oftentimes idiots of their own making and cannot stay focused, the following reminder might help clear their little heads.
For an essential series, if any member higher up the causal series ceases it's causal activity, the activity of the lower members will necessarily cease to continue.
Ex: If the hand were to cease its causal activity, the stick would not move as it does. If the muscles and the nerve impulses were to cease their causal activity, the stick would not move as it does.
For an accidental series, the causal activity of the higher members don't do anything to change the activity of the lower members.
Ex: If the grandfather were to cease his causal activity, the stick would still move as it does. The grandchild's hand/muscles/nerves/etc are essential to the motion, the grandfather is not.
If only one kind of causal series exists - if everything is part of the same causal series - we should see the motion of the stick cease to continue after the grandfather ceases his causal activity in the same way that the hand has this effect.
Historical reality repeatedly confirms that this is NOT what happens. Observed reality confirms there are 2 kinds of causal series.
If Cal or his man-crush, Delusional Dusty, has a careful and precise scientific rebuttal, let's hear it.
" Ex: If the hand were to cease its causal activity, the stick would not move as it does. If the muscles and the nerve impulses were to cease their causal activity, the stick would not move as it does." --Your error is in lumping a complex temporal series, a temporal physical process, into an abstraction of as single cause and a single effect.
In fact hand movement is a temporal series of mutual causation. To label the hand a "cause" and stick movement as an "effect" is a hopelessly simplistic oversimplification that ignores reality on the nano scale.
Dusty: "Your error is in lumping a complex temporal series, a temporal physical process, into an abstraction of as single cause and a single effect."
Get specific and use the language of physics.
Let's start with the facts. The observations as I've stated are the observations. There are two different effects happening. When the causal activity of the hand is removed the motion ceases to continue as it does. When the causal activity of the grandfather is removed the motion doesn't cease to continue as it does.
Explain those observed difference in terms of physics and causality. What explains these differences?
Dusty, "a hopelessly simplistic oversimplification that ignores reality on the nano scale"
I will warn you that talking about what happens at the nano scale doesn't erase or change the reality of what happens at the macro scale. Science proves that. If you're going to ultimately say the macro scale is some kind of illusion, I suggest you start with that conclusion to save us all a lot of time.
Me: "Stevek is a liar. You lie, and lie, and lie. / Because that's what, I guess, apologists have to do." Stevek: "More pretending. More projecting."
This is why you project, and this is why I do not:
1. Stevek (prior): "I'm a mechanical engineer."
2. You are not (obviously) a mechanical engineer.
3. You said you are a mechanical engineer.
4. You know that you are not a mechanical engineer.
5. You lied.
Pro tip: When someone identifies something about you (you have two eyes, you lie, etc.), that is not projection. That is identification.
Stevek = a liar.
If you are so cowardly that you would lie about something like that, and try to evade responsibility for it, you have no hope of becoming less stupid.
You have no hope of understanding my comments, or Stardusty's, or that of others whose intelligence and diligence makes them so much smarter than you are.
Your poor moral character is what makes you so unrelentingly stupid. Until you change that, not only will you remain the dolt you are, but you will deserve the scorn and ridicule one would normally withhold from one so pitiably stupid as you.
bmiller: "How deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick." Me: “That you think that the above is my position is only evidence for how stupid you are, and how empty your supposed defense of the First Way remains.”
bmiller: “You claim that "There are not two different series of causation." here: September 21, 2017 4:53 AM Me: “You remain fundamentally confused, as explained above. There are not two different series of causation. “
Yes.
bmiller: “But you still have not responded to this: / OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner.”
Typically confused thinking from you.
Events are basically changes in position related to real things over time.
You are making an argument that there are two kinds of events. One related to time and real things, and one not related to time.
You seem to think that the second (events that occur simulataneously, or events that occur without time (???) ) must exist if… I’m not really sure what.
It seems that you think that if you can cite a particular event (a player hitting a slapshot) and infer prior events that necessarily preceded that particular event, THEREFORE those necessary prior events must also have a measurable effect within the particular event that you are describing.
Is that what you think? It seems that way from what you write below:
bmiller: “A man applies force to a hockey stick via the causal series of his decision, nerves, muscles etc (form and matter). / If the causal series is the same, then deceased relatives must also be present in this series. How exactly are deceased relatives present in the physical act of that force? This is logical consequent of your claim.”
It seems to me that many theists (not necessarily apologists, who are the worst) struggle with the concept of emergence. Many times have I heard theists describe a complex system to be impossible because (they incorrectly surmise) the parts within the system do not, of themselves, possess all the properties of the system in which they are a part. This is not exactly your problem above, but it seems related.
This might help you — understand that you are made up of atoms created in a star. This does not mean that you are a star. You do understand that, correct?
bmiller: “We've long ago established you have denied science. I want to hear your science fiction answer.”
As explained many times now, you obviously lack a basic understanding of science — the kind that stems from taking classes (that include lab time) like good high school or college physics or chemistry, etc.
bmiller: “But you still have not responded to this: / OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner.”
Typically confused thinking from you.
Events are basically changes in position related to real things over time.
You are making an argument that there are two kinds of events. One related to time and real things, and one not related to time.
No, I am making no such argument. Learn to read. I understand now that after almost a year you are incapable of paying attention or just to dense to get it no matter how many times its been explained to you.
So that's why I asked a very simple question. You claimed this: There are not two different series of causation.
So I asked this: "OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives?"
Nowhere in your reply did I detect an answer. But I did detect that you made: "vague statements, plenty of accusations and projected like crazy.
It seems that you think that if you can cite a particular event (a player hitting a slapshot) and infer prior events that necessarily preceded that particular event, THEREFORE those necessary prior events must also have a measurable effect within the particular event that you are describing.
No. Learn to read. Strawdusty made the claim that deceased relatives supply a "particular amount" of force to "a player hitting a slapshot", not me. Do you disagree with Strawdusty?
If all series of causation are the same, then the calculation of force of the slapshot must involve the deceased relatives. Either that or they are not an essential part of the series moving the puck but are parrt of a causal series in a different sense (accidentally).
It seems to me that many theists...This is not exactly your problem above, but it seems related.
Irrelevant and pointless. In other words typical from you.
As explained many times now, you obviously lack a basic understanding of science — the kind that stems from taking classes (that include lab time) like good high school or college physics or chemistry, etc.
And the final projection. You've demonstrated that *you* did not take even high school physics so it's hilarious to see someone who can't even get the definition of force right try to make such pronouncements. This seems to be typical of internet atheists. Science envy.
Now. Once again the very simple question: "OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives?"
Either they are the same type of series and can be calculated the same or they are different types and cannot.
It remains to be seen if Dusty can give a careful and precise explanation of the physics. It also remains to be see how it will matter because no matter what Dusty says we still have 2 different types of causation being observed.
Type 1) When the causal activity of the hand is removed the motion of the stick ceases to continue as it does.
Type 2) When the causal activity of the grandfather is removed the motion of the stick doesn't cease to continue as it does.
Those observed differences don't go away with an explanation.
Stardusty: "No. Learn to read. Strawdusty made the claim that deceased relatives supply a "particular amount" of force to "a player hitting a slapshot", not me."
Learn to read? The projection runs high with the apologists.
What Stardusty actually wrote: ""The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
You lie.
Why would you lie?
Do you want to be stupider?
Doesn't being stupider make you feel bad?
Here's a question to see how stupid your dishonesty makes you.
Do you recognize that stevek lied when he claimed that he is a mechanical engineer? Do you a) really think that stevek is a mechanical engineer (spit take), or are you so comfortable with dishonesty that you'd rather pretend that stevek isn't another apologist who simply lies.
Btw, don't pretend that we're having a discussion about the long-ago retired notion that the First Way resembles a good argument. Having a discussion requires intellectual honesty on both sides, and apologists are (as seen here) incapable of honesty, let alone intellectual honesty.
The only reason I have been contributing here is to expose and understand better the dishonesty of apologists, and how it makes apologists stupider. Because I think that profound human stupidity -- which seems to be directly affected by poor moral character -- is both a current and existential threat.
Thank you Dusty for that brave admission. You're a better man than Cal.
Because the grandfather is not essential for the motion of the stick in the way Aquinas is arguing, Aquinas would say the grandfather is NOT part of the causal series that the FW argument is referencing.
We can finally move on to some other criticism. What's next?
" Because the grandfather is not essential for the motion of the stick in the way Aquinas is arguing, Aquinas would say the grandfather is NOT part of the causal series that the FW argument is referencing.
We can finally move on to some other criticism. What's next?" --Since we have covered a certain type of series, that being those that are "not essential" the next thing is to cover the only remaining type of series "accidental", such as a hand that moves a stick that moves a rock, which is clearly an "accidental" series, being composed of a temporal sequence of minute "accidental" mutually causal processes at the nano scale.
The FW covers the hand that moves the stick. It's the most common example of the FW argument. Call the series "accidental" if helps you sleep at night. Aquinas uses the term differently than you do. Everyone knows motion occurs over time, including Aquinas. We've been over this many, many times.
I asked you to answer a very simple question. It seems that once again you've shot off your mouth foolishly and typically and cannot back up your assertion.
Here is the question you keep dodging. Now. Once again the very simple question: "OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives?"
Either they are the same type of series and can be calculated the same or they are different types and cannot.
Oh, and more irrelevancies and projection. You have an endless supply of those.
The point being, there are things like the grandfather that are not essential to the motion and there are things like the hand that are essential.
Furthermore, things that are essential to the motion exist. Things that don't exist cannot be essential to the motion. You'd be saying they are both necessary and unnecessary at the same time - which is a contradiction.
bmiller: "Now. Once again the very simple question: / OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives?"
I have answered your "question" too many times now. Why don't you respond to what I wrote earlier if you still think your "question" isn't somehow stupid.
What I wrote earlier:
What is the method you are using to calculate the force of the event you describe? Does that method allow for measuring what you ask for — the effect of a “ ‘particular amount’ of that force due to his deceased relatives”? If that’s the case, then you have your answer. If you’re saying that you don’t know what the method is that could derive the measurement and calculation you ask for, then your question is likely incoherent or intractable. And that is a problem for the person posing the “question,” not those who can’t make sense of his thoughts, either.
bmiller: “After all, with the information on the site provided, we have all we need to do the calculation of causation due to Sidney.”
Do we? What’s the calculation that you’re using, and what are the measurements?
bmiller: “You should be able to use the same technique to calculate the force of "events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang”.”
Sure, I could do the math. What’s the calculation, and what are the measurements?
bmiller: "But when you live in a science denying fantasy world like these 2, I suppose you have no requirement to be rational or even honest."
Do you know what honest means?
Do you recognize that stevek lied when he claimed that he is a mechanical engineer? Do you a) really think that stevek is a mechanical engineer (spit take), or b) are you so comfortable with dishonesty that you'd rather pretend that stevek isn't another apologist who simply lies?
Is there a time delay between a cause and its effect? If so, would a proposed division between causal series, as outlined by the First Way, be differentiated by the presence of a time delay, or is it based upon some other difference in which a time delay is not relevant?
I believe that both sides would arrive at the same answer from different sides. Stardusty and Cal would say that there is in fact a time delay between every cause and effect, so that the only difference between any two causes in a proposed series would be length of time between them and the shared effect. So, by denying that there are conceptual differences between the two proposed series, time delay does not differentiate.
SteveK and bmiller would say that time delay is irrelevant, but rather the central point is that in any proposed series, if a cause is removed from the series in the present, is the effect sustainable? Does a father dying in 2017 prevent his adult son from holding a stick up in 2017? Does the son dying prevent him from holding a stick up? As there are different answers to each, this highlights the difference between the proposed series. So again, time delay between cause and effect is irrelevant, as the motion in question is sustained over time.
Is there such a thing as a sustained effect over time? If so, can the cause(s) of this sustained effect be identified?
I believe Stardusty would deny that there is truly such a thing as a "sustained effect", but rather there are an incalculable number of tiny cumulative causes resulting in an incalculable number of tiny cumulative effects that appear, on a larger scale, to be one effect resulting from relatively few causes.
SteveK and bmiller would find that to be irrelevant, as macro descriptions are equally as valid as micro descriptions. As science or (usually) casual observation can identify what causes any given sustained motion, or what it would take to cause the sustained motion (sustained referring to keeping a motion going in the face of forces opposing that motion such as friction), then it is possible to differentiate between causes that keep a motion sustained and causes leading up to the motion that, if removed, will not effect the current motion's sustainability.
Stardusty breaks a phenomenon down (accurately) to the cumulative smaller effects leading to the larger event, and then dismisses the larger event as a truly accurate description of reality. SteveK and bmiller look at a continuous sustained phenomenon, identify those causes that are sustaining it in the face of contrary forces, and differentiate them (accurately) from those causes that are not actively working upon it.
Honestly, even if all participants in this thread were friends, I see no possible path to agreement. Breaking things down to the smallest components and only analyzing from that perspective, finding macro observations to be approximations, denying the concept of emergence as anything but an illusion, those things make the First Way at best another approximation. Finding each level of observation to be valid, accepting the concept of emergence, accepting the concept of a sustained effect, those things make the First Way's differentiation of causal effects rather obvious.
But then, I suppose the argument has moved well past my musings, focusing instead on who is a stupid liar rather than finding out why each has their starting perspective.
Legion: "But then, I suppose the argument has moved well past my musings, focusing instead on who is a stupid liar rather than finding out why each has their starting perspective."
A "discussion" where one side is regularly dishonest will necessarily focus on dishonesty (and the consequent stupidity that such dishonesty engenders) because discussion without honesty (and consistency) is not possible.
If one of two parties cannot be honest, there can be no discussion.
Legion of Logic said.. September 29, 2017 4:31 PM.
" Honestly, even if all participants in this thread were friends, I see no possible path to agreement. " --I think you made a very good step toward doing just that.
The next step is to decide which analysis or analytical model is applicable to the question at hand.
If the question at hand is how to make personal decisions about macro objects and events in our ordinary daily lives then the large scale approximations or aggregate models are the only way we can function and live as human beings.
If we wish to understand the origins of the universe, the origins of existence, and the true nature of reality we must necessarily seek out the very most fundamental aspects of existence.
Here is one illustration of the connection between the very large and the very small https://www.tamuc.edu/academics/colleges/scienceEngineeringAgriculture/departments/physicsAstronomy/colloquiaSeminars/PDFs/STM.pdf Whether strings turn out to be real or not, the point is that to study our universe we must immediately consider subatomic physics. Findings at the most fundamental level have profound effects on our understanding of the universe as a whole.
A-T asserts the need for a sustaining cause for existence in what is imagined to be a non-temporal "essential" series of causations terminating in an unmoved mover. To examine the validity of that claim we are necessarily called to a structural regression analysis.
That structural regression analysis is in fact not a causal series at all, rather a series of human abstractions, a series of human models from models of the universe, to models of our solar system, to models of terrestrial objects, to models at the molecular level, to models at the atomic level to models at the subatomic level.
This regression of models does indeed call for a terminus. That terminus is fundamental physics. At this time the closest we have gotten is the standard model. It is well known that is not the final answer.
So, there is a way to settle your question. Ask what it is we are seeking and what sort of modeling analysis is suited to that quest. Clearly, armchair ruminations about a book, a table, a hand, a stick, a rock, and a grandfather are hopelessly inadequate.
Only a detailed analysis of what causation means at the most fundamental level, an understanding that the ontological series called for in the First Way isn't even a causal series, it is actually a series of human abstractions, human models...only such an analysis can possibly lead us to answer the great existential questions.
Is there a time delay between a cause and its effect? If so, would a proposed division between causal series, as outlined by the First Way, be differentiated by the presence of a time delay, or is it based upon some other difference in which a time delay is not relevant?
I believe that both sides would arrive at the same answer from different sides. Stardusty and Cal would say that there is in fact a time delay between every cause and effect, so that the only difference between any two causes in a proposed series would be length of time between them and the shared effect. So, by denying that there are conceptual differences between the two proposed series, time delay does not differentiate.
The entire idea of time delay between cause and effect is a red herring wrt to the First Way. The confusion that arose on this thread came about because Strawdusty confused the First Way with the Kalaam argument.
The First Way uses a man moving a stick as an example of movement needing an explanation. It assumes that the man and the stick exist (are in a state of actuality). It also assumes that only things in a state of existence (in a state of actuality) can cause motion. In fact, physics (Aristotelan, classical or modern) all assume the same thing.
If you recall from earlier when you were engaged, Aristotle orginally listed *4* of his 10 categories as examples of *real* change or alteration. But he limited the categories to 3 when he spoke of *motion*. The 3 were location, quality and quantity. The forth that he excluded was *generation and corruption*
The reason he excluded *generation and corruption* from his defintion of motion was that he considered motion as applying to existing things. If things are coming into existence or passing from existence, then yes, change is taking place, but since there is no entity to alter in this case until generation is complete, there can be not alteration of that entity or no *motion*. After all, something that does not yet exist cannot move, nor can something that has ceased to exist move.
So *generation and corruption* is change, but a different category that things that are in existence.
This is the gist of the issue and not how much time is involved in any particular transition.
I will post again on the confusion that somehow *time delay* of causation or lack of *simultaneous* causation refutes the First Way.
Stardusty breaks a phenomenon down (accurately) to the cumulative smaller effects leading to the larger event, and then dismisses the larger event as a truly accurate description of reality. SteveK and bmiller look at a continuous sustained phenomenon, identify those causes that are sustaining it in the face of contrary forces, and differentiate them (accurately) from those causes that are not actively working upon it.
I think that you have got this one wrong.
SteveK and I argue that it is irrelevant to computation the force of applied to the puck by the hockey stick of hockey player whether his father is alive or not and indeed the father has *no* physical influence on that force. Only the player and what causes him to exist are responsible.
SteveK and I do not disagree that that the father is responsible in *some* way for that puck to move, but just that it is in a *different* way.
This is what our opponents cannot abide, and btw, cannot give a rational explanation for how they are the same.
I have answered your "question" too many times now. Why don't you respond to what I wrote earlier if you still think your "question" isn't somehow stupid.
No you did not answer my very simple question. You asked me a question in return. What *is* your answer? You made a claim. Support your claim.
A-T asserts the need for a sustaining cause for existence in what is imagined to be a non-temporal "essential" series of causations terminating in an unmoved mover. To examine the validity of that claim we are necessarily called to a structural regression analysis.
That structural regression analysis is in fact not a causal series at all, rather a series of human abstractions, a series of human models from models of the universe, to models of our solar system, to models of terrestrial objects, to models at the molecular level, to models at the atomic level to models at the subatomic level.
This regression of models does indeed call for a terminus. That terminus is fundamental physics. At this time the closest we have gotten is the standard model. It is well known that is not the final answer.
You are as ignorant of what A-T asserts now as you were a year ago. Congratulations, you are consistent. That is an accomplishment of sort considering that you have been humiliated on more forums than this one.
The gibberish of your rejecting human abstractions while referring to some sort of "regression analysis" is especially incoherent. So not only congratulations on being consistent, but congtratulations on being consistently *crazy*.
I find my active participation in this thread was actually clouding the issue, so I may or may not respond to your latest response to me, but do know that I read it and will be pondering it. Emergent properties is where we split the last time around, but I'll consider it again.
The First Way uses the example of a man moving a stick.
It makes no difference to the ultimate source of that motion whether one examines this motion over a very small amount of time or over the entire beginning, middle and end of the motion. In all cases, the form and matter of the man are instrumental in the movement, while the ultimate cause is the Unmoved Mover.
From a previous post: "This is a link to various physics problems involving free body diagrams. Check out #3 "
This is an example of how the coupler tension force is calculated for each car in a 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.
This case is an examination of forces of a train that is already in motion. As long as the force is consistently applied the tension in the couplers will be the same.
However, when the train is just starting to move, there is a finite amount of time for the force from the engine to be transmitted to the caboose. But this is not a problem for the First Way. In fact, (once again from SCG link) this fact is used to support the premise that an infinite series of moving movers is impossible.
[12] The first is as follows [VII, 1]. If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these infinite beings must be bodies. For whatever is moved is divisible and a body, as is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. But every body that moves some thing moved is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinites are moved together while one of them is moved. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all those infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is impossible. It is, therefore, impossible that among movers and things moved one can proceed to infinity.
So it is a misunderstanding to somehow think that a time delay of a motive force being transmitted throughout a mobile contradicts the First Way in some respect. The relevant notion is that either an existent material object is moved by a series of existent instrumental movers, or is moved directly by the Unmoved Mover, whether we examine that motion over the entire duration of the movement or at a specific time during the movement.
Now of course, no one has denied that in a sense, the father is responsible for the existence of the son. But that sense (generation of the son) is different than the force applied by the form and matter of the son to a stick. This is specifically why these 2 examples were chosen by Aquinas to illustrate the different type of series.
I honestly didn't see where what I wrote clashed with what you wrote.
It's not that you haven't captured Strawdusty's position of macro reality being an illusion or our disagreement with him about that. It's just that that particular disagreement seems tangential to the claims that deceased relatives provide a "particular amount" of force to a stick being moved by a man.
His claim is that they do, but that "particular amount" of force cannot be detected or calculated. This is simply not science.
".. the force from the engine to be transmitted to the caboose."
" Now of course, no one has denied that in a sense, the father is responsible for the existence of the son. But that sense (generation of the son) is different than the force applied by the form and matter..." --Each molecule of CO2 is just like the father.
A fast moving molecule of CO2 hits the top of the piston in the engine, transferring a tiny but finite amount of energy to the piston that is transferred in a temporal series to the caboose.
Then that particular molecule of CO2 exits the engine. That molecule could disappear from existence without its previous effect being undone.
The molecule is just like the father, a part of an "accidental" series.
Every molecule that is part of the aggregate motion of the train is in a temporal "accidental" series.
The apparently sustained effect is actually a collection of non-sustained effects, each one being "accidental", and therefore the perception of an "essential" series is an illusory artifact of human perception.
Then please provide the appropriate formula of the deceased father providing force to a stick being moved by a man. I can easily find the formula of an internal combustion reaction.
CO2 is a byproduct of that reaction, not one of the reactants. So the remaining remarks are nonsense if you actually mean CO2.
A fast moving molecule of CO2 hits the top of the piston in the engine, transferring a tiny but finite amount of energy to the piston that is transferred in a temporal series to the caboose.
2 C8H18 (gas) + 25 O2 in the presence of a spark will release energy that can be calculated and measured. You claim the force due to deceased relatives cannot. So this is a simple contradiction.
The molecule is just like the father, a part of an "accidental" series.
Once again if chemical reactions causing trains to move is "just like the father" then where is the chemical or physics formula that includes the deceased relative?
But you've invented your own definition of an "accidentally ordered series" that has no resemblance to the AT definition. Creating your own definition and pretending that is the definition being used in the First Way is merely one more instance of you using straw man argumentation. A long list of irrelevant complaints against the First Way.
SteveK listed the basic concepts of "essentially ordered" vs "accidentally ordered" causal series.
SteveK: Type 1) When the causal activity of the hand is removed the motion of the stick ceases to continue as it does.
Type 2) When the causal activity of the grandfather is removed the motion of the stick doesn't cease to continue as it does.
Every molecule that is part of the aggregate motion of the train is in a temporal "accidental" series.
The gas molecules are part of the "essentially ordered series" of moving movers as they change from potentially moving the piston to to actually moving the piston. The *potential* force of that reaction changing into *actual* force is part of the essential movement of the train during the time of that reaction. This is something that science can calculate and measurable. If something in the series of the electrical system, fuel system, engine components, transmission etc were removed, the train's present motion would change.
If the train engineer's father was dead or even alive and eating a ham sandwich it would not affect the motion of the train in any way.
And BTW the mere fact that Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen are involved in the reaction is not enough to explain what is going on. Those elements must be formed in a particular way in order for there to be this reaction. In other words, the matter must be of a particular form. These 2 are know as the material and formal causes.
But that is not enough either. There must be an actual spark to ignite the explosion. This is known as the efficient cause. The fact that an explosion always or almost always happens is known as the final cause. It is the final cause that allows us to actually do science. We can only study things that have some regularity.
Me: "I have answered your "question" too many times now. Why don't you respond to what I wrote earlier if you still think your "question" isn't somehow stupid." bmiller: "No you did not answer my very simple question. You asked me a question in return. What *is* your answer? You made a claim. Support your claim."
bmiller: "It's just that that particular disagreement seems tangential to the claims that deceased relatives provide a "particular amount" of force to a stick being moved by a man. / His claim is that they do, but that "particular amount" of force cannot be detected or calculated. This is simply not science."
You seem incapable of understanding the distinction between describing a particular event, and understanding that prior events are instrumental in that particular event occurring (in a series that extends all the way back to the big bang).
You seem to think that recognizing the instrumentality of a prior event entails that that prior event MUST be measurable in the same way as the particular event.(As if a molecule of H2O that rises from the ocean must contain the static charge that is unleashed in a bolt of lightning in the subsequent storm in which it later a part.)
You seem to think that science ends when measurement currently ends or becomes impossible, when in fact science includes assumptions about uniformity and inferences based on induction.
Until you demonstrate that you can understand these very simple concepts, you will remain as stupid as you appear above.
Cal:"There are not two different series of causation."
ME:Now. Once again the very simple question: "OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives?"
Either they are the same type of series and can be calculated the same or they are different types and cannot.
Cal:You seem incapable of understanding the distinction between describing a particular event, and understanding that prior events are instrumental in that particular event occurring (in a series that extends all the way back to the big bang).
Once again this response is not an answer to the very simple question. Do you *now* mean that since there is a distinction then there *are* 2 different causal series? Because of course SteveK and I have always argued that there is in fact a distinction and have gone through great pains explaining that distinction. The very fact that the force applied to a stick by a living man can be computed in one way and it does not involve deceased relatives makes that very clear.
You type a whole lot about what *I* must think. Why don't you explain what *you* think and defend your claim or withdraw it?
Essential causal series are found in a system of things that responds in a repeatable/predictable way. The repeatable/predictable nature of the system is simply the essential causal series playing itself out and fulfilling its natural end. An energized circuit will predictably turn the lights on every time because the nature of the system (electrical) is ordered to be repeatable.
Accidental causal series are found in a system of things that does NOT respond in a repeatable/predictable way. The effect may occur, or it may not because the nature of the system has no repeatable natural end. Entering the room may or may not result in the lights being turned on. The nature of the system (electrical + human) is not ordered to be repeatable.
bmiller: “OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner.”
Silly declarations like the above are why you make it clear that you don’t understand basic science, or the rules of argument.
You seem to think that because something is currently incalculable and immeasurable, then therefore rules of calculation and measurement CANNOT apply; but this is not only ignores fundamental underpinnings of science (uniformity, induction, Occam’s razor), but also embraces the argument from ignorance, whereby you try to insert your undemonstrated explanation into all gaps you can imagine.
Your mistakes are fundamental. Which is why you seem to be fooled into thinking that an output of scientific instrumentality (chemical reaction formulae, etc.) is relevant to your silly position, unaware that the pieces you fob off are the output of the very system you are trying to deny.
Your incessant pride (an inability to let go of a prior position, stridently defended, because you fear it will now make you seem stupid) is a character flaw, and in actuality it makes you stupider.
I’m not troubled by the inability of anyone to perform a calculation. What is troubling is that person willingly turning a blind eye to the examples that show the 2 types exist. Chemical reactions are essentially ordered causal series. Driving down the road and then acidentally (hint, hint) hitting another car on the road is an accidentally ordered causal series. There are countless examples of each type.
1) Evidence that all events occur over time does not undermine the FW argument. 2) Evidence that past events cause future events does not undermine the FW argument. 3) Evidence that there is a time delay between cause & the observed effect does not undermine the FW argument. 4) Scientists report 2 types of causal series, although they refer to them using different language. 5) There are countless examples of the 2 types of causal series. 6) Essentially ordered causal series involve objects that exist (at the time the event occurred). 7) Objects that exist are essentially ordered toward various potential natural ends. This is what Aquinas is discussing when he refers to an object potentially being X or Y. 8) Water is one example of (7). All the subcomponents that make up water are an example of (7) because all material objects have a form/substance which makes them an example of (7). 9) Water is essentially ordered toward having the potential to become ice. Essentially ordered objects cause the essentially ordered water to actually become ice. This is the FW argument in a nutshell 10) Accidental causal series occur when two intersecting essentially ordered series become, by coincidence/chance, ordered toward a common natural end (natural motion) - hence the term "accident". 11) A car crash is one example of (10). The intersection of the 2 motions happens by coincidence/chance, however the 2 individual motions are essentially ordered because all motions involve objects and all objects are ordered toward their respective natural ends.
correction on (10)... There can be more than 2 intersecting motions involved and the objects involved don't necessarily become ordered toward a common natural end. But if they do that, they are considered a new object ordered toward a natural end, and are not considered separate objects.
Think when 2H + O forms into H2O. A new object is formed in H2O with various natural ends that neither H nor O has.
It seems that you are allergic to answering simple questions.
Me:"Once again this response is not an answer to the very simple question. Do you *now* mean that since there is a distinction then there *are* 2 different causal series?"
You:"You seem to think that because something is currently incalculable and immeasurable, then therefore rules of calculation and measurement CANNOT apply;"
I'm just asking you questions about what you think. You keep replying by imagining what I think. DO you actually think anything?
It appears that you cannot answer, so I have to assume that you concede to the obvious. There are 2 different types of causal series. Essentially ordered and accidentally ordered as defined by Aristotle and Aquinas.
bmiller: "It seems that you are allergic to answering simple questions."
As explained (many times) prior, your question is based on your misreading, and to answer simply would imply that your misreading is somehow correct. Do you understand that concept — how a badly formed question can’t be answered, because its assumptions are wrong?
In fact, you have (stupidly, based on your dishonesty) maintained that we have argued that a prior event in a complex series of events MUST contain the same effect as described in a particular subsequent scenario, else the prior event is not instrumental, and therefore there are two kinds of series!
How stupid.
As explained, events unfold in a series over time, but singling out a particular component of one event upon which others are related, and insisting that any prior event MUST also contain the particular component being described (even though an innumerable number of other events have also contributed) is so stupid that it doesn’t really deserve a response.
Do you understand that?
bmiller: “You type a whole lot about what *I* must think. Why don't you explain what *you* think and defend your claim or withdraw it?”
I have explained what I think here many, many times, and pointed out the standards that I am using (basic scientific understanding, the rules of good argument), and why the First Way fails with regard to these standards, and why it is that apologists fail to recognize the obvious — because they are largely dishonest, and this makes them even stupider than their otherwise poor education would have made them. How could you be unaware of this?
I know how. Because you are dishonest, and your dishonesty keeps you that stupid.
As explained (many times) prior, your question is based on your misreading, and to answer simply would imply that your misreading is somehow correct. Do you understand that concept — how a badly formed question can’t be answered, because its assumptions are wrong?
My question was directed at Strawdusty's claim that deceased relatives contribute a "particular amount" of force to a stick being moved by a livng descendant. Strawdusty does not dispute that the force operates in the present but has dissembled to include that "particular amount" of force is immeasurable and incalculable.
If he were to admit that this "particular amount" of force is not part of the equation of movement in the present, then it is not *instrumental* in moving the stick.
So I am not misreading Strawdusty's argument. You are.
In fact, you have (stupidly, based on your dishonesty) maintained that we have argued that a prior event in a complex series of events MUST contain the same effect as described in a particular subsequent scenario, else the prior event is not instrumental, and therefore there are two kinds of series!
How stupid.
What is stupid is to claim that someone has "maintained" anything by asking a *very simple question*.
Tell me what exactly you mean by these phrases: a prior event in a complex series of events What do you mean by "prior event"? Do you mean a force applied to a particular object? What is that force? What is that object? What are these other "events"? What are the physics formulas for them? Do those formulas result in the f=ma of the man moving the stick now?
MUST contain the same effect as described in a particular subsequent scenario What exactly do you mean by "same effect". Movement? Momentum? What exactly is a *scenario*?
As explained, events unfold in a series over time, but singling out a particular component of one event upon which others are related, and insisting that any prior event MUST also contain the particular component being described (even though an innumerable number of other events have also contributed) is so stupid that it doesn’t really deserve a response.
Do you understand that?
I understand physics. I understand the formula f=ma. I don't understand nonsense. So when you say "and insisting that any prior event MUST also contain the particular component being described" you are babbling.
But of course, you didn't take even high school physics so perhaps you think this makes sense somehow in a magical thinking sort of way. Is this typical of other atheists? Or are you *special*? How odd.
bmiller: "My question was directed at Strawdusty's claim that deceased relatives contribute a "particular amount" of force to a stick being moved by a livng descendant."
The above is your plain misreading of what Stardusty wrote. That you continue to promote your poor reading comprehension skills is another baffling outcome of your dishonesty.
bmiller: "Strawdusty does not dispute that the force operates in the present but has dissembled to include that "particular amount" of force is immeasurable and incalculable."
Nope. Particular amount refers to the amount pertaining to the scenario being described.
What Cal is trying to say is the grandfather is irrelevant to the FW argument.
Of course he is actually saying that, but doesn't realize it. It's funny to watch him simultaneously disagree with Strawdusty and claim he is agreeing.
It's really pretty simple. Non-existent things cannot cause anything to move. Deceased relatives do not exist as material beings, and so cannot apply forces to sticks. Only an existent person can apply that force. So the question is *what is the ultimate source of that force?* The form and matter of the man is ultimately the result of the Unmoved Mover.
" Non-existent things cannot cause anything to move." --If you are trying to say that simultaneity of cause and effect do not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, and therefore every causal series is an accidental series then you are correct.
" Deceased relatives do not exist as material beings, and so cannot apply forces to sticks." --At the present moment of simultaneity, correct. As part of a causal series the present state past causal influences is irrelevant to their contributory effect in the causal series. Once the effect has been induced the cause is in the past and the amount of the effect cannot be undone irrespective of changes that occur to the causal influence after the moment of simultaneity.
" So the question is *what is the ultimate source of that force?* The form and matter of the man is ultimately the result of the Unmoved Mover." --If by "ultimate source" you are referring to a zero time regression analysis, then that is not a causal analysis at all, and therefore does not call for an ultimate cause.
The zero time regression is in truth a regression of models, in this case from the biological organism level, to the cellular level, to the molecular level, to the atomic level, to the subatomic level, to the fundamental physics level.
The terminus of this zero time regression analysis is fundamental physics.
The word "physics" is ambiguous in that it is sometimes taken as our human body of models (ToR, QM, the Standard Model, etc), but sometimes taken as the true nature of material reality irrespective of our knowledge of the true aspects of the material.
When I say "fundamental physics" I mean a true and complete description of the aspects of material existence at its truly existent and most fundamental level, despite the fact we do not yet, and many never, have such a model in our possession.
So you're saying actual physics might not contradict the FW argument because we don't understand the causality of fundamental physics, a.k.a. actual physics.
" Non-existent things cannot cause anything to move." --If you are trying to say that simultaneity of cause and effect do not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, and therefore every causal series is an accidental series then you are correct.
What a strange reading of a very plain statement. I mean just what I posted: *" Non-existent things cannot cause anything to move."* You apparently disagree, which is why I keep asking you to supply the formula. Still no joy, but lots of babbling.
As part of a causal series the present state past causal influences is irrelevant to their contributory effect in the causal series.
This is a word jumble. Even more than usual.
Once the effect has been induced the cause is in the past and the amount of the effect cannot be undone irrespective of changes that occur to the causal influence after the moment of simultaneity.
I wonder why you think this has any sort of relevence. Once a railroad car has been pulled past KC, time can't be reversed to when it was in LA. Once a man starts to move a stick, he likewise cannot unmove the stick. What does this have to do with anything?
" So the question is *what is the ultimate source of that force?* The form and matter of the man is ultimately the result of the Unmoved Mover." --If by "ultimate source" you are referring to a zero time regression analysis, then that is not a causal analysis at all, and therefore does not call for an ultimate cause.
What is it with your reading comprehension? I did not mention anything about a "zero time regression analysis". That phrase is a nonsense phrase that you invented I'm guessing because you do not understand physics nor the math that is used in that field of study.
Something is moving now. What is the ultimate cause of the movement now? And I by *now* I mean how normal English speaking humans use the word. Do I really have to post dictionary definitions, none of which include your invention of "zero time regression analysis".
The word "physics" is ambiguous
Only to someone who has never taken a physics course, or even bothered to look up "physics" on Google. Of course, to someone who invents his own words and meanings, it really doesn't matter what Google, Wikipedia or anyone else has to say.
The terminus of this zero time regression analysis is fundamental physics.
Regardless of your invented phrase, the question still remains *if existing material things change or move, then what is responsible?* Claiming that "fundamental physics" is "a true and complete description of the aspects of material existence at its truly existent and most fundamental level" does absolutely nothing to answer that question. Descriptions do not cause existing material things to move.
By "now" do you mean this present instant? Does zero time pass within "now"? If time passes within "now", how much time is half of "now"? Suppose half the time of "now" passes and we enter the second half of the time of "now". Doesn't that make the first half of "now" actually in the past and not "now" at all?
If we continue this process of division of "now" don't we end up with "now" having a zero timespan?
How far can something move in zero time?
In what sense is something "moving" in the zero time of "now"? If X moves at 1 meter per second how far does X move in 0 seconds? If X moves 0 meters "now" in what sense is X "moving" "now"?
Are you serious? How many times do we have to repeat it? What is your definition?
Please define "now".
I did already: And I by *now* I mean how normal English speaking humans use the word. Do I really have to post dictionary definitions, none of which include your invention of "zero time regression analysis".
By "now" do you mean this present instant? Does zero time pass within "now"? If time passes within "now", how much time is half of "now"? Suppose half the time of "now" passes and we enter the second half of the time of "now". Doesn't that make the first half of "now" actually in the past and not "now" at all?
If we continue this process of division of "now" don't we end up with "now" having a zero timespan?
Since the discussion involves the motion of a man moving a stick, the "present continuous tense for now" is the time frame of that the man is moving the stick. He could be moving it for several milliseconds or longer.
But you seem to be fixated on a side issue related to the definition of velocity which is irrelevant the topic. Speed is defined as the change of position of an existing material object with respect to a change in time. In order to determine what speed that existing material object is moving at, one has to record 4 things: 1) Beginning position (x0) 2) Ending position (x1) 3) Beginning time (t0) 4) Ending time (t1)
For the graph of position vs time, time is the independent variable while position is the dependent variable. If t0=t1 then one is not measuring a difference of time vs position. One is simply inspecting position wrt that point in time.
*Now* you could take each of those images and move them forward in time wrt other objects (not moving) and I could notice a difference between those objects and the others (not moving). Could you?
SteveK said.. October 06, 2017 8:31 PM. " Something is moving during the time you are watching it. Common folk refer to that as "now""
bmiller said.. October 06, 2017 9:02 PM. " By "now" ... the "present continuous tense for now" is the time frame of that the man is moving the stick. He could be moving it for several milliseconds or longer."
--Ok, so you both define "now" as a period of time.
A series that occurs within a period of time is a temporal series.
A temporal series is an "accidental" series.
Every series is an "accidental" series.
To ask the cause of a temporal series is to ask what came temporally before that series, and in turn temporally before that series, and temporally before that series ad infinitum. This is a temporal regress analysis leading to the question of temporal beginnings in the deep past, and the consideration of an infinite time in the past.
Suppose we wish to limit the resolution of our analysis to 1ms. What caused the effect at millisecond 3? The event at millisecond 2. What caused the effect at millisecond 2? The event at millisecond 1. Want caused the effect at millisecond 1? The event at millisecond 0. What caused the effect at millisecond 0? The event at millisecond -1. What caused the effect at millisecond -1? The event at millisecond -2. ...and so on to negative infinity of milliseconds.
How far in the past is a negative infinity of milliseconds? Is this concept of time any different than a negative infinity of years?
>> "A temporal series is an "accidental" series. Every series is an "accidental" series."
*sigh* You've earned your nickname "Strawdusty". We've been over the differences between the 2 types dozens of times.
>> "To ask the cause of a temporal series is to ask what came temporally before that series, and in turn temporally before that series, and temporally before that series ad infinitum. This is a temporal regress analysis leading to the question of temporal beginnings in the deep past, and the consideration of an infinite time in the past."
Punting to the deep past doesn't resolve the metaphysical problem and the need for an unmoved mover. See Feser's discussion on infinite causal series, infinite loops and deep time.
SteveK said... October 07, 2017 9:02 AM https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html "To be sure, the paradigm cases of causal series ordered per se involve simultaneity,"
So Feser agrees with me, a temporal series is an "accidental" series. An "essential" series requires "simultaneity".
Unfortunately, the causal analysis of Feser is hopelessly muddled since simultaneity cannot extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero and no series can occur within that limit.
I have explained this and many other glaring defects in the link you mentioned directly to Feser on several of his blog pages but he is unable to counter any of my words.
Several of his sycophants have made some feeble attempts but quickly devolve to mere name calling, if they ever get past shrieking about my mere presence in their midst.
But by all means come on over and demonstrate your vast argumentation skills http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/09/ward-on-scholastic-metaphysics.html
Dusty The simultaneous nature of cause/effect involves a philosophical argument. It says cause/effect occurs between objects. Like in a relay race, the baton is transferred as much as it is received - at the same time. There can’t be a transfer of energy (cause) without their being a simultaneous receiving (effect). It has to simultaneously transfer to some other object otherwise it cannot be referred to as a cause.
Two objects touching is a simultaneous cause/effect. To the extent they are touching, one is on the giving end and the other on the receiving end. Equal and opposite touching force. To the extent one is transferring energy/force the other is receiving it. Conservation of energy. This is true at every physical scale and at every instant. If it were not true at every instant a contraction would result where force is both being applied to an object and not being applied to it.
" There can’t be a transfer of energy (cause) without their being a simultaneous receiving (effect). It has to simultaneously transfer to some other object otherwise it cannot be referred to as a cause." --Indeed.
" To the extent one is transferring energy/force the other is receiving it. Conservation of energy. This is true at every physical scale and at every instant. " --Yes.
"If it were not true at every instant a contraction would result where force is both being applied to an object and not being applied to it." --Indeed. The apparently static nature of a rock resting upon the Earth is actually a dynamic process. If the electrons cease wizzing about the whole assemblage will contract to the density of a neutron star, or perhaps collapse further to a black hole.
So, you are on the right track here. I invite you to carry this analysis further.
Cause and effect does indeed occur at the moment of simultaneity, as you describe. Events prior to that moment are in the past and cannot be undone. The energy transferred in the past will remain transferred even if that source of energy disappears from existence.
Energy is transferred in a temporal process always at the point of simultaneity. All the energy transferred up to that point is in the past. Anything that might happen in the future is not real, only imagined. If the thing that transferred the past energy suddenly disappears from existence then the unreal future remains unreal, so no effect has been stopped because a future effect is not real and a past effect cannot be undone.
Stopping a process stops no effect. Cause and effect happen at the moment of simultaneity. Past effects are not undone. Future effects are not real and therefore there is no such effect to stop.
>> “Cause and effect happen at the moment of simultaneity.”
Exactly. Hence there must be a cause at every instant to explain every simultaneous effect. Motion is a continuous series of simultaneous effects that require a continuous series of simultaneous causes. Because they are simultaneous at every instant the cause cannot be in the past where simultaneous relationships do not exist with the present.
>> "A temporal series is an "accidental" series. Every series is an "accidental" series."
*sigh* You've earned your nickname "Strawdusty". We've been over the differences between the 2 types dozens of times.
What is really funny is that in trying to come up with a name for *his* causal series he chose the name "accidental" which means "not essential" to the rest of the English speaking world. He then claims that everything is caused "accidentally" which *really* means that there are no *real* causes.
So his definition is not only wrong, it's backwards to what he is trying to establish.
>> “Cause and effect happen at the moment of simultaneity.”
" Exactly. Hence there must be a cause at every instant to explain every simultaneous effect. Motion is a continuous series of simultaneous effects that require a continuous series of simultaneous causes. Because they are simultaneous at every instant the cause cannot be in the past where simultaneous relationships do not exist with the present." --Indeed.
That being agreed upon, then what is a causal series?
Suppose the 2 ball and the 3 ball are stationary on the table. The 1 ball rolls along and hits the 2 ball. The 2 ball then rolls and hits the 3 ball. The 3 ball then rolls and goes into the pocket.
Did the 1 ball cause the 3 ball to go into the pocket?
Well, that depends on terminology. What is a "cause"? If a "cause" is required to directly transfer energy to the "effect" then no, the 1 ball did not cause the 3 ball to go into the pocket.
If a "cause" can be a member of a causal series then yes, the 1 ball is a cause of the 3 ball going into the pocket.
A causal series is not the same thing as a simultaneous cause and effect. A causal series is just that, a series of causes, that is, one cause and then another, and then another and so forth. Such a series is temporal.
One cannot have a series of causes inside simultaneity. Once we identify a series of causes we are necessarily considering a temporal process or a temporal sequence.
A series that occurs within a period of time is a temporal series.
A series of *what* exactly are you referring to? The First Way involves an instrumental series of existing moving movers and the ultimate cause of that motion while moving.
A temporal series is an "accidental" series. Simply wrong again.
Every series is an "accidental" series. If nothing is essentially causing motion, and since "accidental" means *not essential*, then your claim amounts is that nothing causes motion.
To ask the cause of a temporal series is to ask what came temporally before that series, and in turn temporally before that series, and temporally before that series ad infinitum.
Science explains the motion of a stick being moved by a man using formulas to compute the force. The formulas involve only the things that exist during that movement. Things that do not *actually* exist, or only *potentially* exist cannot and do not contribute to that motion.
You're welcome to indulge yourself in the idea that non-existent things cause existent things to move, but that is simply not science.
How far in the past is a negative infinity of milliseconds? Is this concept of time any different than a negative infinity of years?
Your idea of "a temporal series" is not defined so your analysis is worthless. Temporal series of *what*?
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html "To be sure, the paradigm cases of causal series ordered per se involve simultaneity,"
So Feser agrees with me, a temporal series is an "accidental" series. An "essential" series requires "simultaneity".
No he doesn't agree with you as is evident in the sentence right before the one you quoted: "So, it is ultimately their instrumental character, and not their simultaneity, which makes every member of a per se ordered causal series other than the first depend necessarily on the first."
No where does he use your invented term "temporal series". In fact, he goes on to give an explicit example of an essentially ordered series that does not involve simultaneity.
But of course this has already been pointed out to you multiple times. You persist in imagining definitions of your own invention and then proceed to attack your own definitions. Quite a spectacle for those of us who value rational discourse.
Suppose the 2 ball and the 3 ball are stationary on the table. The 1 ball rolls along and hits the 2 ball. The 2 ball then rolls and hits the 3 ball. The 3 ball then rolls and goes into the pocket.
The 1 ball was put in motion by a cue stick that along with it formed an essentially ordered series during the impulse (f*t) of cue-1 ball. Once the cue ceased applying force to the 1 ball, that essentially ordered series ceased.
During the impulse of the 1 ball and 2 ball a new essentially ordered series is formed until they too separate and that series ceases.
One cannot have a series of causes inside simultaneity.
The example of the train cars accelerating, each due to the various tensive forces of their couplers is another example of an essentially ordered series. As long as the force is applied, each car is instrumental for the following car(s) moving. All cars are moving at the same time, all pulled along by the accelerating locomotive.
SP A temporal series is an "accidental" series. " Simply wrong again." --You misunderstand Feser...getting there...
" Science explains the motion of a stick being moved by a man using formulas to compute the force. The formulas involve only the things that exist during that movement. Things that do not *actually* exist, or only *potentially* exist cannot and do not contribute to that motion." --Nope. Science has done away with A-T notions of causality. They are only found in undergraduate courses as misguided pedagogical tools that would be better replaced with modern science to avoid miseducation of the majority who go no further.
" Your idea of "a temporal series" is not defined so your analysis is worthless. Temporal series of *what*?" --Causal processes.
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html "To be sure, the paradigm cases of causal series ordered per se involve simultaneity,"
SP So Feser agrees with me, a temporal series is an "accidental" series. An "essential" series requires "simultaneity".
" No he doesn't agree with you as is evident in the sentence right before the one you quoted:" --Actually he does, but you have not read his words accurately.
" "So, it is ultimately their instrumental character, and not their simultaneity, which makes every member of a per se ordered causal series other than the first depend necessarily on the first."" --Feser here acknowledges that an "essential" or "per se" causal "series" has simultaneity, but he focuses on other imagined properties of his gibberish to make other nonsense points.
The fact that he speaks gibberish about a simultaneous causal series instrumental character does not eliminate the fact that an "essential" series is simultaneous, meaning a series that is not simultaneous is not "essential" and therefore "accidental.
" No where does he use your invented term "temporal series"." --More's the pity. He actually describes a temporal regress elsewhere.
" In fact, he goes on to give an explicit example of an essentially ordered series that does not involve simultaneity." --I am not surprised at this self contradiction on his part.
" The 1 ball was put in motion by a cue stick that along with it formed an essentially ordered series during the impulse (f*t) of cue-1 ball. --Does an "impulse" occur in 0 time?
SP One cannot have a series of causes inside simultaneity."
" The example of the train cars accelerating, each due to the various tensive forces of their couplers is another example of an essentially ordered series." --What is the elasticity of steel? How does one model the mass/spring/damper system of a train? How would you model an entire train using finite element analysis? How would you describe a train at the molecular level starting with the fuel and air and accounting for every motion of every molecule in the train, track, and air?
" None of this is mysterious to scientists." --My words are not mysterious to scientists. The language of "essential", "instrumental", "accidental", and "per se" is complete asinine gibberish to modern scientists.
" We already went over this. It occurs over time. At each instant within that same time period there is a simultaneous cause/effect occurring." --Yes, you and I agreed on this point, bmiller's view is not clear to me on this particular point.
" None of the simultaneous cause/effect relationships involve a cause in the past for reasons already explained." --Yes, a cause/effect relationship does not exist outside simultaneity, so the "impulse" is a series of such simultaneous events, not qualitatively different than any other series of events over time.
A series of events over time is an "accidental" series, so the "impulse" is an "accidental" series.
If the cue is withdrawn quickly after first contact then less energy is transferred, as compared to a process of the cue striking for a longer time with more follow through of the stroke.
At any moment during the impulse the cue may be withdrawn and could disappear from existence like a dead great great grandfather. The cue is in a temporal "accidental" series for as long as it is in contact with the ball since it can be withdrawn at any time.
At any moment the cause/effect events preceding that moment are in the past and no longer part of the cause/effect event in the present moment. Previous cause/effect events during the impulse can only be considered part of a temporal causal series, which is necessarily an "accidental" series.
There is no series in the present moment, only the present cause/effect event.
--Nope. Science has done away with A-T notions of causality. They are only found in undergraduate courses as misguided pedagogical tools that would be better replaced with modern science to avoid miseducation of the majority who go no further.
You have never taken an undergraduate physics course much less a graduate course. Your suggestion that physics does not use formulas to calculate motion of existent material objects is risible. So is your imagination of what is taught in those classes.
--Causal processes.
So are all "temporal series" "causal processes"? If not, then what makes a "temporal series" a "causal process"? Do processes have a beginning, middle and end?
--Actually he does, but you have not read his words accurately.
I did more that read his words accurately. I actually understood what he was saying which you still don't. Simultaneity is not a necessary condition for a series to be classified as essential but instrumentality is. He gave an example to illustrate the point as I pointed out August 06, 2017 1:21 PM
Here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=1424858326254363402 But it is arguably possible at least in theory for there to be a per se causal series in which some of the members were not simultaneous."
--I am not surprised at this self contradiction on his part.
And I'm not surprised by your lack of reading comprehension or ability to follow logic. Nor am I surprised by your penchant of ignoring responses that illustrate your nonsense.
--What is the elasticity of steel? ....motion of every molecule in the train, track, and air?
All of this misses the point that all cars of the train are moving *at the same time* and the couplers are under a constant tensive force. It appears that you did some CAD programming. Congratulations. None of that changes the fact that all of those molecules of the train are accelerating at the same rate.
--My words are not mysterious to scientists.
No. Most scientists can recognize a crank and don't consider them to be mysterious.
At any moment during the impulse the cue may be withdrawn and could disappear from existence like a dead great great grandfather.
In that case the essential force of the cue moving the ball would cease, causing the cessation of the essentially ordered series. But once the 2 ball is moving the 3 ball, is the cue applying any essential force?
The cue is in a temporal "accidental" series for as long as it is in contact with the ball since it can be withdrawn at any time.
So is nothing essential for any of this movement? Science disagrees.
>> "A series of events over time is an "accidental" series, so the "impulse" is an "accidental" series."
Try this. At one instant when a simultaneous cause/effect exists take a photo of that instant and list everything involved in creating the effect on the ball. Those are the members of the essential series. In your photo you'll see there's the cue and the hand. All of these things are involved in creating the effect in that instant. They're essential. The hair on the hand is not essential nor is the ring on the finger. There are more members on the list that you cannot see in the photo - like muscles - but this is enough to prove once again that there are 2 types of series.
>> "A series of events over time is an "accidental" series, so the "impulse" is an "accidental" series."
" Try this. At one instant when a simultaneous cause/effect exists take a photo of that instant and list everything involved in creating the effect on the ball. " --Ok, that is an interesting approach, but let's see if the thought experiment yields the predicted results.
"Those are the members of the essential series. In your photo you'll see there's the cue and the hand. All of these things are involved in creating the effect in that instant. They're essential. The hair on the hand is not essential nor is the ring on the finger." --Doesn't the hair and the ring have mass? Isn't the mass of these things contributing just as surly as the mass in every cell of the hand?
What of all the objects in the universe that are contributing a gravitational force to this system? Don't they have a non-zero contribution?
" There are more members on the list that you cannot see in the photo - like muscles -" --Indeed.
" but this is enough to prove once again that there are 2 types of series." --In what sense is this a series? How can there be a series if we have a snapshot in time, a freeze frame that is ideally 0 time?
In a series one thing happens after another. The World Series is one game, then another game, and so on. What kind of series happens in the moment of simultaneity, the limit as t goes to 0?
Maybe you mean a mechanical structure as a sort of series...the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone...and so forth? Hence my question as to where spatially do you make a boundary for this structure that might in some sense be called a series?
Maybe you mean a structural regress? A series of models, from the cue, to its atoms, to its subatomic particles, to the most fundamental physical things that exist (albeit unknown at this time)?
" Try this. At one instant when a simultaneous cause/effect exists take a photo of that instant and list everything involved in creating the effect on the ball. " --Ok, that is an interesting approach, but let's see if the thought experiment yields the predicted results.
Dusty, The point of the FW argument isn't to try and identify all the members in the essential series - although you're welcome to try. Just know that essential series do exist.
>> In a series one thing happens after another. >> Maybe you mean a mechanical structure as a sort of series >> Maybe you mean a structural regress?
I'm not going to give it a name because there are probably many different types.
+ Trains are a series of cars - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the caboose. + Hand/stick/rock is a series of objects - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the dirt. + Forging presses are a series of parts - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the metal ingot.
Aquinas defines change as going from potential to actual.
Dusty, The point of the FW argument isn't to try and identify all the members in the essential series - although you're welcome to try. Just know that essential series do exist.
>> In a series one thing happens after another. >> Maybe you mean a mechanical structure as a sort of series >> Maybe you mean a structural regress?
" I'm not going to give it a name because there are probably many different types." --There are no so very many types. The problem is tractable, although it does require some fair amount of step by step analysis and a sort of bookeeping.
+ Trains are a series of cars - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the caboose. --Ok, here by "series" you seem to mean a structural series in spatial extent. One object is mechanically connected to another and another and so forth to the last object where this "series" terminates.
+ Hand/stick/rock is a series of objects - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the dirt. --Ok, so again, a "series" in the sense of objects mechanically connected,
+ Forging presses are a series of parts - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the metal ingot. --Ok, another "series" of mechanically connected objects of spatial extent.
" Aquinas defines change as going from potential to actual." --Yes, that is the A-T definition. It has no scientific analytical value and appears noplace in modern scientific texts.
But returning to your examples of a "series". They are all physical systems, extended in space, acting over time. So they all seem to be of the same sort.
In an introductory physics course pedagogical devices are used such a frictionless wheels, instantaneous transmission of force, and perfectly ridged bodies. Without these simplifications the introductory course would be overwhelmingly complex.
In truth, of course, the train is not ridged or simple. In actuality molecules in the air react with molecules of fuel to push on the piston and then exit into the atmosphere. A complex series of temporal events involve the train stretching and contracting and wobbling along the track, inducing motion in the molecules of the track and the surrounding air in a vast temporal causal series.
The locomotive is not a single ongoing cause, rather, numbers on the order of 10^20 molecules per second of air and fuel are each individual contributory causes that come and go, causing their effect in the moment of simultaneity and then exiting the picture like the deceased relative.
So, there is no qualitative "accidental" difference between the molecules of air and the relatives on ones lineage. The difference is in timescale. Both are "accidental", inducing their effect in the moment of simultaneity, and becoming irrelevant thereafter.
But putting aside the fact that every series is an "accidental" series, where is the call for an ontological first mover?
Ok, the fuel, the air, piston, generator, motor, wheels, frame, coupler, frame, coupler...caboose. Just supposing this were a ridged system, what of it? Where is the call for an ontological first mover? The series starts with the fuel/air reactions and it ends at the caboose, done.
How does an engine pulling a train call for anything other than the details of that mechanical system?
Dusty, " The point of the FW argument isn't to try and identify all the members in the essential series - " --The FW says that the series cannot go on to infinity, therefore there must be a first mover.
In the train the series starts with the locomotive and ends with the caboose. Where is there a call to go on to infinity?
Even with my molecular analysis the series starts with the fuel/air molecules and ends with the caboose molecules. We could calculate a fairly close approximation of how many molecules that is. It is a finite number. No call to co on to infinity.
Even if one thing depends on another at the same time the start and end is clear and finite. Where is there a call for an infinite series of any sort?
causing their effect in the moment of simultaneity and then exiting the picture like the deceased relative.
Which means they cease to be part of the essentially ordered series of instrumental moving movers, just like deceased relatives.
Both are "accidental", inducing their effect in the moment of simultaneity, and becoming irrelevant thereafter.
This is getting closer to the mark. Now if you would just use the correct terminology ("essential") it would be something that someone who understands Thomism would recognize.
You recognize that at one part of a motion they are instrumental and when they cease to be instrumental, they are irrelevant to any further part of that motion.
The series starts with the fuel/air reactions and it ends at the caboose, done.
How does an engine pulling a train call for anything other than the details of that mechanical system?
Of course the train is used as an analogy to illustrate the principle of how each car moves the following car even though it cannot move itself, the locomotive being analogous to a possible first mover.
But however you look at it, the train is composed of inert material parts, none of which can move themselves. Whether you look at the cars and locomotive, or the tiniest constiuent parts of the cars and locomotive, they are all inanimate objects incapable of self-movement. So there must be something that moves all those inanimate objects. But if that is just another inanimate object, then something must be moving it. The only solution to escape an impossible infinite regress of existent moving movers is for there to be an ulimate mover that doesn't move. The Unmoved Mover.
" The point of the FW argument isn't to try and identify all the members in the essential series - " --The FW says that the series cannot go on to infinity, therefore there must be a first mover.
In the train the series starts with the locomotive and ends with the caboose. Where is there a call to go on to infinity?
Please read the bolded parts. The First Way does not issue a "call to go on to infinity". It does exactly the opposite by saying that is impossible just as you noted yourself.
" But however you look at it, the train is composed of inert material parts, " --Fuel/air are not inert. They are highly reactive.
" they are all inanimate objects incapable of self-movement." --The air was in the atmosphere before it was in the cylinder. Before that the oxygen came from a plant.
" then something must be moving it." --Right, the fuel pump is pumping the fuel. Before that the fuel was pumped into the tank. Before that plants grew and then got buried and decomposed into oil.
" The First Way does not issue a "call to go on to infinity"" --Of course it does, it goes a couple steps back, and then just declares the series would have to go to infinity, which is impossible, therefore there must be a first mover.
Where is this regress in the train, specifically? What actual portions of the action of the train go back and back and back and back without end, specifically, by name. Name the parts.
--Fuel/air are not inert. They are highly reactive.
By inert, I mean incapable of self-movement.
" they are all inanimate objects incapable of self-movement." --The air was in the atmosphere before it was in the cylinder. Before that the oxygen came from a plant.
Right. But the history of a particular oxygen molecule is irrelvant to what the First Way is examining. Are you suggesting that oxygen molecules move themselves?
" then something must be moving it." --Right, the fuel pump is pumping the fuel.
Agreed, as well as the spark igniting the fuel mixture.
Before that the fuel was pumped into the tank. Before that plants grew and then got buried and decomposed into oil.
And now you have changed from what *is happening* to what *happened* before. The motion considered in the First Way only considers what we percieve happening while a particular motion is in progress. You do not perceive "fuel being pumped into the tank" or "plants decomposed into oil" during the trains movement.
" The First Way does not issue a "call to go on to infinity"" --Of course it does, it goes a couple steps back, and then just declares the series would have to go to infinity, which is impossible, therefore there must be a first mover.
I'm afraid I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.
This is what you accurately stated: --The FW says that the series cannot go on to infinity, therefore there must be a first mover.
Let me clip the relevant part: --The FW says that the series cannot go on to infinity
Then you say this: then just declares the series would have to go to infinity
It is not clear to me how in the former quote you correctly note "the series cannot go on to infinity" and in the latter you claim it "just declares the series would have to go to infinity". These are contradictory claims.
The First Way considers a motion that is happening and what is causing it. This means that all the components under consideration must all be existing during that motion. It is the number material existing things that is causing that particular movement that is being considered as a series as the notion of an infinite regress. Not a temporal regress of causes.
" The First Way considers a motion that is happening and what is causing it. " The air and the fuel/are causing the caboose to move together with the whole train.
What further regress of causes is called for? This can't go on to infinity, fine, don't go on at all then. Start with the air/fuel combustion end with the caboose if that is all you wish to consider. No further regress of any sort called for.
What requires further explanation? During any given second the train is in a self sustaining process that needs no humans. Suppose the people jumped off, the train keeps going on its own. During any particular second, or any particular moment, what more is needed than the reaction of fuel/air and the mechanical linkages to the caboose?
Dusty >> "What further regress of causes is called for?"
If one object cannot move itself, adding more of them doesn't suddenly make the problem go away. Every object that is essential to the final motion requires a cause to initiate its motion.
Regressing back to the factory that made the train is wrongheaded because the factory isn't essential to the motion. Clearly, it's not causing any other essential member in the series to move.
Regarding The First Way, do the apologists here think that the First Mover is responsible for all things that move, or just some?
In other words, when a man moves a rod, is the first mover ultimately behind that rod's motion (or is it just the man)?
If the first mover is not the ultimate source of motion for a man moving a rod, then how does one determine what motions are being propelled by the first mover?
Start with the air/fuel combustion end with the caboose if that is all you wish to consider. No further regress of any sort called for.
But both the air and fuel are in motion, so there must be something causing their motion too. Is that in motion also? If so, then it too must be moved and so on. But this number of moving movers cannot be infinite for a whole number of reasons and so must end in something that moves the others without itself moving.
In other words, when a man moves a rod, is the first mover ultimately behind that rod's motion (or is it just the man)?
The First Way concludes that the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of *all* motion of existing material objects. No exceptions.
In the case of the man moving the stick, he does so in virtue of his composition of form and matter. If that composition were to cease there would be no motion of the stick.
Start with the air/fuel combustion end with the caboose if that is all you wish to consider. No further regress of any sort called for.
" But both the air and fuel are in motion," --Indeed.
" so there must be something causing their motion too. Is that in motion also? " --Yes, other air molecules.
"If so, then it too must be moved and so on." --Indeed. The motion of the air molecules is caused by more and more air molecules bumping into them. This is a temporal, spatial, regress. Air molecules do not all line up and move each other instantaneously.
So, in the locomotive if I ask what further regress of motion is called for you ask what causes the air and fuel molecules to move. That is reasonable. The answer in the case of air is further air molecules in a temporal causal series.
But you say this is not a temporal analysis. Well, OK, what non-temporal regress is called for?
I was asked to consider a freeze frame. Ok, let's. I see air, fuel, and CO2 molecules suspended in space inside a cylinder. I see a piston, crankshaft, generator, motor, wheels, and cars ending in the caboose. That's it.
Where is there a call for any further regress in the freeze frame?
" But this number of moving movers cannot be infinite" --It doesn't need to be. The air molecules here were impacted by other molecules over there some time in the past. And before that by others, and before that by others, until we go all the way around the Earth and come back to our spot.
It is like my example of the sealed bottle of gas, everything just keeps bouncing off everything else. That's why a sealed bottle of gas maintains pressure, because at the molecular level there is no such thing as friction. Energy is conserved, so all the molecules in the bottle just keep bouncing off each other and bouncing off the wall without end in an ongoing temporal process that calls for no first mover in this moment.
There is no first mover in this moment called for, only the mutual causation of every member in the system. In the case of an idealized Earth atmosphere we live in a spherical shell bottle of gas.
So, where in the freeze frame is there a call for any sort of regress? I see the components of the train, starting at the locomotive and ending at the caboose, done.
If you wish to consider how the air and the fuel got there that is reasonable, but it is also a temporal regress.
" In the case of the man moving the stick, he does so in virtue of his composition of form and matter. If that composition were to cease there would be no motion of the stick." --Ok, so again, the man and the stick and the rock in freeze frame. There a man, a stick, and a rock, that's it. It is said that an argument from motion calls for a first mover because a series of motions cannot regress to infinity. I see a man moving a stick moving a rock, done. No further regress of motion is called for in the freeze frame.
So now you raise the concept of "form". Ok, that's reasonable. What is "form"? You can provide your own words, but one way to say it is structure, or arrangement. The form of a crystal is the angular relationships between the atoms and molecules in the crystal lattice.
Everything has some sort of form. Constituents connect in particular arrangements. So, it is a great question to ask. How do these arrangements arise? What happens when we looks closer and closer at how constituents are structured to give rise, as it were, to the "form" we observe?
This is a structural regress analysis. Very interesting.
We model the hand as composed of cells. The cells are composed of molecules. The molecules are composed of atoms. The atoms are composed of subatomic particles. The subatomic particles are composed of standard model particles. The standard model particles are composed of strings or quantum fields or some as yet undiscovered structure. An unknown number of further regressions of structural modeling may be called for. The terminus of this structural regress is fundamental physics, in the descriptive sense.
The underlying reality is fundamental physics, in the existential sense.
This is not a causal regress, rather, a modeling regress. The only physically existing indivisible entities are those of fundamental physics. All the higher order entities are simply approximate models of arrangements of constituents.
Motion does not call for this regress of models of structures or arrangements or form. It is the observation of form at the macro level that calls for an explanation. That explanation is the arrangements of constituents.
The first mover is irrelevant, since there is no first mover called for by consideration of form.
Because it's an "essential member" analysis. Stop focusing so much on time and start focusing on WHAT is causing the observed motion. The distinction between accidental and essential series gets us to focus on WHAT is required to produce the motion.
>> "Where is there a call for any further regress in the freeze frame?"
A completed train sitting on the tracks with the atmosphere all around it, with gravity forces acting on it and with air/fuel in the cylinder isn't moving until something unique happens. It has the potential to move. Aquinas talks about objects having a potential that must be actualized by some other object (objects don't move themselves).
When the motion begins we know a change occurs. The potential to move has been actualized. That change requires a cause, which requires an object that isn't the train/atmosphere/gravity/fuel. WHAT is essential to making that unique change happen?
We know a heated object is essential to ignite the air/fuel mixture. We know that object wasn't always heated so we know some other object must have caused it to become heated. WHAT objects can cause other objects to become heated?
The "essential member analysis" continues. You'll notice I'm focusing on WHAT, and not focusing on time.
As SteveK mentions, the argument considers the series of moving movers while the movement is ongoing, not history.
I was asked to consider a freeze frame.
Yes, in order to maintain the focus on all the components that are active in a motion of moving movers.
" But this number of moving movers cannot be infinite" --It doesn't need to be. The air molecules here were impacted by other molecules over there some time in the past.
Once again, you've included things that happened in the past. Not part of that freeze frame.
It is like my example of the sealed bottle of gas, everything just keeps bouncing off everything else.
At any particular point in time, some molecules are colliding with others and moving them forming an essentially ordered series. When they separate, they no longer form an essentially ordered series (because there is no longer a force applied from one to the other). So at any point in time, there are some essentially ordered series coming to be, some in existence and some passing away.
Ok, that's reasonable. What is "form"? You can provide your own words, but one way to say it is structure, or arrangement. The form of a crystal is the angular relationships between the atoms and molecules in the crystal lattice.
The idea of form and matter composing a physical object is known as hylomorphism. Matter at it's lowest form can potentially be any material object. It is form that constrains matter into becoming an actual material thing. Form is more than just the physical structure, it is the entire essense of the thing including all it's nature and all of it's potential properties both potential and actual. It is what makes a thing intelligible.
This is a structural regress analysis. Very interesting.
Not really. The question is what is causing motion.
The only physically existing indivisible entities are those of fundamental physics.
Do those entities move? Then they must ultimately be moved by something not moving.
Motion does not call for this regress of models of structures or arrangements or form.
That's because you stopped asking the question "what is causing a particular motion?" to "what is that thing made of?".
The man moves the stick, because he has the natural potential to do that due to the type of thing (his nature) he is. He is the type of thing he is, because he is a composition of form and matter in motion. Since material things do not move themselves ultimately, there must be a first mover responsible for this motion.
>> "Where is there a call for any further regress in the freeze frame?"
" A completed train sitting on the tracks with the atmosphere all around it, with gravity forces acting on it and with air/fuel in the cylinder isn't moving until something unique happens. " --Right. An operator pumps fuel into the tank, which is a temporal process. Then an operator gets into the cab, a temporal process, pushes a button, which is a temporal process, and that activates a circuit, that energizes a starting motor, theat turns the engine, that pumps the fuel and air and the heat of compression then leads to combustion which then generates electricity which then flows through the motors and then the train accelerates.
It all takes time in a process.
You say don't consider time. How are we supposed to answer the question of the causal series that led up to the train moving without considering time?
Where is there an idea of going to infinity? I counted a finite number of steps, that's it, no problem of an infinity at all.
" WHAT is essential to making that unique change happen?" --I just summarized the causal series. Where is the problem of an infinity in those items I listed?
Particularly, where is the problem of an infinity in the present moment at any particular point in time in the causal series?
" We know a heated object is essential to ignite the air/fuel mixture. We know that object wasn't always heated so we know some other object must have caused it to become heated. WHAT objects can cause other objects to become heated?" --Summarized above.
" The "essential member analysis" continues. You'll notice I'm focusing on WHAT, and not focusing on time." --What what? I don't see you have named any specific objects in your analysis.
"Heat" is not a fundamental property, BTW. Heat is a macro measure of average atomic kinetic energy.
So, when considering the heat of compression where is there any sort of infinity to consider? What exactly is regressing such that you think it would have to regress to infinity were it not for a first mover?
Can you list specific objects that you think somehow would lead to an infinity were it not for a first mover? How about a list of, say, 10 things in a regress that seems to go on and on and on thus calling for the choice between infinity and a first mover? Can you name 10 such items, specifically?
" But this number of moving movers cannot be infinite" --It doesn't need to be. The air molecules here were impacted by other molecules over there some time in the past.
" Once again, you've included things that happened in the past. Not part of that freeze frame." --In the freeze frame most of the air molecules are suspended in space. There is no call for a first mover of a molecule that is suspended in space.
" At any particular point in time, some molecules are colliding with others and moving them forming an essentially ordered series. When they separate, they no longer form an essentially ordered series (because there is no longer a force applied from one to the other). So at any point in time, there are some essentially ordered series coming to be, some in existence and some passing away." --No thought of an infinite series then. So most molecules are suspended in space, a few are in the middle of bouncing off each other. How does that call for a long regression? Regression of what?
" Not really. The question is what is causing motion." --Do you suppose angels are nudging every molecule along from moment to moment?
An object in motion tends to stay in motion. This is understood as conservation of energy. There is no change in kinetic energy for an object in uniform motion, so no external cause for continued motion is called for.
SP The only physically existing indivisible entities are those of fundamental physics.
" Do those entities move? Then they must ultimately be moved by something not moving." --Why? That would mean an object in uniform motion in space would come to a screeching halt unless something kept moving it. How does that make sense to you?
SP Motion does not call for this regress of models of structures or arrangements or form.
" That's because you stopped asking the question "what is causing a particular motion?" to "what is that thing made of?"." --Why would continued uniform motion require a cause? On conservation of energy a change in motion requires a cause. If no change in motion then no cause is called for. Why would you think otherwise?
bmiller: "The man moves the stick, because he has the natural potential to do that due to the type of thing (his nature) he is."
No it's not an exception. The man has a nature different from a stone. The stone does not have a natural potential to move a stick in the same way a man does. But both move according to their nature, but both also are not ultimately responsible for moving themselves. If the form/matter composite ceases, both cease to exist. Neither is ultimately responsible for their form/matter composition.
bmiller: "The First Way concludes that the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of *all* motion of existing material objects. No exceptions." Me: "This seems like an exception." bmiller: "The man moves the stick, because he has the natural potential to do that due to the type of thing (his nature) he is."
bmiller: "No it's not an exception. The man has a nature different from a stone. The stone does not have a natural potential to move a stick in the same way a man does."
It's an exception because in your first quote, the unmoved move is responsible for ALL motion, but in your second, the man is responsible for the motion of the stick.
Comments: 1) Some of your members above are not essential members. The guy pumping the fuel isn't needed for the motion of the train. The fuel is needed but since fuel cannot move itself into a train something must move it.
2) Like pumping fuel, pushing a button is a separate motion with it's own essential causal series that the FW explains. That causal series does not do ANYTHING to move the train because that causal series is not ordered toward moving train. That causal series only causes the motion of the button because the members in the causal series are ordered toward that effect.
3) All the essential members are required to be in place at the instant the train motion is initiated. This is what Aquinas means by an essential causal series. It's like an ordered series of dominoes. All the dominoes must be properly in place BEFORE the train motion can occur.
4) Imagining a situation where some of the essential members aren't needed for the motion of the train is a red herring. Of course, if the situation were different the essential members would be different.
5) With all the dominoes properly in place there remains no movement until something causes the first domino to fall. That requires an object - an existing object, not an object from the past like your grandfather. WHAT kind of object can accomplish that task?
>> "You say don't consider time. How are we supposed to answer the question of the causal series that led up to the train moving without considering time?"
Because time is not a cause. That's the primary reason why time is of secondary importance. For some reason you want to start there, but in doing so it can lead people to wrongheaded conclusions like 'my grandfather is contributing a particular amount to my golf swing'
>> "I just summarized the causal series. Where is the problem of an infinity in those items I listed?"
Huh? The FW specifically says going to infinity will NOT solve the problem. I agree with that.
>> "I don't see you have named any specific objects in your analysis."
Correct. I am focusing on WHAT, and not time. That's the point you are not grasping and I thought I'd help point that out.
Me: "5) With all the dominoes properly in place there remains no movement until something causes the first domino to fall. That requires an object - an existing object, not an object from the past like your grandfather. WHAT kind of object can accomplish that task?"
This object moving the first domino is added to the essential causal series, which is to say that ALL the dominoes were're actually in place. It only appeared that way. More objects are needed - and more, and more and more. An infinite number of them will not resolve the inherent problem or "more".
>> "I just summarized the causal series. Where is the problem of an infinity in those items I listed?"
" Huh? The FW specifically says going to infinity will NOT solve the problem. I agree with that." --What problem? Where is the regress? What goes back and back and back that calls out for a first mover?
So the motor turns to move the train. Fine, that's it then, end of story.
Where is this series? Series of what?
The FW is a regression analysis, one thing is moved by another, which is moved by another, which is moved by another and so forth. The FW asserts this causal series cannot go on and on and on to infinity.
It doesn't go on at all. You have not identified any series with some sort of unknown predecessor.
The engine moves the train, so what makes the engine move? Where is the series? Can you name the parts, by name, specifically?
"3) All the essential members are required to be in place at the instant the train motion is initiated. This is what Aquinas means by an essential causal series. It's like an ordered series of dominoes. All the dominoes must be properly in place BEFORE the train motion can occur. " --What are the dominoes? What are they called?
>> "So the motor turns to move the train. Fine, that's it then, end of story."
Converting potential energy into actual energy that is usable is a change. That motion requires a cause, yes?
You're content to stop somewhere on the list of essential objects and say "this object has a potential that is both unrealized and realized at the same time". I'm not.
What you're saying is a contradiction according to the FW argument (2e and 2f) so you'll need to explain how your conclusion avoids this logical problem. Now is the time to get very specific.
>> "What are the dominoes? What are they called?"
I can't list them all by name, and we don't need to. We just need to follow the logic of the FW argument. If you can avoid the logical contradiction, you'll need to explain how you do that. Right now you're just claiming it. Time for you to get specific.
----------- (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, or in other words, that it moves itself.
" I can't list them all by name, and we don't need to." --You haven't listed more than 1. That isn't much of a list.
Yes you do need to list them to form a sound argument, else you are just waving your arms around with vague references to imaginary things you can't even identify.
>> “Yes you do need to list them to form a sound argument, else you are just waving your arms around with vague references to imaginary things you can't even identify.”
My sound argument is the FW argument. It argues by referencing a type of observed thing, not by referencing a specific list of things. You know that, right?
I’m not making a vague reference. I’m making a specific reference to what the logic of the argument requires. Your job is to show how the FW argument is wrong. All you’re doing is claiming it is. That’s not gonna fly here.
The argument has been shown to be a bad argument based on many ways it violates the rules of good argument. Claiming that an obviously bad argument is sound is something that stupid people do.
stevek: "It argues by referencing a type of observed thing, not by referencing a specific list of things. You know that, right?"
The above adds more evidence to the simplest explanation for your comments: that you are either stupid, a liar, or the combination of the two which makes each trait more severe.
An first mover argument is necessarily about a series, which is another way of saying a "list of things". Aquinas acknowledge this when he writes, "If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]. But this [series] cannot proceed to infinity:"
You are apparently too stupid and dishonest to understand the simplest of concepts. Sad.
Aquinas referenced a series of existing THINGS. Those existing things were stated by Aquinas to be of a particular type - the type that is in potency to that towards which it is moved (line 2a)
You really are a stupid atheist, Cal. But I repeat myself.
The FW argument doesn’t require a specific list. Any list of physical objects that cannot move themselves will do. The logic goes through on that basis.
stevek: "The FW argument doesn’t require a specific list."
If the First Way doesn't describe a specific list of real events then the First Way fails on soundness. By your prior agreement, the First Way fails.
stevek: "Any list of physical objects that cannot move themselves will do."
Nope. The First Way is about motion -- change over time. A list of physical objects that cannot move themselves is the opposite of the First Way. Yet another indication that you don't even know what the First Way is actually about.
stevek: "The logic goes through on that basis."
The "logic" of the First Way fail on because it is circular (an endless regression is impossible because an endless regression is impossible). So it fails on logic alone.
But it also fails in that the argument actually does to purport to describe reality (despite your denial of this fact), and arguments that describe reality but are not actually sound (fail on observation or induction) are bad arguments.
All you and bmiller have done for hundreds of comments now is demonstrate that you are both too dishonest and stupid to absorb this information.
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 2601 – 2800 of 3162 Newer› Newest»Housekeeping:
bmiller: “This is the sort of causal series that physics can theoretically provide some sort formula to compute the quantitative amount of force derived from the existing person. An essentially ordered series.”
Typical word salad.
---------------------------------
bmiller: "Perhaps not, but he specifically answered that they ARE contributing a "particular amount" of force to the stick being moved. He is logically stuck with that assertion or he will have to admit there are different kinds of causal series."
Me: “You lie.” [ includes Stardusty actual, specific answer, below: ]
Stardusty: "The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat WERE all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
bmiller: “Another typical response from a projector who claimed he'd read the list I posted. Ho hum. / But please explain what you think I got wrong.”
Mkay.
You misrepresented “were all instrumental” as “are contributing a ‘particular amount’ of force’ .
Do you think they mean the same thing? If so, evidence number umpteeneventy that you are made stupider by your dishonesty.
If you agree that the two phrases above don’t mean the same thing, then you have mis-represented what Stardusty had written.
Either way, you remain vile. And profoundly stupid as a result.
Stardusty: "Now, if you disagree then please state where exactly my analysis is mistaken."
bmiller: "You can see that here: September 13, 2017 1:13 PM."
No, we can't. We can read your responses to Legion, none of which address the question Stardusty (and I, previously) asked you to address exactly and specifically.
You remain dishonest, which makes you stupider.
bmiller: "A man moves a stick by applying force."
Only in a colloquial sense. The actual forces and events can be described much more precisely than that, while also revealing that the notions of cause and effect and the colloquial terms used can mislead us into not adequately describing all the forces at work.
bmiller: "Science claims to be able to attribute 100% of that force to the existing man."
No, you are simply wrong. Which makes sense, because you remain stupid about what science stipulates, and what it does not. There are other forces at work regarding the motion of the stick -- the stick and the man are subject to gravity which has a role in how the forces applied direct the motion of the stick, etc., the forces that constitute the different objects into their colloquial categories (man, stick), etc. continue to play a role throughout the event, etc.
So, you remain stupid regarding your pronouncements about an event (and the understanding that Stardusty and I possess and that you can't comprehend), a stupidity born of your stubborn refusal to accommodate knowledge that makes you uncomfortable. This appears to be best explained as a stupidity born of your moral weakness, but I can't rule out a simpler form of stupid.
bmiller: "None to deceased ancient ancestors."
If you are going to single out an event (a man moving a stick) for description, then don't become upset that the event you single out (a man moving a stick) necessarily excludes other events that occurred prior. Your attempt to single out an event is a convenient and useful way to analyze events, but your determination that an event can be described using physical description (physics) does NOT mean that prior events are therefore meaningless. On the contrary, ALL physics NECESSARILY assumes a prior event up to the point of the Big Bang, although most physics refines descriptions to more discrete events in which the effects of prior events are either accounted for or are immeasurable, and thus defy description.
You are so dishonest that I am supremely confident that you will not be able to comprehend and absorb what I wrote in the paragraph above. You will not be able to absorb it and consider the information separately from your prior (overly-simplified) understanding, and this is why you will remain as stupid at this point in the discussion as when you began it.
Like Stevek who knows that he is not really a mechanical engineer (even if he can't bring himself to admit this publicly, because he fears losing face, a sign of moral cowardice), you know that you lack the basic understanding of science that people gain from a well-rounded and rigorous education, let alone the more rigorous and in-depth understanding that someone Stardusty possesses. Until you are able to actually fix that, your efforts to rush ahead to conclusions about reality (based on scientific knowledge) will be as frustrating for you as it for those of us who bother to read your comments.
bmiller: "So the type of series causing the man-hand-stick motion is fundamentally different than the series of men begetting sons. The first is referred to as an essentially ordered series while the second is referred to as an accidentally ordered series."
Nope. Your pronouncements are not only wrong, but reveal the extent that you cannot absorb information that threatens your identity, confining you to remaining profoundly stupid unless you can somehow cure yourself of your moral failings.
@Little Cal,
You misrepresented “were all instrumental” as “are contributing a ‘particular amount’ of force’ .
I suspect that Strawdusty would agree with me that he would consider ancient deceased ancestors instrumental in both the past tense and also the present tense. Otherwise he would be admitting that they *are not* instrumental for the present motion and in agreement with SteveK and I.
Are you agreeing with us then?
@Little Cal,
"If you are going to single out an event (a man moving a stick) for description, then don't become upset that the event you single out (a man moving a stick) necessarily excludes other events that occurred prior. Your attempt to single out an event is a convenient and useful way to analyze events, but your determination that an event can be described using physical description (physics) does NOT mean that prior events are therefore meaningless."
The man moving the stick is the example from the First Way, but why would I be upset that it excludes prior events? The purpose of the example is to examine the the ultimate cause of the existing stick's motion, that being the Unmoved Mover. Not it's ontological origins, nor the man's. That is a different subject.
And no one said that prior events are meaningless. But not all events are instances of existing material objects in motion (changing from potency to act). For instance, sometimes things that were not in existence come into existence, as when a man begets a son. That kind of change is called generation.
On the contrary, ALL physics NECESSARILY assumes a prior event up to the point of the Big Bang, although most physics refines descriptions to more discrete events in which the effects of prior events are either accounted for or are immeasurable, and thus defy description.
Sure. No one is denying the universe has a history. But as I mentioned not all events are motion in the sense of the First Way.
This was all I read that was worth responding to. The rest was mostly projection.
Cal:
>> "Only in a colloquial sense. The actual forces and events can be described much more precisely than that, while also revealing that the notions of cause and effect and the colloquial terms used can mislead us into not adequately describing all the forces at work."
Incoherent babbling doesn't explain anything. Get specific.
>> "Your attempt to single out an event is a convenient and useful way to analyze events, but your determination that an event can be described using physical description (physics) does NOT mean that prior events are therefore meaningless."
Adding prior events to a single event does NOT mean that ALL prior events have a causal relationship to that single event. Some of them ARE meaningless.
Ex:
Event 1: Susan picks up the cup and moves it to the sink.
Event 2: Henry picks up the cup and moves it to the table.
Accidental series
The objects in Event 2 did NOT cause Event 1 to occur, or vice versa. There's no causal relationship. Henry isn't necessary for the motion of Event 1 and Susan isn't necessary to the motion of Event 2. However...
Essential series
Henry IS necessary (essential) to the motion of Event 2. Henry is causing the motion.
Susan IS necessary (essential) to the motion of Event 1. Susan is causing the motion.
>> "On the contrary, ALL physics NECESSARILY assumes a prior event up to the point of the Big Bang"
Nobody is denying prior events. This is about WHAT is necessary (essential) for motion to occur. Not all prior events are necessary for a motion to occur.
bmiller: "This was all I read that was worth responding to. The rest was mostly projection."
Did you think I was projecting when I asked you:
Me: "Do you think [“were all instrumental” and “are contributing a ‘particular amount’ of force’] mean the same thing?"
If you do think they mean the same thing, why would you think that? Tell us exactly what makes you think those two phrases in quotes above are equivalent.
If you don't believe those two phrases are equivalent, then you should correct your thinking and modify your position, because you would have been misrepresenting Stardusty's and my position when you represented that the two phrases are somehow equivalent.
That's what reasonable people do.
Do you disagree that that's what reasonable people do -- explain their thinking exactly and precisely and concisely so as to show how what they believe is indeed correct, or realize they had misunderstood and correct their beliefs?
Do you think your response to the questions above will reveal that you are reacting emotionally and with pride and dishonesty, or do you think your response will reveal that you can, sometimes, adopt a position of humility and consistency and rationality?
Deluded Cal:
>> "If you don't believe those two phrases are equivalent, then you should correct your thinking and modify your position, because you would have been misrepresenting Stardusty's and my position when you represented that the two phrases are somehow equivalent."
This was already addressed. If Dusty is saying they aren't equivalent then...
bmiller: "Otherwise he would be admitting that they *are not* instrumental for the present motion and in agreement with SteveK and I"
Reading comprehension. It's a real thing.
Something can be "instrumental" from the perspective of history, but not instrumental from the perspective of that something causing a motion.
That's the point Cal and Dusty are agreeing to - which means it's irrelevant to the FW discussion.
We're over 2600 comments and they are STILL lost and confused.
This is rich:
stevek: "If Dusty is saying they aren't equivalent then... "
Can you complete that sentence? Because I don't know what you mean.
Also, just for kicks -- what do you think reading comprehension means?
"This is rich"
What is rich - Me? You? I don't know what you mean.
(yes I'm mocking your ability to understand English)
@Cal,
Did you think I was projecting when I asked you:
Me: "Do you think [“were all instrumental” and “are contributing a ‘particular amount’ of force’] mean the same thing?"
No.
This is where I think you are projecting.
Do you think your response to the questions above will reveal that you are reacting emotionally and with pride and dishonesty, or do you think your response will reveal that you can, sometimes, adopt a position of humility and consistency and rationality?
On the other hand, this is a reasonable question.
If you do think they mean the same thing, why would you think that? Tell us exactly what makes you think those two phrases in quotes above are equivalent.
Of course I don't think they mean the same thing. I speak the English language and understand that there is a difference between past tense and present tense. But Strawdusty is claiming that a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past. This is apparent from the list (and thread) I posted from Feser's blog (with links). Linked first here:July 23, 2017 3:15 PM, then here: August 08, 2017 8:52 PM
Did you read and understand my response?
I suspect that Strawdusty would agree with me that he would consider ancient deceased ancestors instrumental in both the past tense and also the present tense. Otherwise he would be admitting that they *are not* instrumental for the present motion and in agreement with SteveK and I.
I think that I have represented Strawdusty's concept accurately and it illustrates the dilemma he is left with.
1) Claim that deceased relative move sticks now
or
2) Admit that there are 2 different types of causal series.
One further note:
He has so confounded the definitions of "essentially ordered" and "accidentally ordered" that he used the definition of one when referring to the other.
I don't blame you for being confused trying to follow his incoherency.
@SteveK,
Something can be "instrumental" from the perspective of history, but not instrumental from the perspective of that something causing a motion.
That's right. As an analogy, a hammer that was used in the past to build a hammer factory and was destroyed does not contribute to a different hammer's momentum/force nailing nails today.
bmiller: “But Strawdusty is claiming that a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past. This is apparent from the list (and thread) I posted from Feser's blog (with links). Linked first here:July 23, 2017 3:15 PM, then here: August 08, 2017 8:52 PM”
Your August 08, 2017 8:52 reference references 21 comments. Where exactly in those comments does Stardusty claim what you say — “that a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past> ?
Cite exactly the words (from the links you provided) he uses that make you think he says, “a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past.”
If you fail to find a citation where he says what you have claimed he said, will you admit that you have misrepresented what he said?
bmiller: “Did you read and understand my response? —> I suspect that Strawdusty would agree with me that he would consider ancient deceased ancestors instrumental in both the past tense and also the present tense. Otherwise he would be admitting that they *are not* instrumental for the present motion and in agreement with SteveK and I.”
Seeing as how a present event in which past events were instrumental can’t involve both in the same frame of time (otherwise one would have not preceded the other), your suspicion seems completely unfounded.
bmiller: “I think that I have represented Strawdusty's concept accurately and it illustrates the dilemma he is left with.”
I’m still waiting to see a citation where Stardusty wrote that “a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past.”
Are you going to provide that quote?
bmiller: [the dilemma is:] “1) Claim that deceased relative move sticks now / or / 2) Admit that there are 2 different types of causal series.”
Ha. Or, simply come to understand that all events are necessarily preceded by prior ones all the way up to the point of the Big Bang. But that would require that you understand basic science.
bmiller: “One further note: / He has so confounded the definitions of "essentially ordered" and "accidentally ordered" that he used the definition of one when referring to the other. / I don't blame you for being confused trying to follow his incoherency.”
You are so stupid that you think that you are pointing out a lone individual’s misunderstanding, when in fact the individual who misunderstands is you, and what you fail to understand is a vast body of knowledge that can’t be appreciated or understood without first understanding basic science. Truly, reading your comments is like listening to a caveman claim that virtually the entire world is too stupid to understand that a 747 cannot possibly fly.
Your ignorance is that obvious, and sad.
@Little Cal,
Your August 08, 2017 8:52 reference references 21 comments. Where exactly in those comments does Stardusty claim what you say — “that a particular amount of the force applied to a stick by a man in the present is from deceased relatives in the past> ?
Of course I never claimed to be quoting him, only to be summarizing his position which can be ascertained from the context of the thread.
Strawdusty's post
July 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM
"Consider the deceased father of the man moving the stick."
--Ok, let's
Here Strawdusty agrees the topic is a man moving a stick in the present and the relationship of that movement with the deceased father.
Strawdusty's post
July 19, 2017 at 7:14 AM
The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount.
The man is moving the stick by applying force. Strawdusty attributes to the deceased relatives "some particular amount" of that force. Now it is possible that he is saying that in the past they anticipated that the man would be moving the stick and somehow traveled time to supply it, or they may be supplying it from heaven. He didn't elaborate, but I assumed he didn't mean heaven or time travel.
Are you going to provide that quote?
No. Do you still think there is no difference between quoting someone and presenting their position accurately?
Ha. Or, simply come to understand that all events are necessarily preceded by prior ones all the way up to the point of the Big Bang. But that would require that you understand basic science.
Hey, I didn't create the dilemma. Strawdusty did. Basic science holds that force moves things. If deceased relatives are responsible for moving things now then they must be providing a force, otherwise, how are they responsible for moving things now?
But you never did answer this question. Maybe we can reach an agreement when you tell me exactly which of these you agree with:
Do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I agree.
Or do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I disagree.
The relevant question is exactly what is causing the force moving the stick. I claim that only an existent being can cause the force. Do you claim otherwise?
Oh. And of course you end with more projection. Poor Little Cal. Will you ever grow up?
@bmiler, As I thought, you seem to be suffering from a garden variety reading comprehension problem:
Stardusty: “The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount.”
bmiller: “The man is moving the stick by applying force.”
Colloquially, your statement above is true. In reality, the event is far more complicated. But so far this is fine. Unfortunately, you go on:
bmiller: “Strawdusty attributes to the deceased relatives "some particular amount" of that force.”
This is where your reading comprehension problem begins. Because in Stardusty's statement above he does NOT in fact indicate that ancestors are moving the stick — he merely indicates that prior events occurred that brought us to the point where a man moves a stick — among them, a grandfather, a father, and the previous heartbeat. Without each of these predecessors, the event singled out as the man moving the stick would not be about to occur.
That is all. Nowhere does Stardusty claim (as you have apparently misread) that predecessors per se are actually there moving the stick — only that those predecessors were all necessary (instrumental) for the components of the event to be in place when the event occurs.
Your problem above is a basic SAT level reading comprehension problem, one that you would get wrong with your answer on the test. As further evidenced by your expanded interpretation below:
bmiller: “Now it is possible that he is saying that in the past they anticipated that the man would be moving the stick and somehow traveled time to supply it, or they may be supplying it from heaven. He didn't elaborate, but I assumed he didn't mean heaven or time travel.”
Moving on:
Me: “Are you going to provide that quote?”
bmiller: “No. Do you still think there is no difference between quoting someone and presenting their position accurately?”
As seen above, your problem lies in your basic reading comprehension problem. Asking for a quote helps to see where your reading fails to accurately portray the plain reading of the text.
bmiller: “Hey, I didn't create the dilemma. Strawdusty did.”
As we see more plainly now, you created the "dilemma" with your basic reading comprehension problem.
bmiller: “Basic science holds that force moves things. If deceased relatives are responsible for moving things now then they must be providing a force, otherwise, how are they responsible for moving things now?”
Since you misunderstood the text, this is a twisted problem of your invention. Since you don't understand basic science, your question is also malformed.
The point made by Stardusty (and myself) is that when one singles out a particular event for description, one is still left with necessary prior events that allowed that particular event to occur; a man CANNOT move a stick without first having arrived at the place where the stick will be moved, the atoms that make up the stick were assembled from components in the atmosphere over decades or centuries, those atoms were created in a star billions of years ago, and on and on and on all the way back to the Big Bang. Very simple, stuff. So simple, it's inescapable. Your not being able to comprehend it is the only thing that needs explanation, and I have offered my explanations for in prior comments.
bmiller: “The relevant question is exactly what is causing the force moving the stick. I claim that only an existent being can cause the force. Do you claim otherwise?”
As seen by reading your comments prior and this one, the actual problem in this particular issue is your reading comprehension (which is multiplied by other errors and deficiencies that I've gone over at some length).
Housekeeping:
You seem to think that these questions are somehow trenchant. They’re not, but at the risk of not being complete in my responses I’ll address them more specifically:
bmiller: “But you never did answer this question. Maybe we can reach an agreement when you tell me exactly which of these you agree with: / Do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I agree.”
“Particular amount” basically means isolating something for the purposes of description and explanation. Since examining something in particular necessarily means isolating the thing (in this case, an event), the question is nonsensical; the thing being described is a man moving a stick, which necessarily isolates a continuous stream (reality) into an event (the man moving the stick) which by the nature of describing events introduces and terminates within the frames being described.
bmiller: “Or do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks? If so, I disagree.”
Well, since force is normally defined as the amount of work needed to set an object in motion in a given direction over a particular amount of time, and since the event being described is particular to the time frame in which the stick is moved, then the question (again) doesn’t really make sense — it’s like asking, “Do you think that objects outside a square are inside it?”
bmiller: “The relevant question is exactly what is causing the force moving the stick. I claim that only an existent being can cause the force. Do you claim otherwise?”
With regard to physics, an “existent being” is redundant. Something is real, or it is not.
Your error is basically that you appear to think that because we conveniently categorize the complexity of reality (real things, over time) into particular groupings (a man, a stick, a moving stick), when a category no longer applies over time then things actually leave or enter reality. This is a kind of stupidity, as it demonstrates that you lack the flexibility and understanding to adapt the more precise and useful and accurate descriptions offered by scientific description.
@Cal,
bmiller: “Strawdusty attributes to the deceased relatives "some particular amount" of that force.”
Cal:"This is where your reading comprehension problem begins. Because in Stardusty's statement above he does NOT in fact indicate that ancestors are moving the stick — he merely indicates that prior events occurred that brought us to the point where a man moves a stick — among them, a grandfather, a father, and the previous heartbeat. Without each of these predecessors, the event singled out as the man moving the stick would not be about to occur.
That is all. Nowhere does Stardusty claim (as you have apparently misread) that predecessors per se are actually there moving the stick — only that those predecessors were all necessary (instrumental) for the components of the event to be in place when the event occurs."
The only quibble Strawdusty had with my representation was when I assumed he meant the "particular amount" of force being applied by deceased relatives was measurable so I have to assume I got it right. I think he found himself committed to that position by following his logic to it's end. Now he's stuck.
However, if you want to adopt the position that deceased relatives do not supply a "particular amount" of the force of a stick being moved by a decendent, then I think that is a quite reasonable position to take.
The point made by Stardusty (and myself) is that when one singles out a particular event for description, one is still left with necessary prior events that allowed that particular event to occur; a man CANNOT move a stick without first having arrived at the place where the stick will be moved, the atoms that make up the stick were assembled from components in the atmosphere over decades or centuries, those atoms were created in a star billions of years ago, and on and on and on all the way back to the Big Bang. Very simple, stuff. So simple, it's inescapable. Your not being able to comprehend it is the only thing that needs explanation, and I have offered my explanations for in prior comments.
I have no trouble comprehending any of this and I have not disagreed with any of it. Why in the world do you think I disagree?
The disagreement we have is that Strawdusty claims there is only one type of causal series while SteveK and I claim there are 2.
So I agree with you that long deceased relatives do not supply any force to a man moving a stick in the present. Only the form and matter of the man is responsible for that force.
I also agree with you that long deceased relatives are responsible in some way for the man. But it is in a different way than the way the man moves the stick by way of his form and matter.
So when you mention that "a man CANNOT move a stick without first having arrived at the place where the stick will be moved", I completely agree. He would not exist to move the stick if his father had not existed. His father would not have existed if his grandfather had not existed and so on. So they are not responsible for the movement as a series per se (essentially ordered) as you note, but only as a series per accidens (accidentally ordered).
@Cal,
“Particular amount” basically means isolating something for the purposes of description and explanation. Since examining something in particular necessarily means isolating the thing (in this case, an event), the question is nonsensical; the thing being described is a man moving a stick, which necessarily isolates a continuous stream (reality) into an event (the man moving the stick) which by the nature of describing events introduces and terminates within the frames being described.
This seems to say that when physics is used to calculate force it is engaged in nonsense. There seems to be a lot of that nonsense going on. Here is a site that explains the physics of hockey sticks. These calculations are used to design hockey sticks that don't break. Should hockey stick designers include calculations for the force (F-ma) supplied by deceased relatives or not?
Well, since force is normally defined as the amount of work needed to set an object in motion in a given direction over a particular amount of time, and since the event being described is particular to the time frame in which the stick is moved, then the question (again) doesn’t really make sense — it’s like asking, “Do you think that objects outside a square are inside it?”
Other than the fact you have the definition of force wrong, how does a question regarding the source of a motive force not "really make sense"? F=ma is the formula used to compute the force of one existing material object impressed upon another existing material object. If you think deceased relatives don't qualify as as *existing material objects*, then the answer to the question would simply be that you too disagree with the statement on those grounds. Which is why I disagree with it. It seems you don't want to answer a very simple question.
bmiller: “The relevant question is exactly what is causing the force moving the stick. I claim that only an existent being can cause the force. Do you claim otherwise?”
With regard to physics, an “existent being” is redundant. Something is real, or it is not.
But you didn't answer the question. Again. You neither agreed or disagreed with my claim. This is called dodging the question.
Cal
>> "Seeing as how a present event in which past events were instrumental can’t involve both in the same frame of time (otherwise one would have not preceded the other), your suspicion seems completely unfounded."
Prove that the past event is causally instrumental - meaning the past event caused a next event that caused a next event...which caused the present event.
We've cited numerous examples where past events are not causally linked to present events - thus proving that there are 2 kinds of causal series (essential/accidental), and thus proving that Cal and Dusty are wrong. Not just "in my opinion, wrong" but scientifically, verifiably wrong.
@SteveK,
I think your observation that the term instrumental is key. In order for something to be instrumental in a causal series it must be present in the series as well as to lack causal power in itself.
SteveK said.. September 18, 2017 3:25 PM.
" We've cited numerous examples where past events are not causally linked to present events - thus proving that there are 2 kinds of causal series (essential/accidental), and thus proving that Cal and Dusty are wrong. "
--Every causal series is an "accidental" causal series. Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal. Causal influences propagate no faster than c. Thus, no series of events can occur within the limit as t goes to zero.
bmiller said..
September 18, 2017 6:37 PM.
" In order for something to be instrumental in a causal series it must be present in the series"
--Human perception of "present" is in fact an internal model of recent past events, imagined near future events, all linked to the incoming temporal sensory data stream, but perceptually these are combined into a temporally static experience that is temporally inaccurate.
" as well as to lack causal power in itself."
--All things acting in our perceived present lack causal power in themselves. All "actors" derive their causal power from temporally previous causal influence propagations.
Dusty
Repeating your claim doesn't refute the clear examples given that demonstrate that you are verifiably wrong. You claim to value science so why not show it?
@Strawdusty,
--Every causal series is an "accidental" causal series.
Then supply the formula used to derive the "particular amount" of force applied by deceased relatives to the stick being moved today.
" In order for something to be instrumental in a causal series it must be present in the series"
--Human perception of "present" is in fact an internal model of recent past events, imagined near future events, all linked to the incoming temporal sensory data stream, but perceptually these are combined into a temporally static experience that is temporally inaccurate.
What a load of Woo. Present in the sentence quoted means existing as a part of the existing series. Such as the man, the hand and the stick. Not deceased relatives.
If you claim there is no difference:
Then supply the formula used to derive the "particular amount" of force applied by deceased relatives to the stick being moved today.
--All things acting in our perceived present lack causal power in themselves. All "actors" derive their causal power from temporally previous causal influence propagations.
Then supply the formula used to derive the "particular amount" of force applied by deceased relatives to the stick being moved today.
Blogger bmiller
@Strawdusty,
--Every causal series is an "accidental" causal series.
" Then supply the formula used to derive the "particular amount" of force "
--Under classical physics, that is the some 100 year old ToR, there is no lower limit on size of causal influences, so in that sense everything in the universe is causally influencing everything else according to propagation no faster than c in an n body problem with n some number times the number of fundamental particles in the universe.
Causal influences progress temporally. In principle every fundamental object is part of the causal series for every other fundamental object. To isolate any particular molecule from the past and trace its influence on another molecule in our perceived present is in principle a finite part of this n body problem, but both the calculation and the measurement of such is generally beyond human capabilities.
Thus, besides being immeasurable it is also incalculable.
@Strawdusty,
Thus, besides being immeasurable it is also incalculable.
Ah, more dissembling. This "particular amount" is now not only "immeasurable" "it is also incalculable".
Physicists claim to be able to account completely for the force of the man moving the stick without reference to deceased relatives. You claim otherwise, but cannot give any formula nor a way to validate your theory. This sounds like an unscientific load of Woo to me.
Now it's one thing to disregard present scientific theories when pressing an argument, but it's another to claim that science is on your side when it clearly is not.
There is a sense that deceased relatives are responsible for the man moving the stick, but it is not a direct causation (per se). They are responsible for the existence of the man in the first place but do not have to be physically present in order for the man to move the stick and so are responsible in a different sense (per accidens).
Delusional Dusty doesn't know the physics of causality. The multitude of tiny forces acting on an object have their relative influence, but they aren't cumulatively causing sticks to move. We know that the cumulative influences of the father/grandfather were all present just prior to the motion - yet they didn't move the sticks. Why? Because the cumulative influences aren't capable. That's the science. Don't be a science denier.
Life on earth cannot exist without the sun. It's necessary and has influence, but only a science denier like Dusty would TRY to argue that the sun is moving sticks, trains, golf balls, cups, etc.
bmiller: “The only quibble Strawdusty had with my representation was when I assumed he meant the "particular amount" of force being applied by deceased relatives was measurable so I have to assume I got it right.”
What?
Here’s how it actually went down:
bmiller: “…entire lineages of deceased male parents apply some physically measurable force to your golf swing."
Stardusty: “—Liar. I never said the force was physically measurable. Every causal series is "accidental". A cause is instrumental to the effect only in the senses that it is part of a temporal causal series or that the the cause is simultaneous with the effect in the limit as t goes to zero.”
It is pointed out that you are a liar, how you lied, what the correct representation in fact is (how you got wrong), and after that explicit interaction you sum it up as, “I have to assume I got it right”!
As I think I’ve said before, you dishonesty makes you appear even stupider.
bmiller: “However, if you want to adopt the position that deceased relatives do not supply a "particular amount" of the force of a stick being moved by a decendent, then I think that is a quite reasonable position to take.”
Only someone ignorant of basic science would think that because physical reality is unavoidably preceded by events that go all the way back to the Big Bang, this unavoidable determinism is equivalent to “a stick being moved by a descendent”. Your attempt to misrepresent reveals your dishonesty, and your misrepresentation reveals how ignorant you truly are of basic science.
Cal:
>> "Only someone ignorant of basic science would think that because physical reality is unavoidably preceded by events that go all the way back to the Big Bang, this unavoidable determinism is equivalent to “a stick being moved by a descendent”. "
Which means a particular past isn't necessarily involved in causing a particular motion. Which means some past events are irrelevant to the FW argument, and some are relevant. We've been saying this for a very long time. Delusional Dusty is the one denying this.
Can we ignore Delusional Dusty and get back to discussing reality?
Me: “ “Particular amount” basically means isolating something for the purposes of description and explanation. Since examining something in particular necessarily means isolating the thing (in this case, an event), the question is nonsensical; the thing being described is a man moving a stick, which necessarily isolates a continuous stream (reality) into an event (the man moving the stick) which by the nature of describing events introduces and terminates within the frames being described.”
bmiller: “This seems to say that when physics is used to calculate force it is engaged in nonsense.”
Um, no. Only someone genuinely weird (an apologist, for instance) would think that.
bmiller: “There seems to be a lot of that nonsense going on.”
Tell me about it.
bmiller: “Here is a site that explains the physics of hockey sticks. These calculations are used to design hockey sticks that don't break. Should hockey stick designers include calculations for the force (F-ma) supplied by deceased relatives or not?”
Nope. They should design hockey sticks for the events in which the use of hockey sticks will be isolated. Your question reveals that you a) don’t understand what I’ve written above, and b) don’t understand basic science (by which I also mean you don’t understand the context or relevancy of scientific processes as they are applied).
Me: “Well, since force is normally defined as the amount of work needed to set an object in motion in a given direction over a particular amount of time, and since the event being described is particular to the time frame in which the stick is moved, then the question (again) doesn’t really make sense — it’s like asking, “Do you think that objects outside a square are inside it?”
bmiller: “Other than the fact you have the definition of force wrong…”
How exactly does my definition get force wrong?
Me: “…how does a question regarding the source of a motive force not "really make sense”?”
Because force equations aren’t normally used as historical tools, and if they were to be then then they are limited by the extent to which those contributing forces can still be measured.
bmiller: “F=ma is the formula used to compute the force of one existing material object impressed upon another existing material object.”
So what?
bmiller: “If you think deceased relatives don't qualify as as *existing material objects*, then the answer to the question would simply be that you too disagree with the statement on those grounds. Which is why I disagree with it. It seems you don't want to answer a very simple question.”
Is there a question in there? I basically see a lot of attempts by you to save face and pretend that through all this you somehow have a relevant point to make and that you understand things like basic science and the rules of argument, etc.
@Little Cal,
It is pointed out that you are a liar, how you lied, what the correct representation in fact is (how you got wrong), and after that explicit interaction you sum it up as, “I have to assume I got it right”!
Once again Strawdusty falsely accused me of *misquoting* him here:
Stardusty: “—Liar. I never said the force was physically measurable.
I said he *thought* something, not that he had *said* that something. However since he added that stipulation after almost 2 months into the discussion, I revised my interpretation accordingly after that. He still in fact insists that deceased relatives somehow apply a particular amount of force to sticks moving in the present. Although now he has dissembled further to say that the force is not only immeasurable, but incalculable.
However you reliably continue to project your own shortcomings.
bmiller: “However, if you want to adopt the position that deceased relatives do not supply a "particular amount" of the force of a stick being moved by a decedent, then I think that is a quite reasonable position to take.”
Only someone ignorant of basic science would think that because physical reality is unavoidably preceded by events that go all the way back to the Big Bang, this unavoidable determinism is equivalent to “a stick being moved by a decedent”. Your attempt to misrepresent reveals your dishonesty, and your misrepresentation reveals how ignorant you truly are of basic science.
Do you deceased relatives apply force to moving sticks now or not? I claim physics says no. What is your claim?
Um, no. Only someone genuinely weird (an apologist, for instance) would think that.
I can only read what you wrote:
""Particular amount” basically means isolating something for the purposes of description and explanation. Since examining something in particular necessarily means isolating the thing (in this case, an event), the question is nonsensical;Since examining something in particular necessarily means isolating the thing (in this case, an event), the question is nonsensical;"
The question was "Do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks?"
I think the question is very easy to answer with a yes or no. It seems your answer is that the question involves categorical differences and in that case the answer would be a simple yes "relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks". Can I assume that yes is your answer then?
How exactly does my definition get force wrong?
F=ma. You described force over time which is called impulse. It was covered in the hockey stick article.
Because force equations aren’t normally used as historical tools, and if they were to be then then they are limited by the extent to which those contributing forces can still be measured.
I agree. Which is why things that don't exist are not considered by physics as contributing to the force of moving things in the present. There are at least 2 different series of causation and apparently you agree.
Is there a question in there? I basically see a lot of attempts by you to save face and pretend that through all this you somehow have a relevant point to make and that you understand things like basic science and the rules of argument, etc.
No there isn't a question. It's an observation that you were dodging the questions I asked before.
It seems that you now agree with me in your latest post where you differentiate between "force equations" and "historical tools". I may not agree with what you consider "historical tools", but we agree there are categorical differences between the 2 causal series.
So if we both agree that there are 2 categorically different causal series, what are you arguing with me about?
bmiller: “I said he *thought* something, not that he had *said* that something….Although now he has dissembled further to say that the force is not only immeasurable, but incalculable.”
What a caricature of projection you are. You accuse Stardusty of dissembling in the same paragraph in which you begin by dissembling. You do not understand what it is to be a liar, what it means to dissemble, and as can be seen by your posts, being aware of psychological phenomenon doesn’t mean one can recognize it or correct it in oneself.
bmiller: “However you reliably continue to project your own shortcomings.”
It’s truly amazing to behold.
bmiller: “Do you deceased relatives apply force to moving sticks now or not? I claim physics says no. What is your claim?”
This question is just so stupid it’s hard to know how to respond to it. It’s been pointed out over and over that events occur over time, so the first part (an event occurring that simultaneously impacts a subsequent event) assumes simultaneity, but since simultaneity of events in a causal series is EXACTLY what we point out is wrong (unsound) regarding the First Way, then you should have your answer. The answer is, No, “deceased relatives” do not apply force to moving sticks now. So your question merely reiterates how you remain unable to absorb or consider an interpretation (basic science) that is different than what you understood prior, which is another way of saying that you remain stupid.
bmiller: “The question was "Do you now claim that ancient deceased relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks?"
I know.
bmiller: “I think the question is very easy to answer with a yes or no. It seems your answer is that the question involves categorical differences and in that case the answer would be a simple yes "relatives do not supply a particular amount of force while their living descendants move sticks". Can I assume that yes is your answer then?”
Actually, questions that reveal a fundamental misunderstanding are ALWAYS difficult to answer with a yes or a no, because doing so implies that the question itself is well formed.
For instance, “Do ghosts sleep?” is not an easy question to answer with a yes or a no, because the question itself reveals that the person asking the question is fundamentally wrong about something that invalidates the scenario in which there could be a correct answer.
Your inability to grasp what we are explaining (basic science) concerning how physical events are described is revealed by your question, “Do you deceased relatives apply force to moving sticks now or not?” in the same way that a superstitious and credulous person’s inability to discern reality is revealed by the question, “Do ghosts sleep?”
Me: “How exactly does my definition get force wrong?”
bmiller: “F=ma. You described force over time which is called impulse.”
I thought we were talking about moving sticks, which occurs over time.
bmiller: “Which is why things that don't exist are not considered by physics as contributing to the force of moving things in the present. There are at least 2 different series of causation and apparently you agree.”
You remain fundamentally confused, as explained above. There are not two different series of causation. There are only events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang. Your inability to grasp this alternative concept isn’t a sign of your being correct; it’s a signal that you remain stupid on a subject that you are supposedly trying to grasp.
If you were to take a basic (high school) physics course, with lab work, I think you would understand things as they have been explained to you. But racing off half-cocked to read whatever physics-y article you can find on the internets isn’t a real substitute for the kind of fundamental grasp of basic science that you obviously lack.
bmiller: “No there isn't a question. It's an observation that you were dodging the questions I asked before.”
Explained above.
Cal:
>> "It’s been pointed out over and over that events occur over time, so the first part (an event occurring that simultaneously impacts a subsequent event) assumes simultaneity, but since simultaneity of events in a causal series is EXACTLY what we point out is wrong (unsound) regarding the First Way, then you should have your answer."
It's been stated many times that a time delay between cause and effect does not affect the soundness of the FW argument. Yours is an invalid criticism.
>> "The answer is, No, “deceased relatives” do not apply force to moving sticks now."
The question is did they at one time apply a force responsible for causing sticks to move in some later time frame? A simple Yes/No will suffice
Cal:
"There are not two different series of causation. There are only events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang."
This is demonstrably false. The examples we've cited demonstrate that SOME past events do NOT cause SOME future events. That means there are 2 different series - one where a past event causes a future event, and one where a past event does not cause a future event. Accidental vs. Essential.
You are clearly too stupid to understand this since we've made you aware of it several times. Perhaps you should go back to school and observe the physics experiment that will prove this to your satisfaction.
@Little Cal,
Let me recap:
This is the point of contention:
bmiller: “Basic science holds that force moves things. If deceased relatives are responsible for moving things now then they must be providing a force, otherwise, how are they responsible for moving things now?”
Cal:
The point made by Stardusty (and myself) is that when one singles out a particular event for description, one is still left with necessary prior events that allowed that particular event to occur; a man CANNOT move a stick without first having arrived at the place where the stick will be moved, the atoms that make up the stick were assembled from components in the atmosphere over decades or centuries, those atoms were created in a star billions of years ago, and on and on and on all the way back to the Big Bang.
Yes, in this case physics does single out the particular force (f=ma) responsible for moving the stick, and none of the force is from deceased relatives.
You want to insert "prior events" into the equation but they don't fit. Events are historical circumstances that lead up to the present, but there is no *physics* related grounds for attributing historical events to a force that is solely attributable to the matter and form of a man acting in the present.
You acknowledge that here:
Because force equations aren’t normally used as historical tools, and if they were to be then then they are limited by the extent to which those contributing forces can still be measured.
And you are correct that force equations and historical records are different.
But then you make this statement:
You remain fundamentally confused, as explained above. There are not two different series of causation. There are only events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang. Your inability to grasp this alternative concept isn’t a sign of your being correct; it’s a signal that you remain stupid on a subject that you are supposedly trying to grasp.
OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives. After all, with the information on the site provided, we have all we need to do the calculation of causation due to Sidney. You should be able to use the same technique to calculate the force of "events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang".
Where is the formula? Where the theory of how one would even compute this?
What a load of Woo.
@SteveK,
It's apparent that Cal has no idea what Strawdusty's position is.
Strawdusty has to maintain that deceased relatives *are* responsible for sticks presently moving or admit that they are not instrumental in present movement and thereby have to admit there are 2 different causal series.
Cal implicitly disagrees with and undercuts Strawdusty while trying do defend what he thought Strawdusty's position was.
Very entertaining.
@bmiller
It really is entertaining to watch these guys implode. Dusty doesn't come around any more because he can only make himself look worse by opening his mouth.
bmiller: “Do you deceased relatives apply force to moving sticks now or not?"
stevek: "The question is did they at one time apply a force responsible for causing sticks to move in some later time frame? A simple Yes/No will suffice"
Your inability to comprehend basic science and the straightforward rules of argument, based on a combination of ignorance and your moral failings, makes you both so stupid that you don't even seem to understand what the question is that you somehow think is relevant to this tenuous "defense" of the First Way.
I would say that apologetics makes one stupid, but this case, it's two.
Pull yourselves together. Try and write precisely and concisely. Try to carefully frame your rebuttal to the criticisms offered. That exercise, undergone honestly, is the only way either of you will start a journey back from the vast stupidity in which you wander.
bmiller: “OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner.”
Reread what I wrote, then define what you mean by causation. Carefully and precisely. Let’s see how that works out for you.
bmiller: “Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives.”
What is the method you are using to calculate the force of the event you describe? Does that method allow for measuring what you ask for — the effect of a “ ‘particular amount’ of that force due to his deceased relatives”? If that’s the case, then you have your answer. If you’re saying that you don’t know what the method is that could derive the measurement and calculation you ask for, then your question is likely incoherent or intractable. And that is a problem for the person posing the “question,” not those who can’t make sense of his thoughts, either.
bmiller: “After all, with the information on the site provided, we have all we need to do the calculation of causation due to Sidney.”
Do we? What’s the calculation that you’re using, and what are the measurements?
bmiller: “You should be able to use the same technique to calculate the force of "events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang”.”
Sure, I could do the math. What’s the calculation, and what are the measurements?
———
It’s obvious that you don’t understand the rules of argument, basic science, and that you are made even stupider by your dishonest questions.
You have made yourself so stupid that you think that imagining incoherent or intractable questions constitutes a real rebuttal, but all it does is demonstrate that you can’t think very clearly, and that you believe that an argument from ignorance (what I ask for is unanswerable, therefore, my argument wins!) is not a known fallacy.
Why don’t you try careful thinking, and honesty? Don’t you want to appear smart, rather than stupid?
Cal
Did the relatives at one time apply a force responsible for causing sticks to move in some later time frame?
@bmiller
Notice that Cal is asking you to "carefully and precisely" explain what you mean - when neither Cal or Dusty have done this.
All attempts to get them to carefully and precisely explain exactly how they know the relatives are causing sticks to move have gone unanswered. All we get are vague and evasive answers, like the one Cal just gave us, but never a careful and precise answer.
I suggest you don't take the bait. Let Cal carefully and precisely explain how they know this is true. After all, they are the self-proclaimed experts of physics.
stevek: "All attempts to get them to carefully and precisely explain exactly how they know the relatives are causing sticks to move have gone unanswered. All we get are vague and evasive answers, like the one Cal just gave us, but never a careful and precise answer."
And the incessant apologetic projection continues unabated.
Quote the passage where you think that Stardusty or I have said that we "know the relatives are causing sticks to move." Compare whatever you cite with the words you use -- that we "know the relatives are causing sticks to move." Understand that your paraphrase, compared to what we have written, will demonstrate how your dishonesty confuses your stupid mind even further.
I predict that what you cite will demonstrate (yet again) that you lack basic reading comprehension skills -- that you don't even possess the ability to understand basic terms used consistently, and to employ anything like a consequent precision in your thinking. And that that is how your dishonesty makes you even stupider.
Cal
Stop evading. Did the relatives at one time apply a force responsible for causing sticks to move in some later time frame?
Once again, all we get from Cal are vague and evasive answers but never a careful and precise answer that explains how the relatives cause the motion.
The rational conclusion for the evasiveness we're seeing is Cal and Dusty are relying on pretend knowledge.
@Little Cal,
SteveK is right. You are evading telling us how deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick.
After all you said that the 2 types of causation are *not* different:
You remain fundamentally confused, as explained above. There are not two different series of causation.
You made the statement. Defend it. Which portion of a force moving a stick in the present is from deceased relatives?
@SteveK,
I wonder if Little Cal got himself so confused that he thinks *we* asserted that deceased relatives move sticks in the present a "particular amount". Otherwise why ask us to supply the formula we just asked him and Strawdusty to supply?
It seems the poor boy got himself twisted in a knot :-)
@bmiller
As you know, I've proposed various interpretations of Dusty's statement and every one has been rejected as "not what we believe". I've proposed that Dusty means:
a) the Big Bang caused the motion
b) the deceased relatives caused the motion
c) the alive relatives caused the motion
d) none of these things caused the motion
Every one of these interpretations has been labeled "not what we believe". One day I hope to get the careful and precise explanation - but so far Cal and Dusty have not done that.
I suspect they are either pretending to know the physics of causality or are too embarrassed to tell us.
Let's go back to Dusty's agreement with Legion and identity where his thinking is demonstrably wrong.
Legion: "So, I think to summarize Stardusty, we would have something like this:"
Legion: "60 years after grandparents had a child, their grandchild moved a stick. Had the grandparents not had a child, the stick would have never moved."
Prerequisite events/motions are not synonymous with the physics of causality. Several examples have been cited that prove they are not the same. To pick one example, teeing up a golf ball is a prerequisite for one day, MAYBE, getting the ball to move off the tee, however that prerequisite event/motion doesn't cause the ball to move off the tee. One series is instrumental in causing the motion, the other is not.
Legion: "6 years after parents had a child, he moved a stick. Had the parents not had a child, the stick would have never moved."
Same comment as above.
Legion: "A child moves a stick. Had the child's nerves not carried impulses between the brain and hand, the stick would have never moved."
Here we are talking about a causal series that produces the specific motion. The nerves, brain and hand are instrumental in causing the motion. This is not a prerequisite event/motion so that the stick MIGHT one day MAYBE be moved. These things guarantee the stick moves rather than maybe, one day, possibly moving.
Legion: "In all cases, Stardusty is (I think) saying the causes leading up to the child moving the stick are prior to the effect of the stick moving, so they are not categorically different from one another. And presumably, what appears to be an ongoing effect of the child waving the stick around is in fact a series of effects being caused by temporally prior causes. Thus, no essentially ordered series exists with a child moving a stick, as the ongoing effect is illusory when the details are examined in more precise detail."
Demonstrably false. A simple physics experiment can demonstrate the two different categories. One is a series that guarantees the motion, the other is a series that doesn't guarantee the motion.
@SteveK,
As you quoted Legion:
Legion: "In all cases, Stardusty is (I think) saying the causes leading up to the child moving the stick are prior to the effect of the stick moving, so they are not categorically different from one another.
This was Strawdusty's response:
Is that about right, Stardusty?"
--Hallelujah!!!
Can I have an amen?-)
I guess Cal is not in the *Amen* corner.
But really, Cal has never had any opinion of his own and has never demonstrated he has a clue of what he is criticizing. In fact, he doesn't even understand the actual position he claims to support (Strawdusty's).
Are all *atheist* arguments really *this* bad. How lame.
bmiller: "Demonstrably false. A simple physics experiment can demonstrate the two different categories. One is a series that guarantees the motion, the other is a series that doesn't guarantee the motion."
All events are related to their prior events. You are stuck with this vapid discovery in which events that don't occur don't occur (duh), or that events like what you describe (a person swinging a golf club) occur without being related to prior events.
To his credit, Legion seems to understand perfectly well what Stardusty had said. It's amazing how easy feats of apprehension are when one simply approaches them without duplicity and pride. It's almost as if there's a relationship between honesty and intelligence. Who knew!?
SteveK 4:52 PM
Legion: "60 years after grandparents had a child, their grandchild moved a stick. Had the grandparents not had a child, the stick would have never moved."
"Prerequisite events/motions are not synonymous with the physics of causality. Several examples have been cited that prove they are not the same. To pick one example, teeing up a golf ball is a prerequisite for one day, MAYBE, getting the ball to move off the tee, however that prerequisite event/motion doesn't cause the ball to move off the tee. One series is instrumental in causing the motion, the other is not."
--Like the typical theist time confuses you. When analyzing a time sequence of events the theist typically has a very difficult time abstractly moving forward and backward in time and keeping the sequence of events logically ordered.
Legion was speaking in a retrospective sense. Today we see the child moved the stick so it stands to reason that there was a causal series that led up to that observed fact and that granddad having sex with grandma was a part of the series.
Each step in a causal series requires a temporal process, a physical motion of objects changing position over time, requiring exchanges of energy, and the sex act is no exception.
There is no humanly available method to either calculate or measure such forces of past events on a microscopic scale, thus they are incalculable and immeasurable while at the same time being finite temporal processes, or "accidental" causal series.
Every series is an "accidental" causal series. Simultaneity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, inside which a series cannot "fit".
Cal:
>> "All events are related to their prior events."
This statement has nothing to do with the physics of causality. I have a repeatable physics experiment that can demonstrate the two categories that Dusty denies.
When can we expect your careful and precise explanation? If we ever get it, I expect it will include the term "illusion" because that's what you'll need to explain away the physics experiment.
stevek: "I have a repeatable physics experiment that can demonstrate the two categories that Dusty denies."
Oh, do tell.
Deluded Dusty
>> "Like the typical theist time confuses you"
An observable physics experiment does not confuse anyone.
>> "Today we see the child moved the stick so it stands to reason that there was a causal series that led up to that observed fact and that granddad having sex with grandma was a part of the series."
That is your claim to prove so get busy.
What we have done is shown that you are wrong about there being only one category. The examples we've cited show that there are clearly two series - essential and accidental. If your claim were to be believed then we would observe this following
Deluded Dusty's theory: "Today we see the child moved the golf ball from the tee so it stands to reason that there was a causal series that led up to that observed fact and that placing the ball on the tee was a part of the series."
*Bzzt* Wrong. Observably wrong. Placing the ball on the tee is NOT part of the series that moved the ball from the tee. It's accidental to the essential series that causes the motion from the tee.
When can we expect your careful and precise explanation?
stevek: "I have a repeatable physics experiment that can demonstrate the two categories that Dusty denies."
Still waiting.
Or will this take as long as it has for you to admit that you lied about being a mechanical engineer?
Cal:
I've cited several examples that you can test via experimentation. I'll leave it to you to carry out the experiment in order to convince yourself that the results I stated are accurately described.
When can we expect your careful and precise explanation of the causality? Unlike you, I've explained how observation can demonstrate that Dusty is wrong. You and Dusty have done nothing - literally.
Again, all we get from Cal and Dusty are vague and evasive answers but never a careful and precise answer that explains HOW the relatives cause the motion.
When can we expect your careful and precise explanation? You SAY that you know the physics of causality. Are you bluffing? The answer appears to be 'yes'.
Sad!
stevek: "I have a repeatable physics experiment that can demonstrate the two categories that Dusty denies."
Me: "Oh, do tell."
Me: "Still waiting. / Or will this take as long as it has for you to admit that you lied about being a mechanical engineer?"
stevek: "I've cited several examples that you can test via experimentation. I'll leave it to you to carry out the experiment in order to convince yourself that the results I stated are accurately described."
Dishonest, and (profoundly) stupid.
Cal
>> "Dishonest, and (profoundly) stupid"
If you cannot carry out the experiment, I agree you are profoundly stupid.
If you cannot give a careful and precise explanation of the causality, I agree you are dishonestly pretending to know the physics of causality.
It's real simple, Cal. You and Dusty claim to know the physics of causality. Dusty has made a claim that he hasn't given any evidence for. Naturally, I'm skeptical of his claim - as we all should be. Reality suggests he's wrong so I'm maintaining my skepticism until he can demonstrate what he claims.
If you're too stupid to be able carry out an experiment, the very least you can do is carefully and precisely explain the physics of how relatives cause sticks to move.
Can you or Dusty do that or are you both pretending to know the physics of causality?
@stevek, I respond to bmiller's comments more often than yours because while I think that bmiller suffers from the same problems as you (ignorance, and a stupidity borne of moral turpitude) he does sometimes seem to have the ability to recognize the problems in his thinking.
On the other hand, you appear genuinely too stupid (either by dint of intellect, or greater shabbiness of character, or the combination of the two that I have theorized about) for me to respond to most times.
Your latest spate of comments may be the most egregious example of your comments being beneath need of any response.
You don't know what you don't know, and you are too shabby to realize the extent to which your stupidity is a burden on others. And as I've said before, even my awesome power have their limits.
More evasion. More claims. More projecting. More bluster. More of the same Cal.
There's a real easy way to prove I'm stupid and deluded.
a) carefully and precisely explain the physics
b) demonstrate that I am wrong
You refuse to do either one. Why is that? The reasonable conclusion is you are dishonestly lying about your claims.
It's all up to you. Will you keep pretending or will you follow through on your claims?
Amazing:
stevek: "More evasion. More claims. More projecting. More bluster"
Um hm.
stevek (just prior): "I have a repeatable physics experiment that can demonstrate the two categories that Dusty denies."
Me: "Oh, do tell."
stevek (evading and refusing to do what he claimed he would do prior): "I've cited several examples that you can test via experimentation. I'll leave it to you to carry out the experiment in order to convince yourself that the results I stated are accurately described."
Above Stevek can't fulfill his claim, evades, blusters, and (quelle surprise!) projects this shabbiness onto someone else.
Only a profoundly stupid person would be unable to see it.
Suit yourself, Cal.
Until you can back up your claims with evidence or a careful and precise explanation of the physics, I remain unconvinced that your claims are actually true.
Since you're unwilling to do that, I guess we're done.
@Strawdusty,
Legion was speaking in a retrospective sense. Today we see the child moved the stick so it stands to reason that there was a causal series that led up to that observed fact and that granddad having sex with grandma was a part of the series.
The causal series that led up to his existence involved his generation by his ancestors. The causal series moving the stick involves only the matter and form of the man, not deceased relatives, at least according to science.
So, the decision of the man, the nerves and contracting muscles are all instrumental in moving the stick. It is only incidental that the man had so and so for a grandfather.
Since we can theoretically calculate the force of the moving stick due to the man's matter and form, then we should likewise be able to theoretically calculate the force of the moving stick due to the man's deceased relatives if the 2 types of causation are the same. Since we cannot, then the 2 series must be different. The later is incidental (per accidens or accidental) and the former is essential (per se).
There is no humanly available method to either calculate or measure such forces of past events on a microscopic scale, thus they are incalculable and immeasurable while at the same time being finite temporal processes, or "accidental" causal series.
No, there simply is no scientific theory that attributes any "particular amount" of the force of a man moving a stick to deceased relatives. No more than unicorns are doing it.
It seems when science contradicts crank atheistic theories atheists merely dump science. I'm not surprised.
@SteveK,
It's all up to you. Will you keep pretending or will you follow through on your claims?
Yeh, you know where I'll put my money.
All Little Cal is capable of is pretty lame ad hominem attacks. If only he had some clever insults it wouldn't be so boring.
Meanwhile Cal refuses defend his position and tell us:
How deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick.
stevek: "Suit yourself, Cal. / Until you can back up your claims with evidence or a careful and precise explanation of the physics, I remain unconvinced that your claims are actually true. / Since you're unwilling to do that, I guess we're done."
As demonstrated above (as in, just read what you wrote, and your obvious inability to justify what you wrote):
You are a liar.
You are a coward.
You are stupid.
Congratulations on being the poster child for why apologist are the worst kind of people.
bmiller: "All Little Cal is capable of is pretty lame ad hominem attacks. If only he had some clever insults it wouldn't be so boring. / Meanwhile Cal refuses defend his position and tell us: / How deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick."
How's it feel to have stevek (the moron and revealed liar -- "I'm a mechanical engineer.") -- as your only ally in your apologetics? Does the contemptible company you keep make you feel smart, or does it make you feel stupid?
If it makes you feel smart, does it ever occur to you that your estimate reveals to everyone that you are sincerely stupid?
@Little Cal,
Once again, lame boring ad hominem attacks instead of answering the relevant question and defending your claim"
How deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick.
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be educated in science having actually studied it rather than just demonstrating your lack of education by spouting nonsense?
bmiller: "How deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick."
That you think that the above is my position is only evidence for how stupid you are, and how empty your supposed defense of the First Way remains.
Do you see how what you call an ad hominem -- that you are stupid and shabby in the way that all apologetics are both stupid and shabby -- is tied directly to your inability to grasp and represent my position correctly?
What you do is what you are. And you and stevek both write stupid and shabby comments. I do not apologize for your confusing that fact with an ad hominem, in the same way that I don't apologize for you being shabby and stupid.
To summarize:
Cal and Dusty have offered no evidence, no mathematical equations and no careful and precise explanation to support their claims. The rules of good argument dictate that criticisms that rest on unsupported claims of this kind do nothing to weaken ANY argument. Therefore the FW argument has not been shown to be unsound or invalid.
Next!
stevek: "Cal and Dusty have offered no evidence... "
You lie. We have pointed out that the First Way fails by not being sound, as it contradicts physical reality (which is about as much evidence as one can offer).
stevek: "...and no careful and precise explanation to support their claims."
You lie. Stardusty has offered careful explanations in prior comments here, and has also offered links back to those comments many, many times.
You lie, and you are know liar -- Stevek: "I'm a mechanical engineer."
Why should anyone listen to a known liar?
Nope. Every time I asked for a careful and precise explanation of the physics, I get nothing. Dusty gave us a story. Stories are not physics.
I have pointed out that Dusty's story contradicts physical reality. Physical reality demonstrates there are two categories of causal series - accidental and essential. As you said, that is about as much evidence as one can offer.
The careful and precise explanation of the physics would settle our disagreement. You both claim to know the physics of causality better than us, so what's stopping you from settling this once and for all?
You must be pretending. That's the only rational explanation.
stevek: "Every time I asked for a careful and precise explanation of the physics, I get nothing. Dusty gave us a story. Stories are not physics."
You don't know what basic physics is because you've never taken a basic physics course. That's not our fault.
stevek: "I have pointed out that Dusty's story contradicts physical reality."
You say this, but saying this doesn't make it true; in fact, it makes you a liar.
Stevek is a liar. You lie, and lie, and lie.
Because that's what, I guess, apologists have to do.
More pretending. More projecting.
Rinse/Repeat
@Little Cal,
That you think that the above is my position is only evidence for how stupid you are, and how empty your supposed defense of the First Way remains.
You claim that "There are not two different series of causation." here:
September 21, 2017 4:53 AM
You remain fundamentally confused, as explained above. There are not two different series of causation.
But you still have not responded to this:
OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner.
A man applies force to a hockey stick via the causal series of his decision, nerves, muscles etc (form and matter).
If the causal series is the same, then deceased relatives must also be present in this series. How exactly are deceased relatives present in the physical act of that force? This is logical consequent of your claim.
We've long ago established you have denied science. I want to hear your science fiction answer.
The science fiction answer is relatives impart a magical force that lingers around and causes babies to move to Canada, drink beer and pick up a hockey stick. Coincidentally, the science fiction answer is also the naturalist answer and the atheist answer.
Because atheists are oftentimes idiots of their own making and cannot stay focused, the following reminder might help clear their little heads.
For an essential series, if any member higher up the causal series ceases it's causal activity, the activity of the lower members will necessarily cease to continue.
Ex: If the hand were to cease its causal activity, the stick would not move as it does. If the muscles and the nerve impulses were to cease their causal activity, the stick would not move as it does.
For an accidental series, the causal activity of the higher members don't do anything to change the activity of the lower members.
Ex: If the grandfather were to cease his causal activity, the stick would still move as it does. The grandchild's hand/muscles/nerves/etc are essential to the motion, the grandfather is not.
(sorry for the deleted posts)
If only one kind of causal series exists - if everything is part of the same causal series - we should see the motion of the stick cease to continue after the grandfather ceases his causal activity in the same way that the hand has this effect.
Historical reality repeatedly confirms that this is NOT what happens. Observed reality confirms there are 2 kinds of causal series.
If Cal or his man-crush, Delusional Dusty, has a careful and precise scientific rebuttal, let's hear it.
@SteveK,
If Cal or his man-crush, Delusional Dusty, has a careful and precise scientific rebuttal, let's hear it.
Let me make a prediction. Little Cal will make vague statements, plenty of accusations and project like crazy.
In other words, he'll respond like he always does. With irrelevance and non-substance.
SteveK said.. September 27, 2017 2:50 PM.
" Ex: If the hand were to cease its causal activity, the stick would not move as it does. If the muscles and the nerve impulses were to cease their causal activity, the stick would not move as it does."
--Your error is in lumping a complex temporal series, a temporal physical process, into an abstraction of as single cause and a single effect.
In fact hand movement is a temporal series of mutual causation. To label the hand a "cause" and stick movement as an "effect" is a hopelessly simplistic oversimplification that ignores reality on the nano scale.
Dusty:
"Your error is in lumping a complex temporal series, a temporal physical process, into an abstraction of as single cause and a single effect."
Get specific and use the language of physics.
Let's start with the facts. The observations as I've stated are the observations. There are two different effects happening. When the causal activity of the hand is removed the motion ceases to continue as it does. When the causal activity of the grandfather is removed the motion doesn't cease to continue as it does.
Explain those observed difference in terms of physics and causality. What explains these differences?
Dusty,
"a hopelessly simplistic oversimplification that ignores reality on the nano scale"
I will warn you that talking about what happens at the nano scale doesn't erase or change the reality of what happens at the macro scale. Science proves that. If you're going to ultimately say the macro scale is some kind of illusion, I suggest you start with that conclusion to save us all a lot of time.
Me: "Stevek is a liar. You lie, and lie, and lie. / Because that's what, I guess, apologists have to do."
Stevek: "More pretending. More projecting."
This is why you project, and this is why I do not:
1. Stevek (prior): "I'm a mechanical engineer."
2. You are not (obviously) a mechanical engineer.
3. You said you are a mechanical engineer.
4. You know that you are not a mechanical engineer.
5. You lied.
Pro tip: When someone identifies something about you (you have two eyes, you lie, etc.), that is not projection. That is identification.
Stevek = a liar.
If you are so cowardly that you would lie about something like that, and try to evade responsibility for it, you have no hope of becoming less stupid.
You have no hope of understanding my comments, or Stardusty's, or that of others whose intelligence and diligence makes them so much smarter than you are.
Your poor moral character is what makes you so unrelentingly stupid. Until you change that, not only will you remain the dolt you are, but you will deserve the scorn and ridicule one would normally withhold from one so pitiably stupid as you.
bmiller: "How deceased relatives being responsible for living relatives is the same type of causation as a living person moving a stick."
Me: “That you think that the above is my position is only evidence for how stupid you are, and how empty your supposed defense of the First Way remains.”
bmiller: “You claim that "There are not two different series of causation." here:
September 21, 2017 4:53 AM
Me: “You remain fundamentally confused, as explained above. There are not two different series of causation. “
Yes.
bmiller: “But you still have not responded to this: / OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner.”
Typically confused thinking from you.
Events are basically changes in position related to real things over time.
You are making an argument that there are two kinds of events. One related to time and real things, and one not related to time.
You seem to think that the second (events that occur simulataneously, or events that occur without time (???) ) must exist if… I’m not really sure what.
It seems that you think that if you can cite a particular event (a player hitting a slapshot) and infer prior events that necessarily preceded that particular event, THEREFORE those necessary prior events must also have a measurable effect within the particular event that you are describing.
Is that what you think? It seems that way from what you write below:
bmiller: “A man applies force to a hockey stick via the causal series of his decision, nerves, muscles etc (form and matter). / If the causal series is the same, then deceased relatives must also be present in this series. How exactly are deceased relatives present in the physical act of that force? This is logical consequent of your claim.”
It seems to me that many theists (not necessarily apologists, who are the worst) struggle with the concept of emergence. Many times have I heard theists describe a complex system to be impossible because (they incorrectly surmise) the parts within the system do not, of themselves, possess all the properties of the system in which they are a part. This is not exactly your problem above, but it seems related.
This might help you — understand that you are made up of atoms created in a star. This does not mean that you are a star. You do understand that, correct?
bmiller: “We've long ago established you have denied science. I want to hear your science fiction answer.”
As explained many times now, you obviously lack a basic understanding of science — the kind that stems from taking classes (that include lab time) like good high school or college physics or chemistry, etc.
@Little Cal,
bmiller: “But you still have not responded to this: / OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner.”
Typically confused thinking from you.
Events are basically changes in position related to real things over time.
You are making an argument that there are two kinds of events. One related to time and real things, and one not related to time.
No, I am making no such argument. Learn to read.
I understand now that after almost a year you are incapable of paying attention or just to dense to get it no matter how many times its been explained to you.
So that's why I asked a very simple question. You claimed this:
There are not two different series of causation.
So I asked this:
"OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives?"
Nowhere in your reply did I detect an answer. But I did detect that you made:
"vague statements, plenty of accusations and projected like crazy.
It seems that you think that if you can cite a particular event (a player hitting a slapshot) and infer prior events that necessarily preceded that particular event, THEREFORE those necessary prior events must also have a measurable effect within the particular event that you are describing.
No. Learn to read. Strawdusty made the claim that deceased relatives supply a "particular amount" of force to "a player hitting a slapshot", not me. Do you disagree with Strawdusty?
If all series of causation are the same, then the calculation of force of the slapshot must involve the deceased relatives. Either that or they are not an essential part of the series moving the puck but are parrt of a causal series in a different sense (accidentally).
It seems to me that many theists...This is not exactly your problem above, but it seems related.
Irrelevant and pointless. In other words typical from you.
As explained many times now, you obviously lack a basic understanding of science — the kind that stems from taking classes (that include lab time) like good high school or college physics or chemistry, etc.
And the final projection. You've demonstrated that *you* did not take even high school physics so it's hilarious to see someone who can't even get the definition of force right try to make such pronouncements. This seems to be typical of internet atheists. Science envy.
Now. Once again the very simple question:
"OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives?"
Either they are the same type of series and can be calculated the same or they are different types and cannot.
It remains to be seen if Dusty can give a careful and precise explanation of the physics. It also remains to be see how it will matter because no matter what Dusty says we still have 2 different types of causation being observed.
Type 1) When the causal activity of the hand is removed the motion of the stick ceases to continue as it does.
Type 2) When the causal activity of the grandfather is removed the motion of the stick doesn't cease to continue as it does.
Those observed differences don't go away with an explanation.
Stardusty: "No. Learn to read. Strawdusty made the claim that deceased relatives supply a "particular amount" of force to "a player hitting a slapshot", not me."
Learn to read? The projection runs high with the apologists.
What Stardusty actually wrote: ""The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount."
You lie.
Why would you lie?
Do you want to be stupider?
Doesn't being stupider make you feel bad?
Here's a question to see how stupid your dishonesty makes you.
Do you recognize that stevek lied when he claimed that he is a mechanical engineer? Do you a) really think that stevek is a mechanical engineer (spit take), or are you so comfortable with dishonesty that you'd rather pretend that stevek isn't another apologist who simply lies.
Btw, don't pretend that we're having a discussion about the long-ago retired notion that the First Way resembles a good argument. Having a discussion requires intellectual honesty on both sides, and apologists are (as seen here) incapable of honesty, let alone intellectual honesty.
The only reason I have been contributing here is to expose and understand better the dishonesty of apologists, and how it makes apologists stupider. Because I think that profound human stupidity -- which seems to be directly affected by poor moral character -- is both a current and existential threat.
If someone where to stumble their way onto this thread and read Cal's last comment, they would conclude that Cal is a lunatic.
The 2 types of causal series are undeniable to anyone with eyes to see.
stevek: "If someone where to stumble their way onto this thread and read Cal's last comment, they would conclude that Cal is a lunatic."
Actually, if someone were to stumble on this blog, they would conclude that stevek is a liar:
1. Stevek (prior): "I'm a mechanical engineer."
2. You are not (obviously) a mechanical engineer.
3. You said you are a mechanical engineer.
4. You know that you are not a mechanical engineer.
5. You lied.
Are you ever going to correct your lie? Or do you think that letting a lie stand makes you somehow seem more credible?
SteveK said.. September 29, 2017 8:30 AM.
" The 2 types of causal series are undeniable to anyone with eyes to see."
Indeed.
Type 1: "accidental"
Type 2: "not essential"
:-)
Thank you Dusty for that brave admission. You're a better man than Cal.
Because the grandfather is not essential for the motion of the stick in the way Aquinas is arguing, Aquinas would say the grandfather is NOT part of the causal series that the FW argument is referencing.
We can finally move on to some other criticism. What's next?
SteveK said.. September 29, 2017 10:09 AM.
" Because the grandfather is not essential for the motion of the stick in the way Aquinas is arguing, Aquinas would say the grandfather is NOT part of the causal series that the FW argument is referencing.
We can finally move on to some other criticism. What's next?"
--Since we have covered a certain type of series, that being those that are "not essential" the next thing is to cover the only remaining type of series "accidental", such as a hand that moves a stick that moves a rock, which is clearly an "accidental" series, being composed of a temporal sequence of minute "accidental" mutually causal processes at the nano scale.
The FW covers the hand that moves the stick. It's the most common example of the FW argument. Call the series "accidental" if helps you sleep at night. Aquinas uses the term differently than you do. Everyone knows motion occurs over time, including Aquinas. We've been over this many, many times.
@Little Cal,
I asked you to answer a very simple question.
It seems that once again you've shot off your mouth foolishly and typically and cannot back up your assertion.
Here is the question you keep dodging.
Now. Once again the very simple question:
"OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives?"
Either they are the same type of series and can be calculated the same or they are different types and cannot.
Oh, and more irrelevancies and projection. You have an endless supply of those.
The point being, there are things like the grandfather that are not essential to the motion and there are things like the hand that are essential.
Furthermore, things that are essential to the motion exist. Things that don't exist cannot be essential to the motion. You'd be saying they are both necessary and unnecessary at the same time - which is a contradiction.
@SteveK,
Call the series "accidental" if helps you sleep at night. Aquinas uses the term differently than you do.
As does the rest of the world 😛
But when you live in a science denying fantasy world like these 2, I suppose you have no requirement to be rational or even honest.
bmiller: "Now. Once again the very simple question: / OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives?"
I have answered your "question" too many times now. Why don't you respond to what I wrote earlier if you still think your "question" isn't somehow stupid.
What I wrote earlier:
What is the method you are using to calculate the force of the event you describe? Does that method allow for measuring what you ask for — the effect of a “ ‘particular amount’ of that force due to his deceased relatives”? If that’s the case, then you have your answer. If you’re saying that you don’t know what the method is that could derive the measurement and calculation you ask for, then your question is likely incoherent or intractable. And that is a problem for the person posing the “question,” not those who can’t make sense of his thoughts, either.
bmiller: “After all, with the information on the site provided, we have all we need to do the calculation of causation due to Sidney.”
Do we? What’s the calculation that you’re using, and what are the measurements?
bmiller: “You should be able to use the same technique to calculate the force of "events, occurring over time, each with preceding events that extend back to the Big Bang”.”
Sure, I could do the math. What’s the calculation, and what are the measurements?
bmiller: "But when you live in a science denying fantasy world like these 2, I suppose you have no requirement to be rational or even honest."
Do you know what honest means?
Do you recognize that stevek lied when he claimed that he is a mechanical engineer? Do you a) really think that stevek is a mechanical engineer (spit take), or b) are you so comfortable with dishonesty that you'd rather pretend that stevek isn't another apologist who simply lies?
Is there a time delay between a cause and its effect? If so, would a proposed division between causal series, as outlined by the First Way, be differentiated by the presence of a time delay, or is it based upon some other difference in which a time delay is not relevant?
I believe that both sides would arrive at the same answer from different sides. Stardusty and Cal would say that there is in fact a time delay between every cause and effect, so that the only difference between any two causes in a proposed series would be length of time between them and the shared effect. So, by denying that there are conceptual differences between the two proposed series, time delay does not differentiate.
SteveK and bmiller would say that time delay is irrelevant, but rather the central point is that in any proposed series, if a cause is removed from the series in the present, is the effect sustainable? Does a father dying in 2017 prevent his adult son from holding a stick up in 2017? Does the son dying prevent him from holding a stick up? As there are different answers to each, this highlights the difference between the proposed series. So again, time delay between cause and effect is irrelevant, as the motion in question is sustained over time.
Is there such a thing as a sustained effect over time? If so, can the cause(s) of this sustained effect be identified?
I believe Stardusty would deny that there is truly such a thing as a "sustained effect", but rather there are an incalculable number of tiny cumulative causes resulting in an incalculable number of tiny cumulative effects that appear, on a larger scale, to be one effect resulting from relatively few causes.
SteveK and bmiller would find that to be irrelevant, as macro descriptions are equally as valid as micro descriptions. As science or (usually) casual observation can identify what causes any given sustained motion, or what it would take to cause the sustained motion (sustained referring to keeping a motion going in the face of forces opposing that motion such as friction), then it is possible to differentiate between causes that keep a motion sustained and causes leading up to the motion that, if removed, will not effect the current motion's sustainability.
Stardusty breaks a phenomenon down (accurately) to the cumulative smaller effects leading to the larger event, and then dismisses the larger event as a truly accurate description of reality. SteveK and bmiller look at a continuous sustained phenomenon, identify those causes that are sustaining it in the face of contrary forces, and differentiate them (accurately) from those causes that are not actively working upon it.
Honestly, even if all participants in this thread were friends, I see no possible path to agreement. Breaking things down to the smallest components and only analyzing from that perspective, finding macro observations to be approximations, denying the concept of emergence as anything but an illusion, those things make the First Way at best another approximation. Finding each level of observation to be valid, accepting the concept of emergence, accepting the concept of a sustained effect, those things make the First Way's differentiation of causal effects rather obvious.
But then, I suppose the argument has moved well past my musings, focusing instead on who is a stupid liar rather than finding out why each has their starting perspective.
Legion: "But then, I suppose the argument has moved well past my musings, focusing instead on who is a stupid liar rather than finding out why each has their starting perspective."
A "discussion" where one side is regularly dishonest will necessarily focus on dishonesty (and the consequent stupidity that such dishonesty engenders) because discussion without honesty (and consistency) is not possible.
If one of two parties cannot be honest, there can be no discussion.
To pretend otherwise would be, well, dishonest.
Legion of Logic said.. September 29, 2017 4:31 PM.
" Honestly, even if all participants in this thread were friends, I see no possible path to agreement. "
--I think you made a very good step toward doing just that.
The next step is to decide which analysis or analytical model is applicable to the question at hand.
If the question at hand is how to make personal decisions about macro objects and events in our ordinary daily lives then the large scale approximations or aggregate models are the only way we can function and live as human beings.
If we wish to understand the origins of the universe, the origins of existence, and the true nature of reality we must necessarily seek out the very most fundamental aspects of existence.
Here is one illustration of the connection between the very large and the very small
https://www.tamuc.edu/academics/colleges/scienceEngineeringAgriculture/departments/physicsAstronomy/colloquiaSeminars/PDFs/STM.pdf
Whether strings turn out to be real or not, the point is that to study our universe we must immediately consider subatomic physics. Findings at the most fundamental level have profound effects on our understanding of the universe as a whole.
A-T asserts the need for a sustaining cause for existence in what is imagined to be a non-temporal "essential" series of causations terminating in an unmoved mover. To examine the validity of that claim we are necessarily called to a structural regression analysis.
That structural regression analysis is in fact not a causal series at all, rather a series of human abstractions, a series of human models from models of the universe, to models of our solar system, to models of terrestrial objects, to models at the molecular level, to models at the atomic level to models at the subatomic level.
This regression of models does indeed call for a terminus. That terminus is fundamental physics. At this time the closest we have gotten is the standard model. It is well known that is not the final answer.
So, there is a way to settle your question. Ask what it is we are seeking and what sort of modeling analysis is suited to that quest. Clearly, armchair ruminations about a book, a table, a hand, a stick, a rock, and a grandfather are hopelessly inadequate.
Only a detailed analysis of what causation means at the most fundamental level, an understanding that the ontological series called for in the First Way isn't even a causal series, it is actually a series of human abstractions, human models...only such an analysis can possibly lead us to answer the great existential questions.
@Legion,
Is there a time delay between a cause and its effect? If so, would a proposed division between causal series, as outlined by the First Way, be differentiated by the presence of a time delay, or is it based upon some other difference in which a time delay is not relevant?
I believe that both sides would arrive at the same answer from different sides. Stardusty and Cal would say that there is in fact a time delay between every cause and effect, so that the only difference between any two causes in a proposed series would be length of time between them and the shared effect. So, by denying that there are conceptual differences between the two proposed series, time delay does not differentiate.
The entire idea of time delay between cause and effect is a red herring wrt to the First Way. The confusion that arose on this thread came about because Strawdusty confused the First Way with the Kalaam argument.
The First Way uses a man moving a stick as an example of movement needing an explanation. It assumes that the man and the stick exist (are in a state of actuality). It also assumes that only things in a state of existence (in a state of actuality) can cause motion. In fact, physics (Aristotelan, classical or modern) all assume the same thing.
If you recall from earlier when you were engaged, Aristotle orginally listed *4* of his 10 categories as examples of *real* change or alteration. But he limited the categories to 3 when he spoke of *motion*. The 3 were location, quality and quantity. The forth that he excluded was *generation and corruption*
The reason he excluded *generation and corruption* from his defintion of motion was that he considered motion as applying to existing things. If things are coming into existence or passing from existence, then yes, change is taking place, but since there is no entity to alter in this case until generation is complete, there can be not alteration of that entity or no *motion*. After all, something that does not yet exist cannot move, nor can something that has ceased to exist move.
So *generation and corruption* is change, but a different category that things that are in existence.
This is the gist of the issue and not how much time is involved in any particular transition.
I will post again on the confusion that somehow *time delay* of causation or lack of *simultaneous* causation refutes the First Way.
@Legion,
Stardusty breaks a phenomenon down (accurately) to the cumulative smaller effects leading to the larger event, and then dismisses the larger event as a truly accurate description of reality. SteveK and bmiller look at a continuous sustained phenomenon, identify those causes that are sustaining it in the face of contrary forces, and differentiate them (accurately) from those causes that are not actively working upon it.
I think that you have got this one wrong.
SteveK and I argue that it is irrelevant to computation the force of applied to the puck by the hockey stick of hockey player whether his father is alive or not and indeed the father has *no* physical influence on that force. Only the player and what causes him to exist are responsible.
SteveK and I do not disagree that that the father is responsible in *some* way for that puck to move, but just that it is in a *different* way.
This is what our opponents cannot abide, and btw, cannot give a rational explanation for how they are the same.
@Little Cal,
I have answered your "question" too many times now. Why don't you respond to what I wrote earlier if you still think your "question" isn't somehow stupid.
No you did not answer my very simple question. You asked me a question in return. What *is* your answer? You made a claim. Support your claim.
@Strawdusty,
A-T asserts the need for a sustaining cause for existence in what is imagined to be a non-temporal "essential" series of causations terminating in an unmoved mover. To examine the validity of that claim we are necessarily called to a structural regression analysis.
That structural regression analysis is in fact not a causal series at all, rather a series of human abstractions, a series of human models from models of the universe, to models of our solar system, to models of terrestrial objects, to models at the molecular level, to models at the atomic level to models at the subatomic level.
This regression of models does indeed call for a terminus. That terminus is fundamental physics. At this time the closest we have gotten is the standard model. It is well known that is not the final answer.
You are as ignorant of what A-T asserts now as you were a year ago. Congratulations, you are consistent. That is an accomplishment of sort considering that you have been humiliated on more forums than this one.
The gibberish of your rejecting human abstractions while referring to some sort of "regression analysis" is especially incoherent. So not only congratulations on being consistent, but congtratulations on being consistently *crazy*.
@Little Cal,
Do you know what honest means?
Yes I do. Maybe you do too, but are not honest on this forum.
I don't think anyone would disagree with me.
bmiller: "I think that you have got this one wrong."
I honestly didn't see where what I wrote clashed with what you wrote.
Stardusty,
I find my active participation in this thread was actually clouding the issue, so I may or may not respond to your latest response to me, but do know that I read it and will be pondering it. Emergent properties is where we split the last time around, but I'll consider it again.
@Legion,
The First Way uses the example of a man moving a stick.
It makes no difference to the ultimate source of that motion whether one examines this motion over a very small amount of time or over the entire beginning, middle and end of the motion. In all cases, the form and matter of the man are instrumental in the movement, while the ultimate cause is the Unmoved Mover.
From a previous post:
"This is a link to various physics problems involving free body diagrams. Check out #3 "
This is an example of how the coupler tension force is calculated for each car in a 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.
This case is an examination of forces of a train that is already in motion. As long as the force is consistently applied the tension in the couplers will be the same.
However, when the train is just starting to move, there is a finite amount of time for the force from the engine to be transmitted to the caboose. But this is not a problem for the First Way. In fact, (once again from SCG link) this fact is used to support the premise that an infinite series of moving movers is impossible.
[12] The first is as follows [VII, 1]. If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these infinite beings must be bodies. For whatever is moved is divisible and a body, as is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. But every body that moves some thing moved is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinites are moved together while one of them is moved. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all those infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is impossible. It is, therefore, impossible that among movers and things moved one can proceed to infinity.
So it is a misunderstanding to somehow think that a time delay of a motive force being transmitted throughout a mobile contradicts the First Way in some respect. The relevant notion is that either an existent material object is moved by a series of existent instrumental movers, or is moved directly by the Unmoved Mover, whether we examine that motion over the entire duration of the movement or at a specific time during the movement.
Now of course, no one has denied that in a sense, the father is responsible for the existence of the son. But that sense (generation of the son) is different than the force applied by the form and matter of the son to a stick. This is specifically why these 2 examples were chosen by Aquinas to illustrate the different type of series.
@Legion,
I honestly didn't see where what I wrote clashed with what you wrote.
It's not that you haven't captured Strawdusty's position of macro reality being an illusion or our disagreement with him about that. It's just that that particular disagreement seems tangential to the claims that deceased relatives provide a "particular amount" of force to a stick being moved by a man.
His claim is that they do, but that "particular amount" of force cannot be detected or calculated. This is simply not science.
bmiller said.. September 30, 2017 11:25 AM.
".. the force from the engine to be transmitted to the caboose."
" Now of course, no one has denied that in a sense, the father is responsible for the existence of the son. But that sense (generation of the son) is different than the force applied by the form and matter..."
--Each molecule of CO2 is just like the father.
A fast moving molecule of CO2 hits the top of the piston in the engine, transferring a tiny but finite amount of energy to the piston that is transferred in a temporal series to the caboose.
Then that particular molecule of CO2 exits the engine. That molecule could disappear from existence without its previous effect being undone.
The molecule is just like the father, a part of an "accidental" series.
Every molecule that is part of the aggregate motion of the train is in a temporal "accidental" series.
The apparently sustained effect is actually a collection of non-sustained effects, each one being "accidental", and therefore the perception of an "essential" series is an illusory artifact of human perception.
@Strawdusty,
--Each molecule of CO2 is just like the father.
Then please provide the appropriate formula of the deceased father providing force to a stick being moved by a man. I can easily find the formula of an internal combustion reaction.
CO2 is a byproduct of that reaction, not one of the reactants. So the remaining remarks are nonsense if you actually mean CO2.
A fast moving molecule of CO2 hits the top of the piston in the engine, transferring a tiny but finite amount of energy to the piston that is transferred in a temporal series to the caboose.
2 C8H18 (gas) + 25 O2 in the presence of a spark will release energy that can be calculated and measured. You claim the force due to deceased relatives cannot. So this is a simple contradiction.
The molecule is just like the father, a part of an "accidental" series.
Once again if chemical reactions causing trains to move is "just like the father" then where is the chemical or physics formula that includes the deceased relative?
But you've invented your own definition of an "accidentally ordered series" that has no resemblance to the AT definition. Creating your own definition and pretending that is the definition being used in the First Way is merely one more instance of you using straw man argumentation. A long list of irrelevant complaints against the First Way.
SteveK listed the basic concepts of "essentially ordered" vs "accidentally ordered" causal series.
SteveK:
Type 1) When the causal activity of the hand is removed the motion of the stick ceases to continue as it does.
Type 2) When the causal activity of the grandfather is removed the motion of the stick doesn't cease to continue as it does.
Every molecule that is part of the aggregate motion of the train is in a temporal "accidental" series.
The gas molecules are part of the "essentially ordered series" of moving movers as they change from potentially moving the piston to to actually moving the piston. The *potential* force of that reaction changing into *actual* force is part of the essential movement of the train during the time of that reaction. This is something that science can calculate and measurable. If something in the series of the electrical system, fuel system, engine components, transmission etc were removed, the train's present motion would change.
If the train engineer's father was dead or even alive and eating a ham sandwich it would not affect the motion of the train in any way.
And BTW the mere fact that Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen are involved in the reaction is not enough to explain what is going on. Those elements must be formed in a particular way in order for there to be this reaction. In other words, the matter must be of a particular form. These 2 are know as the material and formal causes.
But that is not enough either. There must be an actual spark to ignite the explosion. This is known as the efficient cause.
The fact that an explosion always or almost always happens is known as the final cause. It is the final cause that allows us to actually do science. We can only study things that have some regularity.
Me: "I have answered your "question" too many times now. Why don't you respond to what I wrote earlier if you still think your "question" isn't somehow stupid."
bmiller: "No you did not answer my very simple question. You asked me a question in return. What *is* your answer? You made a claim. Support your claim."
bmiller: "It's just that that particular disagreement seems tangential to the claims that deceased relatives provide a "particular amount" of force to a stick being moved by a man. / His claim is that they do, but that "particular amount" of force cannot be detected or calculated. This is simply not science."
You seem incapable of understanding the distinction between describing a particular event, and understanding that prior events are instrumental in that particular event occurring (in a series that extends all the way back to the big bang).
You seem to think that recognizing the instrumentality of a prior event entails that that prior event MUST be measurable in the same way as the particular event.(As if a molecule of H2O that rises from the ocean must contain the static charge that is unleashed in a bolt of lightning in the subsequent storm in which it later a part.)
You seem to think that science ends when measurement currently ends or becomes impossible, when in fact science includes assumptions about uniformity and inferences based on induction.
Until you demonstrate that you can understand these very simple concepts, you will remain as stupid as you appear above.
@Little Cal,
A reminder:
Cal:"There are not two different series of causation."
ME:Now. Once again the very simple question:
"OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner. Since one can calculate the force applied to a puck via a hockey stick by Sidney Crosby scoring a goal during the 2017 Stanley Cup, tell me how you would go about calculating the "particular amount" of that force due to his deceased relatives?"
Either they are the same type of series and can be calculated the same or they are different types and cannot.
Cal:You seem incapable of understanding the distinction between describing a particular event, and understanding that prior events are instrumental in that particular event occurring (in a series that extends all the way back to the big bang).
Once again this response is not an answer to the very simple question. Do you *now* mean that since there is a distinction then there *are* 2 different causal series? Because of course SteveK and I have always argued that there is in fact a distinction and have gone through great pains explaining that distinction. The very fact that the force applied to a stick by a living man can be computed in one way and it does not involve deceased relatives makes that very clear.
You type a whole lot about what *I* must think. Why don't you explain what *you* think and defend your claim or withdraw it?
Here’s another way to look at the 2 types
Essential causal series are found in a system of things that responds in a repeatable/predictable way. The repeatable/predictable nature of the system is simply the essential causal series playing itself out and fulfilling its natural end. An energized circuit will predictably turn the lights on every time because the nature of the system (electrical) is ordered to be repeatable.
Accidental causal series are found in a system of things that does NOT respond in a repeatable/predictable way. The effect may occur, or it may not because the nature of the system has no repeatable natural end. Entering the room may or may not result in the lights being turned on. The nature of the system (electrical + human) is not ordered to be repeatable.
Scientists report both types of causal series.
bmiller: “OK. If there are not 2 different types of series of causation then you should be able to derive all causation in the same manner.”
Silly declarations like the above are why you make it clear that you don’t understand basic science, or the rules of argument.
You seem to think that because something is currently incalculable and immeasurable, then therefore rules of calculation and measurement CANNOT apply; but this is not only ignores fundamental underpinnings of science (uniformity, induction, Occam’s razor), but also embraces the argument from ignorance, whereby you try to insert your undemonstrated explanation into all gaps you can imagine.
Your mistakes are fundamental. Which is why you seem to be fooled into thinking that an output of scientific instrumentality (chemical reaction formulae, etc.) is relevant to your silly position, unaware that the pieces you fob off are the output of the very system you are trying to deny.
Your incessant pride (an inability to let go of a prior position, stridently defended, because you fear it will now make you seem stupid) is a character flaw, and in actuality it makes you stupider.
I’m not troubled by the inability of anyone to perform a calculation. What is troubling is that person willingly turning a blind eye to the examples that show the 2 types exist. Chemical reactions are essentially ordered causal series. Driving down the road and then acidentally (hint, hint) hitting another car on the road is an accidentally ordered causal series. There are countless examples of each type.
In summary:
1) Evidence that all events occur over time does not undermine the FW argument.
2) Evidence that past events cause future events does not undermine the FW argument.
3) Evidence that there is a time delay between cause & the observed effect does not undermine the FW argument.
4) Scientists report 2 types of causal series, although they refer to them using different language.
5) There are countless examples of the 2 types of causal series.
6) Essentially ordered causal series involve objects that exist (at the time the event occurred).
7) Objects that exist are essentially ordered toward various potential natural ends. This is what Aquinas is discussing when he refers to an object potentially being X or Y.
8) Water is one example of (7). All the subcomponents that make up water are an example of (7) because all material objects have a form/substance which makes them an example of (7).
9) Water is essentially ordered toward having the potential to become ice. Essentially ordered objects cause the essentially ordered water to actually become ice. This is the FW argument in a nutshell
10) Accidental causal series occur when two intersecting essentially ordered series become, by coincidence/chance, ordered toward a common natural end (natural motion) - hence the term "accident".
11) A car crash is one example of (10). The intersection of the 2 motions happens by coincidence/chance, however the 2 individual motions are essentially ordered because all motions involve objects and all objects are ordered toward their respective natural ends.
correction on (10)...
There can be more than 2 intersecting motions involved and the objects involved don't necessarily become ordered toward a common natural end. But if they do that, they are considered a new object ordered toward a natural end, and are not considered separate objects.
Think when 2H + O forms into H2O. A new object is formed in H2O with various natural ends that neither H nor O has.
@Little Cal,
It seems that you are allergic to answering simple questions.
Me:"Once again this response is not an answer to the very simple question. Do you *now* mean that since there is a distinction then there *are* 2 different causal series?"
You:"You seem to think that because something is currently incalculable and immeasurable, then therefore rules of calculation and measurement CANNOT apply;"
I'm just asking you questions about what you think. You keep replying by imagining what I think.
DO you actually think anything?
It appears that you cannot answer, so I have to assume that you concede to the obvious. There are 2 different types of causal series. Essentially ordered and accidentally ordered as defined by Aristotle and Aquinas.
bmiller: "It seems that you are allergic to answering simple questions."
As explained (many times) prior, your question is based on your misreading, and to answer simply would imply that your misreading is somehow correct. Do you understand that concept — how a badly formed question can’t be answered, because its assumptions are wrong?
In fact, you have (stupidly, based on your dishonesty) maintained that we have argued that a prior event in a complex series of events MUST contain the same effect as described in a particular subsequent scenario, else the prior event is not instrumental, and therefore there are two kinds of series!
How stupid.
As explained, events unfold in a series over time, but singling out a particular component of one event upon which others are related, and insisting that any prior event MUST also contain the particular component being described (even though an innumerable number of other events have also contributed) is so stupid that it doesn’t really deserve a response.
Do you understand that?
bmiller: “You type a whole lot about what *I* must think. Why don't you explain what *you* think and defend your claim or withdraw it?”
I have explained what I think here many, many times, and pointed out the standards that I am using (basic scientific understanding, the rules of good argument), and why the First Way fails with regard to these standards, and why it is that apologists fail to recognize the obvious — because they are largely dishonest, and this makes them even stupider than their otherwise poor education would have made them. How could you be unaware of this?
I know how. Because you are dishonest, and your dishonesty keeps you that stupid.
@Little Cal,
As explained (many times) prior, your question is based on your misreading, and to answer simply would imply that your misreading is somehow correct. Do you understand that concept — how a badly formed question can’t be answered, because its assumptions are wrong?
My question was directed at Strawdusty's claim that deceased relatives contribute a "particular amount" of force to a stick being moved by a livng descendant. Strawdusty does not dispute that the force operates in the present but has dissembled to include that "particular amount" of force is immeasurable and incalculable.
If he were to admit that this "particular amount" of force is not part of the equation of movement in the present, then it is not *instrumental* in moving the stick.
So I am not misreading Strawdusty's argument. You are.
In fact, you have (stupidly, based on your dishonesty) maintained that we have argued that a prior event in a complex series of events MUST contain the same effect as described in a particular subsequent scenario, else the prior event is not instrumental, and therefore there are two kinds of series!
How stupid.
What is stupid is to claim that someone has "maintained" anything by asking a *very simple question*.
Tell me what exactly you mean by these phrases:
a prior event in a complex series of events
What do you mean by "prior event"? Do you mean a force applied to a particular object? What is that force? What is that object?
What are these other "events"? What are the physics formulas for them? Do those formulas result in the f=ma of the man moving the stick now?
MUST contain the same effect as described in a particular subsequent scenario
What exactly do you mean by "same effect". Movement? Momentum? What exactly is a *scenario*?
As explained, events unfold in a series over time, but singling out a particular component of one event upon which others are related, and insisting that any prior event MUST also contain the particular component being described (even though an innumerable number of other events have also contributed) is so stupid that it doesn’t really deserve a response.
Do you understand that?
I understand physics. I understand the formula f=ma. I don't understand nonsense.
So when you say "and insisting that any prior event MUST also contain the particular component being described" you are babbling.
But of course, you didn't take even high school physics so perhaps you think this makes sense somehow in a magical thinking sort of way.
Is this typical of other atheists? Or are you *special*? How odd.
bmiller: "My question was directed at Strawdusty's claim that deceased relatives contribute a "particular amount" of force to a stick being moved by a livng descendant."
The above is your plain misreading of what Stardusty wrote. That you continue to promote your poor reading comprehension skills is another baffling outcome of your dishonesty.
bmiller: "Strawdusty does not dispute that the force operates in the present but has dissembled to include that "particular amount" of force is immeasurable and incalculable."
Nope. Particular amount refers to the amount pertaining to the scenario being described.
You fail at reading comprehension.
bmiller: "I understand physics. "
All evidence to the contrary.
bmiller: "But of course, you didn't take even high school physics so perhaps you think this makes sense somehow in a magical thinking sort of way."
This demonstrates, yet again, how stupid your dishonesty makes you.
I have to travel; I'll housekeep on the rest of your (stupid) prior comment when I return. Suffice to say, your dishonesty has made you stupider.
@bmiller
What Cal is trying to say is the grandfather is irrelevant to the FW argument.
@SteveK,
What Cal is trying to say is the grandfather is irrelevant to the FW argument.
Of course he is actually saying that, but doesn't realize it.
It's funny to watch him simultaneously disagree with Strawdusty and claim he is agreeing.
It's really pretty simple.
Non-existent things cannot cause anything to move. Deceased relatives do not exist as material beings, and so cannot apply forces to sticks. Only an existent person can apply that force. So the question is *what is the ultimate source of that force?* The form and matter of the man is ultimately the result of the Unmoved Mover.
Blogger bmiller said.. October 06, 2017 10:18 AM.
" It's really pretty simple."
--Agreed.
" Non-existent things cannot cause anything to move."
--If you are trying to say that simultaneity of cause and effect do not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, and therefore every causal series is an accidental series then you are correct.
" Deceased relatives do not exist as material beings, and so cannot apply forces to sticks."
--At the present moment of simultaneity, correct. As part of a causal series the present state past causal influences is irrelevant to their contributory effect in the causal series. Once the effect has been induced the cause is in the past and the amount of the effect cannot be undone irrespective of changes that occur to the causal influence after the moment of simultaneity.
" So the question is *what is the ultimate source of that force?* The form and matter of the man is ultimately the result of the Unmoved Mover."
--If by "ultimate source" you are referring to a zero time regression analysis, then that is not a causal analysis at all, and therefore does not call for an ultimate cause.
The zero time regression is in truth a regression of models, in this case from the biological organism level, to the cellular level, to the molecular level, to the atomic level, to the subatomic level, to the fundamental physics level.
The terminus of this zero time regression analysis is fundamental physics.
The word "physics" is ambiguous in that it is sometimes taken as our human body of models (ToR, QM, the Standard Model, etc), but sometimes taken as the true nature of material reality irrespective of our knowledge of the true aspects of the material.
When I say "fundamental physics" I mean a true and complete description of the aspects of material existence at its truly existent and most fundamental level, despite the fact we do not yet, and many never, have such a model in our possession.
So you're saying actual physics might not contradict the FW argument because we don't understand the causality of fundamental physics, a.k.a. actual physics.
@Strawdusty,
" Non-existent things cannot cause anything to move."
--If you are trying to say that simultaneity of cause and effect do not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, and therefore every causal series is an accidental series then you are correct.
What a strange reading of a very plain statement. I mean just what I posted: *" Non-existent things cannot cause anything to move."*
You apparently disagree, which is why I keep asking you to supply the formula. Still no joy, but lots of babbling.
As part of a causal series the present state past causal influences is irrelevant to their contributory effect in the causal series.
This is a word jumble. Even more than usual.
Once the effect has been induced the cause is in the past and the amount of the effect cannot be undone irrespective of changes that occur to the causal influence after the moment of simultaneity.
I wonder why you think this has any sort of relevence. Once a railroad car has been pulled past KC, time can't be reversed to when it was in LA. Once a man starts to move a stick, he likewise cannot unmove the stick. What does this have to do with anything?
" So the question is *what is the ultimate source of that force?* The form and matter of the man is ultimately the result of the Unmoved Mover."
--If by "ultimate source" you are referring to a zero time regression analysis, then that is not a causal analysis at all, and therefore does not call for an ultimate cause.
What is it with your reading comprehension? I did not mention anything about a "zero time regression analysis". That phrase is a nonsense phrase that you invented I'm guessing because you do not understand physics nor the math that is used in that field of study.
Something is moving now. What is the ultimate cause of the movement now? And I by *now* I mean how normal English speaking humans use the word.
Do I really have to post dictionary definitions, none of which include your invention of "zero time regression analysis".
The word "physics" is ambiguous
Only to someone who has never taken a physics course, or even bothered to look up "physics" on Google.
Of course, to someone who invents his own words and meanings, it really doesn't matter what Google, Wikipedia or anyone else has to say.
The terminus of this zero time regression analysis is fundamental physics.
Regardless of your invented phrase, the question still remains *if existing material things change or move, then what is responsible?* Claiming that "fundamental physics" is "a true and complete description of the aspects of material existence at its truly existent and most fundamental level" does absolutely nothing to answer that question. Descriptions do not cause existing material things to move.
bmiller said.. October 06, 2017 7:03 PM.
" Something is moving now. "
Please define "moving".
Please define "now".
By "now" do you mean this present instant? Does zero time pass within "now"? If time passes within "now", how much time is half of "now"? Suppose half the time of "now" passes and we enter the second half of the time of "now". Doesn't that make the first half of "now" actually in the past and not "now" at all?
If we continue this process of division of "now" don't we end up with "now" having a zero timespan?
How far can something move in zero time?
In what sense is something "moving" in the zero time of "now"? If X moves at 1 meter per second how far does X move in 0 seconds? If X moves 0 meters "now" in what sense is X "moving" "now"?
Something is moving during the time you are watching it. Common folk refer to that as "now"
@Strawdusty,
Please define "moving".
Are you serious? How many times do we have to repeat it?
What is your definition?
Please define "now".
I did already:
And I by *now* I mean how normal English speaking humans use the word.
Do I really have to post dictionary definitions, none of which include your invention of "zero time regression analysis".
It appears that how humans speak English is not one of your skillsets:
This is an explanation of how English speakers use the "Present Continuous Tense for Now"
By "now" do you mean this present instant? Does zero time pass within "now"? If time passes within "now", how much time is half of "now"? Suppose half the time of "now" passes and we enter the second half of the time of "now". Doesn't that make the first half of "now" actually in the past and not "now" at all?
If we continue this process of division of "now" don't we end up with "now" having a zero timespan?
Since the discussion involves the motion of a man moving a stick, the "present continuous tense for now" is the time frame of that the man is moving the stick. He could be moving it for several milliseconds or longer.
But you seem to be fixated on a side issue related to the definition of velocity which is irrelevant the topic.
Speed is defined as the change of position of an existing material object with respect to a change in time. In order to determine what speed that existing material object is moving at, one has to record 4 things:
1) Beginning position (x0)
2) Ending position (x1)
3) Beginning time (t0)
4) Ending time (t1)
For the graph of position vs time, time is the independent variable while position is the dependent variable.
If t0=t1 then one is not measuring a difference of time vs position. One is simply inspecting position wrt that point in time.
This is not mysterious. Still frame photography is not a new invention.
*Now* you could take each of those images and move them forward in time wrt other objects (not moving) and I could notice a difference between those objects and the others (not moving). Could you?
@SteveK,
Something is moving during the time you are watching it. Common folk refer to that as "now"
As would these 2 (and probably do in their normal lives) if they didn't fear that if agreeing to the normal concept of "now" leads to GOD!!!.
The way this is going, I expect them to deny that they even exist if that leads to GOD!!!.
SteveK said.. October 06, 2017 8:31 PM.
" Something is moving during the time you are watching it. Common folk refer to that as "now""
bmiller said.. October 06, 2017 9:02 PM.
" By "now" ... the "present continuous tense for now" is the time frame of that the man is moving the stick. He could be moving it for several milliseconds or longer."
--Ok, so you both define "now" as a period of time.
A series that occurs within a period of time is a temporal series.
A temporal series is an "accidental" series.
Every series is an "accidental" series.
To ask the cause of a temporal series is to ask what came temporally before that series, and in turn temporally before that series, and temporally before that series ad infinitum. This is a temporal regress analysis leading to the question of temporal beginnings in the deep past, and the consideration of an infinite time in the past.
Suppose we wish to limit the resolution of our analysis to 1ms.
What caused the effect at millisecond 3? The event at millisecond 2.
What caused the effect at millisecond 2? The event at millisecond 1.
Want caused the effect at millisecond 1? The event at millisecond 0.
What caused the effect at millisecond 0? The event at millisecond -1.
What caused the effect at millisecond -1? The event at millisecond -2.
...and so on to negative infinity of milliseconds.
How far in the past is a negative infinity of milliseconds? Is this concept of time any different than a negative infinity of years?
>> "A temporal series is an "accidental" series. Every series is an "accidental" series."
*sigh*
You've earned your nickname "Strawdusty". We've been over the differences between the 2 types dozens of times.
>> "To ask the cause of a temporal series is to ask what came temporally before that series, and in turn temporally before that series, and temporally before that series ad infinitum. This is a temporal regress analysis leading to the question of temporal beginnings in the deep past, and the consideration of an infinite time in the past."
Punting to the deep past doesn't resolve the metaphysical problem and the need for an unmoved mover. See Feser's discussion on infinite causal series, infinite loops and deep time.
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html
SteveK said... October 07, 2017 9:02 AM
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html
"To be sure, the paradigm cases of causal series ordered per se involve simultaneity,"
So Feser agrees with me, a temporal series is an "accidental" series. An "essential" series requires "simultaneity".
Unfortunately, the causal analysis of Feser is hopelessly muddled since simultaneity cannot extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero and no series can occur within that limit.
I have explained this and many other glaring defects in the link you mentioned directly to Feser on several of his blog pages but he is unable to counter any of my words.
Several of his sycophants have made some feeble attempts but quickly devolve to mere name calling, if they ever get past shrieking about my mere presence in their midst.
But by all means come on over and demonstrate your vast argumentation skills
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/09/ward-on-scholastic-metaphysics.html
Dusty
The simultaneous nature of cause/effect involves a philosophical argument. It says cause/effect occurs between objects. Like in a relay race, the baton is transferred as much as it is received - at the same time. There can’t be a transfer of energy (cause) without their being a simultaneous receiving (effect). It has to simultaneously transfer to some other object otherwise it cannot be referred to as a cause.
Two objects touching is a simultaneous cause/effect. To the extent they are touching, one is on the giving end and the other on the receiving end. Equal and opposite touching force. To the extent one is transferring energy/force the other is receiving it. Conservation of energy. This is true at every physical scale and at every instant. If it were not true at every instant a contraction would result where force is both being applied to an object and not being applied to it.
SteveK said...
" There can’t be a transfer of energy (cause) without their being a simultaneous receiving (effect). It has to simultaneously transfer to some other object otherwise it cannot be referred to as a cause."
--Indeed.
" To the extent one is transferring energy/force the other is receiving it. Conservation of energy. This is true at every physical scale and at every instant. "
--Yes.
"If it were not true at every instant a contraction would result where force is both being applied to an object and not being applied to it."
--Indeed. The apparently static nature of a rock resting upon the Earth is actually a dynamic process. If the electrons cease wizzing about the whole assemblage will contract to the density of a neutron star, or perhaps collapse further to a black hole.
So, you are on the right track here. I invite you to carry this analysis further.
Cause and effect does indeed occur at the moment of simultaneity, as you describe. Events prior to that moment are in the past and cannot be undone. The energy transferred in the past will remain transferred even if that source of energy disappears from existence.
Energy is transferred in a temporal process always at the point of simultaneity. All the energy transferred up to that point is in the past. Anything that might happen in the future is not real, only imagined. If the thing that transferred the past energy suddenly disappears from existence then the unreal future remains unreal, so no effect has been stopped because a future effect is not real and a past effect cannot be undone.
Stopping a process stops no effect. Cause and effect happen at the moment of simultaneity. Past effects are not undone. Future effects are not real and therefore there is no such effect to stop.
>> “Cause and effect happen at the moment of simultaneity.”
Exactly. Hence there must be a cause at every instant to explain every simultaneous effect. Motion is a continuous series of simultaneous effects that require a continuous series of simultaneous causes. Because they are simultaneous at every instant the cause cannot be in the past where simultaneous relationships do not exist with the present.
@SteveK,
>> "A temporal series is an "accidental" series. Every series is an "accidental" series."
*sigh*
You've earned your nickname "Strawdusty". We've been over the differences between the 2 types dozens of times.
What is really funny is that in trying to come up with a name for *his* causal series he chose the name "accidental" which means "not essential" to the rest of the English speaking world. He then claims that everything is caused "accidentally" which *really* means that there are no *real* causes.
So his definition is not only wrong, it's backwards to what he is trying to establish.
SteveK said.. October 07, 2017 12:04 PM.
>> “Cause and effect happen at the moment of simultaneity.”
" Exactly. Hence there must be a cause at every instant to explain every simultaneous effect. Motion is a continuous series of simultaneous effects that require a continuous series of simultaneous causes. Because they are simultaneous at every instant the cause cannot be in the past where simultaneous relationships do not exist with the present."
--Indeed.
That being agreed upon, then what is a causal series?
Suppose the 2 ball and the 3 ball are stationary on the table. The 1 ball rolls along and hits the 2 ball. The 2 ball then rolls and hits the 3 ball. The 3 ball then rolls and goes into the pocket.
Did the 1 ball cause the 3 ball to go into the pocket?
Well, that depends on terminology. What is a "cause"? If a "cause" is required to directly transfer energy to the "effect" then no, the 1 ball did not cause the 3 ball to go into the pocket.
If a "cause" can be a member of a causal series then yes, the 1 ball is a cause of the 3 ball going into the pocket.
A causal series is not the same thing as a simultaneous cause and effect. A causal series is just that, a series of causes, that is, one cause and then another, and then another and so forth. Such a series is temporal.
One cannot have a series of causes inside simultaneity. Once we identify a series of causes we are necessarily considering a temporal process or a temporal sequence.
@Strawdusty,
A series that occurs within a period of time is a temporal series.
A series of *what* exactly are you referring to?
The First Way involves an instrumental series of existing moving movers and the ultimate cause of that motion while moving.
A temporal series is an "accidental" series.
Simply wrong again.
Every series is an "accidental" series.
If nothing is essentially causing motion, and since "accidental" means *not essential*, then your claim amounts is that nothing causes motion.
To ask the cause of a temporal series is to ask what came temporally before that series, and in turn temporally before that series, and temporally before that series ad infinitum.
Science explains the motion of a stick being moved by a man using formulas to compute the force. The formulas involve only the things that exist during that movement. Things that do not *actually* exist, or only *potentially* exist cannot and do not contribute to that motion.
You're welcome to indulge yourself in the idea that non-existent things cause existent things to move, but that is simply not science.
How far in the past is a negative infinity of milliseconds? Is this concept of time any different than a negative infinity of years?
Your idea of "a temporal series" is not defined so your analysis is worthless. Temporal series of *what*?
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html
"To be sure, the paradigm cases of causal series ordered per se involve simultaneity,"
So Feser agrees with me, a temporal series is an "accidental" series. An "essential" series requires "simultaneity".
No he doesn't agree with you as is evident in the sentence right before the one you quoted:
"So, it is ultimately their instrumental character, and not their simultaneity, which makes every member of a per se ordered causal series other than the first depend necessarily on the first."
No where does he use your invented term "temporal series". In fact, he goes on to give an explicit example of an essentially ordered series that does not involve simultaneity.
But of course this has already been pointed out to you multiple times. You persist in imagining definitions of your own invention and then proceed to attack your own definitions. Quite a spectacle for those of us who value rational discourse.
@Strawdusty,
Suppose the 2 ball and the 3 ball are stationary on the table. The 1 ball rolls along and hits the 2 ball. The 2 ball then rolls and hits the 3 ball. The 3 ball then rolls and goes into the pocket.
The 1 ball was put in motion by a cue stick that along with it formed an essentially ordered series during the impulse (f*t) of cue-1 ball. Once the cue ceased applying force to the 1 ball, that essentially ordered series ceased.
During the impulse of the 1 ball and 2 ball a new essentially ordered series is formed until they too separate and that series ceases.
One cannot have a series of causes inside simultaneity.
The example of the train cars accelerating, each due to the various tensive forces of their couplers is another example of an essentially ordered series. As long as the force is applied, each car is instrumental for the following car(s) moving. All cars are moving at the same time, all pulled along by the accelerating locomotive.
None of this is mysterious to scientists.
bmiller said.. October 07, 2017 1:57 PM.
SP A temporal series is an "accidental" series.
" Simply wrong again."
--You misunderstand Feser...getting there...
" Science explains the motion of a stick being moved by a man using formulas to compute the force. The formulas involve only the things that exist during that movement. Things that do not *actually* exist, or only *potentially* exist cannot and do not contribute to that motion."
--Nope. Science has done away with A-T notions of causality. They are only found in undergraduate courses as misguided pedagogical tools that would be better replaced with modern science to avoid miseducation of the majority who go no further.
" Your idea of "a temporal series" is not defined so your analysis is worthless. Temporal series of *what*?"
--Causal processes.
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html
"To be sure, the paradigm cases of causal series ordered per se involve simultaneity,"
SP So Feser agrees with me, a temporal series is an "accidental" series. An "essential" series requires "simultaneity".
" No he doesn't agree with you as is evident in the sentence right before the one you quoted:"
--Actually he does, but you have not read his words accurately.
" "So, it is ultimately their instrumental character, and not their simultaneity, which makes every member of a per se ordered causal series other than the first depend necessarily on the first.""
--Feser here acknowledges that an "essential" or "per se" causal "series" has simultaneity, but he focuses on other imagined properties of his gibberish to make other nonsense points.
The fact that he speaks gibberish about a simultaneous causal series instrumental character does not eliminate the fact that an "essential" series is simultaneous, meaning a series that is not simultaneous is not "essential" and therefore "accidental.
" No where does he use your invented term "temporal series"."
--More's the pity. He actually describes a temporal regress elsewhere.
" In fact, he goes on to give an explicit example of an essentially ordered series that does not involve simultaneity."
--I am not surprised at this self contradiction on his part.
bmiller said.. October 07, 2017 2:16 PM.
" The 1 ball was put in motion by a cue stick that along with it formed an essentially ordered series during the impulse (f*t) of cue-1 ball.
--Does an "impulse" occur in 0 time?
SP One cannot have a series of causes inside simultaneity."
" The example of the train cars accelerating, each due to the various tensive forces of their couplers is another example of an essentially ordered series."
--What is the elasticity of steel? How does one model the mass/spring/damper system of a train? How would you model an entire train using finite element analysis? How would you describe a train at the molecular level starting with the fuel and air and accounting for every motion of every molecule in the train, track, and air?
" None of this is mysterious to scientists."
--My words are not mysterious to scientists. The language of "essential", "instrumental", "accidental", and "per se" is complete asinine gibberish to modern scientists.
"Does an "impulse" occur in 0 time?"
We already went over this. It occurs over time. At each instant within that same time period there is a simultaneous cause/effect occurring.
None of the simultaneous cause/effect relationships involve a cause in the past for reasons already explained.
SteveK said.. October 07, 2017 4:22 PM.
SP "Does an "impulse" occur in 0 time?"
" We already went over this. It occurs over time. At each instant within that same time period there is a simultaneous cause/effect occurring."
--Yes, you and I agreed on this point, bmiller's view is not clear to me on this particular point.
" None of the simultaneous cause/effect relationships involve a cause in the past for reasons already explained."
--Yes, a cause/effect relationship does not exist outside simultaneity, so the "impulse" is a series of such simultaneous events, not qualitatively different than any other series of events over time.
A series of events over time is an "accidental" series, so the "impulse" is an "accidental" series.
If the cue is withdrawn quickly after first contact then less energy is transferred, as compared to a process of the cue striking for a longer time with more follow through of the stroke.
At any moment during the impulse the cue may be withdrawn and could disappear from existence like a dead great great grandfather. The cue is in a temporal "accidental" series for as long as it is in contact with the ball since it can be withdrawn at any time.
At any moment the cause/effect events preceding that moment are in the past and no longer part of the cause/effect event in the present moment. Previous cause/effect events during the impulse can only be considered part of a temporal causal series, which is necessarily an "accidental" series.
There is no series in the present moment, only the present cause/effect event.
@Strawdusty,
--Nope. Science has done away with A-T notions of causality. They are only found in undergraduate courses as misguided pedagogical tools that would be better replaced with modern science to avoid miseducation of the majority who go no further.
You have never taken an undergraduate physics course much less a graduate course. Your suggestion that physics does not use formulas to calculate motion of existent material objects is risible. So is your imagination of what is taught in those classes.
--Causal processes.
So are all "temporal series" "causal processes"? If not, then what makes a "temporal series" a "causal process"? Do processes have a beginning, middle and end?
--Actually he does, but you have not read his words accurately.
I did more that read his words accurately. I actually understood what he was saying which you still don't. Simultaneity is not a necessary condition for a series to be classified as essential but instrumentality is. He gave an example to illustrate the point as I pointed out August 06, 2017 1:21 PM
Here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=1424858326254363402
But it is arguably possible at least in theory for there to be a per se causal series in which some of the members were not simultaneous."
--I am not surprised at this self contradiction on his part.
And I'm not surprised by your lack of reading comprehension or ability to follow logic. Nor am I surprised by your penchant of ignoring responses that illustrate your nonsense.
--What is the elasticity of steel? ....motion of every molecule in the train, track, and air?
All of this misses the point that all cars of the train are moving *at the same time* and the couplers are under a constant tensive force.
It appears that you did some CAD programming. Congratulations. None of that changes the fact that all of those molecules of the train are accelerating at the same rate.
--My words are not mysterious to scientists.
No. Most scientists can recognize a crank and don't consider them to be mysterious.
@Strawdusty,
At any moment during the impulse the cue may be withdrawn and could disappear from existence like a dead great great grandfather.
In that case the essential force of the cue moving the ball would cease, causing the cessation of the essentially ordered series. But once the 2 ball is moving the 3 ball, is the cue applying any essential force?
The cue is in a temporal "accidental" series for as long as it is in contact with the ball since it can be withdrawn at any time.
So is nothing essential for any of this movement? Science disagrees.
>> "A series of events over time is an "accidental" series, so the "impulse" is an "accidental" series."
Try this. At one instant when a simultaneous cause/effect exists take a photo of that instant and list everything involved in creating the effect on the ball. Those are the members of the essential series. In your photo you'll see there's the cue and the hand. All of these things are involved in creating the effect in that instant. They're essential. The hair on the hand is not essential nor is the ring on the finger. There are more members on the list that you cannot see in the photo - like muscles - but this is enough to prove once again that there are 2 types of series.
SteveK said.. October 07, 2017 9:46 PM.
>> "A series of events over time is an "accidental" series, so the "impulse" is an "accidental" series."
" Try this. At one instant when a simultaneous cause/effect exists take a photo of that instant and list everything involved in creating the effect on the ball. "
--Ok, that is an interesting approach, but let's see if the thought experiment yields the predicted results.
"Those are the members of the essential series. In your photo you'll see there's the cue and the hand. All of these things are involved in creating the effect in that instant. They're essential. The hair on the hand is not essential nor is the ring on the finger."
--Doesn't the hair and the ring have mass? Isn't the mass of these things contributing just as surly as the mass in every cell of the hand?
What of all the objects in the universe that are contributing a gravitational force to this system? Don't they have a non-zero contribution?
" There are more members on the list that you cannot see in the photo - like muscles -"
--Indeed.
" but this is enough to prove once again that there are 2 types of series."
--In what sense is this a series? How can there be a series if we have a snapshot in time, a freeze frame that is ideally 0 time?
In a series one thing happens after another. The World Series is one game, then another game, and so on. What kind of series happens in the moment of simultaneity, the limit as t goes to 0?
Maybe you mean a mechanical structure as a sort of series...the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone...and so forth? Hence my question as to where spatially do you make a boundary for this structure that might in some sense be called a series?
Maybe you mean a structural regress? A series of models, from the cue, to its atoms, to its subatomic particles, to the most fundamental physical things that exist (albeit unknown at this time)?
@Strawdusty,
" Try this. At one instant when a simultaneous cause/effect exists take a photo of that instant and list everything involved in creating the effect on the ball. "
--Ok, that is an interesting approach, but let's see if the thought experiment yields the predicted results.
Are there any deceased relatives in that photo?
Dusty,
The point of the FW argument isn't to try and identify all the members in the essential series - although you're welcome to try. Just know that essential series do exist.
>> In a series one thing happens after another.
>> Maybe you mean a mechanical structure as a sort of series
>> Maybe you mean a structural regress?
I'm not going to give it a name because there are probably many different types.
+ Trains are a series of cars - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the caboose.
+ Hand/stick/rock is a series of objects - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the dirt.
+ Forging presses are a series of parts - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the metal ingot.
Aquinas defines change as going from potential to actual.
SteveK said.. October 08, 2017 9:28 AM.
Dusty,
The point of the FW argument isn't to try and identify all the members in the essential series - although you're welcome to try. Just know that essential series do exist.
>> In a series one thing happens after another.
>> Maybe you mean a mechanical structure as a sort of series
>> Maybe you mean a structural regress?
" I'm not going to give it a name because there are probably many different types."
--There are no so very many types. The problem is tractable, although it does require some fair amount of step by step analysis and a sort of bookeeping.
+ Trains are a series of cars - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the caboose.
--Ok, here by "series" you seem to mean a structural series in spatial extent. One object is mechanically connected to another and another and so forth to the last object where this "series" terminates.
+ Hand/stick/rock is a series of objects - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the dirt.
--Ok, so again, a "series" in the sense of objects mechanically connected,
+ Forging presses are a series of parts - these essential objects are needed to create the observed effect on the metal ingot.
--Ok, another "series" of mechanically connected objects of spatial extent.
" Aquinas defines change as going from potential to actual."
--Yes, that is the A-T definition. It has no scientific analytical value and appears noplace in modern scientific texts.
But returning to your examples of a "series". They are all physical systems, extended in space, acting over time. So they all seem to be of the same sort.
In an introductory physics course pedagogical devices are used such a frictionless wheels, instantaneous transmission of force, and perfectly ridged bodies. Without these simplifications the introductory course would be overwhelmingly complex.
In truth, of course, the train is not ridged or simple. In actuality molecules in the air react with molecules of fuel to push on the piston and then exit into the atmosphere. A complex series of temporal events involve the train stretching and contracting and wobbling along the track, inducing motion in the molecules of the track and the surrounding air in a vast temporal causal series.
The locomotive is not a single ongoing cause, rather, numbers on the order of 10^20 molecules per second of air and fuel are each individual contributory causes that come and go, causing their effect in the moment of simultaneity and then exiting the picture like the deceased relative.
So, there is no qualitative "accidental" difference between the molecules of air and the relatives on ones lineage. The difference is in timescale. Both are "accidental", inducing their effect in the moment of simultaneity, and becoming irrelevant thereafter.
But putting aside the fact that every series is an "accidental" series, where is the call for an ontological first mover?
Ok, the fuel, the air, piston, generator, motor, wheels, frame, coupler, frame, coupler...caboose. Just supposing this were a ridged system, what of it? Where is the call for an ontological first mover? The series starts with the fuel/air reactions and it ends at the caboose, done.
How does an engine pulling a train call for anything other than the details of that mechanical system?
Blogger Stardusty Psyche said...
SteveK said.. October 08, 2017 9:28 AM.
Dusty,
" The point of the FW argument isn't to try and identify all the members in the essential series - "
--The FW says that the series cannot go on to infinity, therefore there must be a first mover.
In the train the series starts with the locomotive and ends with the caboose. Where is there a call to go on to infinity?
Even with my molecular analysis the series starts with the fuel/air molecules and ends with the caboose molecules. We could calculate a fairly close approximation of how many molecules that is. It is a finite number. No call to co on to infinity.
Even if one thing depends on another at the same time the start and end is clear and finite. Where is there a call for an infinite series of any sort?
@Strawdusty,
causing their effect in the moment of simultaneity and then exiting the picture like the deceased relative.
Which means they cease to be part of the essentially ordered series of instrumental moving movers, just like deceased relatives.
Both are "accidental", inducing their effect in the moment of simultaneity, and becoming irrelevant thereafter.
This is getting closer to the mark. Now if you would just use the correct terminology ("essential") it would be something that someone who understands Thomism would recognize.
You recognize that at one part of a motion they are instrumental and when they cease to be instrumental, they are irrelevant to any further part of that motion.
The series starts with the fuel/air reactions and it ends at the caboose, done.
How does an engine pulling a train call for anything other than the details of that mechanical system?
Of course the train is used as an analogy to illustrate the principle of how each car moves the following car even though it cannot move itself, the locomotive being analogous to a possible first mover.
But however you look at it, the train is composed of inert material parts, none of which can move themselves. Whether you look at the cars and locomotive, or the tiniest constiuent parts of the cars and locomotive, they are all inanimate objects incapable of self-movement. So there must be something that moves all those inanimate objects. But if that is just another inanimate object, then something must be moving it. The only solution to escape an impossible infinite regress of existent moving movers is for there to be an ulimate mover that doesn't move. The Unmoved Mover.
" The point of the FW argument isn't to try and identify all the members in the essential series - "
--The FW says that the series cannot go on to infinity, therefore there must be a first mover.
In the train the series starts with the locomotive and ends with the caboose. Where is there a call to go on to infinity?
Please read the bolded parts. The First Way does not issue a "call to go on to infinity". It does exactly the opposite by saying that is impossible just as you noted yourself.
bmiller said...
" But however you look at it, the train is composed of inert material parts, "
--Fuel/air are not inert. They are highly reactive.
" they are all inanimate objects incapable of self-movement."
--The air was in the atmosphere before it was in the cylinder. Before that the oxygen came from a plant.
" then something must be moving it."
--Right, the fuel pump is pumping the fuel. Before that the fuel was pumped into the tank. Before that plants grew and then got buried and decomposed into oil.
" The First Way does not issue a "call to go on to infinity""
--Of course it does, it goes a couple steps back, and then just declares the series would have to go to infinity, which is impossible, therefore there must be a first mover.
Where is this regress in the train, specifically? What actual portions of the action of the train go back and back and back and back without end, specifically, by name. Name the parts.
@Strawdusty,
--Fuel/air are not inert. They are highly reactive.
By inert, I mean incapable of self-movement.
" they are all inanimate objects incapable of self-movement."
--The air was in the atmosphere before it was in the cylinder. Before that the oxygen came from a plant.
Right. But the history of a particular oxygen molecule is irrelvant to what the First Way is examining.
Are you suggesting that oxygen molecules move themselves?
" then something must be moving it."
--Right, the fuel pump is pumping the fuel.
Agreed, as well as the spark igniting the fuel mixture.
Before that the fuel was pumped into the tank. Before that plants grew and then got buried and decomposed into oil.
And now you have changed from what *is happening* to what *happened* before. The motion considered in the First Way only considers what we percieve happening while a particular motion is in progress. You do not perceive "fuel being pumped into the tank" or "plants decomposed into oil" during the trains movement.
" The First Way does not issue a "call to go on to infinity""
--Of course it does, it goes a couple steps back, and then just declares the series would have to go to infinity, which is impossible, therefore there must be a first mover.
I'm afraid I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.
This is what you accurately stated:
--The FW says that the series cannot go on to infinity, therefore there must be a first mover.
Let me clip the relevant part:
--The FW says that the series cannot go on to infinity
Then you say this:
then just declares the series would have to go to infinity
It is not clear to me how in the former quote you correctly note "the series cannot go on to infinity" and in the latter you claim it "just declares the series would have to go to infinity". These are contradictory claims.
@Strawdusty,
Let me add one other thing.
The First Way considers a motion that is happening and what is causing it. This means that all the components under consideration must all be existing during that motion. It is the number material existing things that is causing that particular movement that is being considered as a series as the notion of an infinite regress. Not a temporal regress of causes.
bmiller said..
October 08, 2017 10:07 PM.
" The First Way considers a motion that is happening and what is causing it. "
The air and the fuel/are causing the caboose to move together with the whole train.
What further regress of causes is called for? This can't go on to infinity, fine, don't go on at all then. Start with the air/fuel combustion end with the caboose if that is all you wish to consider. No further regress of any sort called for.
What requires further explanation? During any given second the train is in a self sustaining process that needs no humans. Suppose the people jumped off, the train keeps going on its own. During any particular second, or any particular moment, what more is needed than the reaction of fuel/air and the mechanical linkages to the caboose?
Dusty
>> "What further regress of causes is called for?"
If one object cannot move itself, adding more of them doesn't suddenly make the problem go away. Every object that is essential to the final motion requires a cause to initiate its motion.
Regressing back to the factory that made the train is wrongheaded because the factory isn't essential to the motion. Clearly, it's not causing any other essential member in the series to move.
Regarding The First Way, do the apologists here think that the First Mover is responsible for all things that move, or just some?
In other words, when a man moves a rod, is the first mover ultimately behind that rod's motion (or is it just the man)?
If the first mover is not the ultimate source of motion for a man moving a rod, then how does one determine what motions are being propelled by the first mover?
@Strawdusty,
Start with the air/fuel combustion end with the caboose if that is all you wish to consider. No further regress of any sort called for.
But both the air and fuel are in motion, so there must be something causing their motion too. Is that in motion also? If so, then it too must be moved and so on. But this number of moving movers cannot be infinite for a whole number of reasons and so must end in something that moves the others without itself moving.
@Cal,
In other words, when a man moves a rod, is the first mover ultimately behind that rod's motion (or is it just the man)?
The First Way concludes that the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of *all* motion of existing material objects. No exceptions.
In the case of the man moving the stick, he does so in virtue of his composition of form and matter. If that composition were to cease there would be no motion of the stick.
bmiller said.. October 09, 2017 10:54 AM.
@Strawdusty,
Start with the air/fuel combustion end with the caboose if that is all you wish to consider. No further regress of any sort called for.
" But both the air and fuel are in motion,"
--Indeed.
" so there must be something causing their motion too. Is that in motion also? "
--Yes, other air molecules.
"If so, then it too must be moved and so on."
--Indeed. The motion of the air molecules is caused by more and more air molecules bumping into them. This is a temporal, spatial, regress. Air molecules do not all line up and move each other instantaneously.
So, in the locomotive if I ask what further regress of motion is called for you ask what causes the air and fuel molecules to move. That is reasonable. The answer in the case of air is further air molecules in a temporal causal series.
But you say this is not a temporal analysis. Well, OK, what non-temporal regress is called for?
I was asked to consider a freeze frame. Ok, let's. I see air, fuel, and CO2 molecules suspended in space inside a cylinder. I see a piston, crankshaft, generator, motor, wheels, and cars ending in the caboose. That's it.
Where is there a call for any further regress in the freeze frame?
" But this number of moving movers cannot be infinite"
--It doesn't need to be. The air molecules here were impacted by other molecules over there some time in the past. And before that by others, and before that by others, until we go all the way around the Earth and come back to our spot.
It is like my example of the sealed bottle of gas, everything just keeps bouncing off everything else. That's why a sealed bottle of gas maintains pressure, because at the molecular level there is no such thing as friction. Energy is conserved, so all the molecules in the bottle just keep bouncing off each other and bouncing off the wall without end in an ongoing temporal process that calls for no first mover in this moment.
There is no first mover in this moment called for, only the mutual causation of every member in the system. In the case of an idealized Earth atmosphere we live in a spherical shell bottle of gas.
So, where in the freeze frame is there a call for any sort of regress? I see the components of the train, starting at the locomotive and ending at the caboose, done.
If you wish to consider how the air and the fuel got there that is reasonable, but it is also a temporal regress.
bmiller said.. October 09, 2017 11:06 AM.
" In the case of the man moving the stick, he does so in virtue of his composition of form and matter. If that composition were to cease there would be no motion of the stick."
--Ok, so again, the man and the stick and the rock in freeze frame. There a man, a stick, and a rock, that's it. It is said that an argument from motion calls for a first mover because a series of motions cannot regress to infinity. I see a man moving a stick moving a rock, done. No further regress of motion is called for in the freeze frame.
So now you raise the concept of "form". Ok, that's reasonable. What is "form"? You can provide your own words, but one way to say it is structure, or arrangement. The form of a crystal is the angular relationships between the atoms and molecules in the crystal lattice.
Everything has some sort of form. Constituents connect in particular arrangements. So, it is a great question to ask. How do these arrangements arise? What happens when we looks closer and closer at how constituents are structured to give rise, as it were, to the "form" we observe?
This is a structural regress analysis. Very interesting.
We model the hand as composed of cells.
The cells are composed of molecules.
The molecules are composed of atoms.
The atoms are composed of subatomic particles.
The subatomic particles are composed of standard model particles.
The standard model particles are composed of strings or quantum fields or some as yet undiscovered structure.
An unknown number of further regressions of structural modeling may be called for.
The terminus of this structural regress is fundamental physics, in the descriptive sense.
The underlying reality is fundamental physics, in the existential sense.
This is not a causal regress, rather, a modeling regress. The only physically existing indivisible entities are those of fundamental physics. All the higher order entities are simply approximate models of arrangements of constituents.
Motion does not call for this regress of models of structures or arrangements or form. It is the observation of form at the macro level that calls for an explanation. That explanation is the arrangements of constituents.
The first mover is irrelevant, since there is no first mover called for by consideration of form.
>> But you say this is not a temporal analysis.
Because it's an "essential member" analysis. Stop focusing so much on time and start focusing on WHAT is causing the observed motion. The distinction between accidental and essential series gets us to focus on WHAT is required to produce the motion.
>> "Where is there a call for any further regress in the freeze frame?"
A completed train sitting on the tracks with the atmosphere all around it, with gravity forces acting on it and with air/fuel in the cylinder isn't moving until something unique happens. It has the potential to move. Aquinas talks about objects having a potential that must be actualized by some other object (objects don't move themselves).
When the motion begins we know a change occurs. The potential to move has been actualized. That change requires a cause, which requires an object that isn't the train/atmosphere/gravity/fuel. WHAT is essential to making that unique change happen?
We know a heated object is essential to ignite the air/fuel mixture. We know that object wasn't always heated so we know some other object must have caused it to become heated. WHAT objects can cause other objects to become heated?
The "essential member analysis" continues. You'll notice I'm focusing on WHAT, and not focusing on time.
@Strawdusty,
As SteveK mentions, the argument considers the series of moving movers while the movement is ongoing, not history.
I was asked to consider a freeze frame.
Yes, in order to maintain the focus on all the components that are active in a motion of moving movers.
" But this number of moving movers cannot be infinite"
--It doesn't need to be. The air molecules here were impacted by other molecules over there some time in the past.
Once again, you've included things that happened in the past. Not part of that freeze frame.
It is like my example of the sealed bottle of gas, everything just keeps bouncing off everything else.
At any particular point in time, some molecules are colliding with others and moving them forming an essentially ordered series. When they separate, they no longer form an essentially ordered series (because there is no longer a force applied from one to the other). So at any point in time, there are some essentially ordered series coming to be, some in existence and some passing away.
Ok, that's reasonable. What is "form"? You can provide your own words, but one way to say it is structure, or arrangement. The form of a crystal is the angular relationships between the atoms and molecules in the crystal lattice.
The idea of form and matter composing a physical object is known as hylomorphism. Matter at it's lowest form can potentially be any material object. It is form that constrains matter into becoming an actual material thing. Form is more than just the physical structure, it is the entire essense of the thing including all it's nature and all of it's potential properties both potential and actual. It is what makes a thing intelligible.
This is a structural regress analysis. Very interesting.
Not really. The question is what is causing motion.
The only physically existing indivisible entities are those of fundamental physics.
Do those entities move? Then they must ultimately be moved by something not moving.
Motion does not call for this regress of models of structures or arrangements or form.
That's because you stopped asking the question "what is causing a particular motion?" to "what is that thing made of?".
The man moves the stick, because he has the natural potential to do that due to the type of thing (his nature) he is. He is the type of thing he is, because he is a composition of form and matter in motion. Since material things do not move themselves ultimately, there must be a first mover responsible for this motion.
bmiller: "The First Way concludes that the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of *all* motion of existing material objects. No exceptions."
This seems like an exception.
bmiller: "The man moves the stick, because he has the natural potential to do that due to the type of thing (his nature) he is."
SteveK said.. October 10, 2017 8:30 AM.
>> "Where is there a call for any further regress in the freeze frame?"
" A completed train sitting on the tracks with the atmosphere all around it, with gravity forces acting on it and with air/fuel in the cylinder isn't moving until something unique happens. "
--Right. An operator pumps fuel into the tank, which is a temporal process.
Then an operator gets into the cab, a temporal process, pushes a button, which is a temporal process, and that activates a circuit, that energizes a starting motor, theat turns the engine, that pumps the fuel and air and the heat of compression then leads to combustion which then generates electricity which then flows through the motors and then the train accelerates.
It all takes time in a process.
You say don't consider time. How are we supposed to answer the question of the causal series that led up to the train moving without considering time?
Where is there an idea of going to infinity? I counted a finite number of steps, that's it, no problem of an infinity at all.
" WHAT is essential to making that unique change happen?"
--I just summarized the causal series. Where is the problem of an infinity in those items I listed?
Particularly, where is the problem of an infinity in the present moment at any particular point in time in the causal series?
" We know a heated object is essential to ignite the air/fuel mixture. We know that object wasn't always heated so we know some other object must have caused it to become heated. WHAT objects can cause other objects to become heated?"
--Summarized above.
" The "essential member analysis" continues. You'll notice I'm focusing on WHAT, and not focusing on time."
--What what? I don't see you have named any specific objects in your analysis.
"Heat" is not a fundamental property, BTW. Heat is a macro measure of average atomic kinetic energy.
So, when considering the heat of compression where is there any sort of infinity to consider? What exactly is regressing such that you think it would have to regress to infinity were it not for a first mover?
Can you list specific objects that you think somehow would lead to an infinity were it not for a first mover? How about a list of, say, 10 things in a regress that seems to go on and on and on thus calling for the choice between infinity and a first mover? Can you name 10 such items, specifically?
bmiller said.. October 10, 2017 11:37 AM.
" But this number of moving movers cannot be infinite"
--It doesn't need to be. The air molecules here were impacted by other molecules over there some time in the past.
" Once again, you've included things that happened in the past. Not part of that freeze frame."
--In the freeze frame most of the air molecules are suspended in space. There is no call for a first mover of a molecule that is suspended in space.
" At any particular point in time, some molecules are colliding with others and moving them forming an essentially ordered series. When they separate, they no longer form an essentially ordered series (because there is no longer a force applied from one to the other). So at any point in time, there are some essentially ordered series coming to be, some in existence and some passing away."
--No thought of an infinite series then. So most molecules are suspended in space, a few are in the middle of bouncing off each other. How does that call for a long regression? Regression of what?
" Not really. The question is what is causing motion."
--Do you suppose angels are nudging every molecule along from moment to moment?
An object in motion tends to stay in motion. This is understood as conservation of energy. There is no change in kinetic energy for an object in uniform motion, so no external cause for continued motion is called for.
SP The only physically existing indivisible entities are those of fundamental physics.
" Do those entities move? Then they must ultimately be moved by something not moving."
--Why? That would mean an object in uniform motion in space would come to a screeching halt unless something kept moving it. How does that make sense to you?
SP Motion does not call for this regress of models of structures or arrangements or form.
" That's because you stopped asking the question "what is causing a particular motion?" to "what is that thing made of?"."
--Why would continued uniform motion require a cause? On conservation of energy a change in motion requires a cause. If no change in motion then no cause is called for. Why would you think otherwise?
Sorry. Expect slow responses for the next several days.
@Cal,
This seems like an exception.
bmiller: "The man moves the stick, because he has the natural potential to do that due to the type of thing (his nature) he is."
No it's not an exception. The man has a nature different from a stone. The stone does not have a natural potential to move a stick in the same way a man does. But both move according to their nature, but both also are not ultimately responsible for moving themselves. If the form/matter composite ceases, both cease to exist. Neither is ultimately responsible for their form/matter composition.
bmiller: "The First Way concludes that the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of *all* motion of existing material objects. No exceptions."
Me: "This seems like an exception."
bmiller: "The man moves the stick, because he has the natural potential to do that due to the type of thing (his nature) he is."
bmiller: "No it's not an exception. The man has a nature different from a stone. The stone does not have a natural potential to move a stick in the same way a man does."
It's an exception because in your first quote, the unmoved move is responsible for ALL motion, but in your second, the man is responsible for the motion of the stick.
Something's gotta give.
Dusty
>> "An operator pumps fuel into the tank"
Which does not cause the train to move
>> "Then an operator gets into the cab"
Which does not cause the train to move
>> "pushes a button"
Which does not cause the train to move
>> "that activates a circuit"
Which does not cause the train to move
>> "that energizes a starting motor"
Which does not cause the train to move
>> "that turns the engine"
Which DOES cause the train to move
Comments:
1) Some of your members above are not essential members. The guy pumping the fuel isn't needed for the motion of the train. The fuel is needed but since fuel cannot move itself into a train something must move it.
2) Like pumping fuel, pushing a button is a separate motion with it's own essential causal series that the FW explains. That causal series does not do ANYTHING to move the train because that causal series is not ordered toward moving train. That causal series only causes the motion of the button because the members in the causal series are ordered toward that effect.
3) All the essential members are required to be in place at the instant the train motion is initiated. This is what Aquinas means by an essential causal series. It's like an ordered series of dominoes. All the dominoes must be properly in place BEFORE the train motion can occur.
4) Imagining a situation where some of the essential members aren't needed for the motion of the train is a red herring. Of course, if the situation were different the essential members would be different.
5) With all the dominoes properly in place there remains no movement until something causes the first domino to fall. That requires an object - an existing object, not an object from the past like your grandfather. WHAT kind of object can accomplish that task?
>> "You say don't consider time. How are we supposed to answer the question of the causal series that led up to the train moving without considering time?"
Because time is not a cause. That's the primary reason why time is of secondary importance. For some reason you want to start there, but in doing so it can lead people to wrongheaded conclusions like 'my grandfather is contributing a particular amount to my golf swing'
>> "I just summarized the causal series. Where is the problem of an infinity in those items I listed?"
Huh? The FW specifically says going to infinity will NOT solve the problem. I agree with that.
>> "I don't see you have named any specific objects in your analysis."
Correct. I am focusing on WHAT, and not time. That's the point you are not grasping and I thought I'd help point that out.
Me: "5) With all the dominoes properly in place there remains no movement until something causes the first domino to fall. That requires an object - an existing object, not an object from the past like your grandfather. WHAT kind of object can accomplish that task?"
This object moving the first domino is added to the essential causal series, which is to say that ALL the dominoes were're actually in place. It only appeared that way. More objects are needed - and more, and more and more. An infinite number of them will not resolve the inherent problem or "more".
SteveK said.. October 12, 2017 3:51 PM.
>> "I just summarized the causal series. Where is the problem of an infinity in those items I listed?"
" Huh? The FW specifically says going to infinity will NOT solve the problem. I agree with that."
--What problem? Where is the regress? What goes back and back and back that calls out for a first mover?
So the motor turns to move the train. Fine, that's it then, end of story.
Where is this series? Series of what?
The FW is a regression analysis, one thing is moved by another, which is moved by another, which is moved by another and so forth. The FW asserts this causal series cannot go on and on and on to infinity.
It doesn't go on at all. You have not identified any series with some sort of unknown predecessor.
The engine moves the train, so what makes the engine move? Where is the series? Can you name the parts, by name, specifically?
"3) All the essential members are required to be in place at the instant the train motion is initiated. This is what Aquinas means by an essential causal series. It's like an ordered series of dominoes. All the dominoes must be properly in place BEFORE the train motion can occur. "
--What are the dominoes? What are they called?
>> "So the motor turns to move the train. Fine, that's it then, end of story."
Converting potential energy into actual energy that is usable is a change. That motion requires a cause, yes?
You're content to stop somewhere on the list of essential objects and say "this object has a potential that is both unrealized and realized at the same time". I'm not.
What you're saying is a contradiction according to the FW argument (2e and 2f) so you'll need to explain how your conclusion avoids this logical problem. Now is the time to get very specific.
>> "What are the dominoes? What are they called?"
I can't list them all by name, and we don't need to. We just need to follow the logic of the FW argument. If you can avoid the logical contradiction, you'll need to explain how you do that. Right now you're just claiming it. Time for you to get specific.
-----------
(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, or in other words, that it moves itself.
SteveK said.. October 13, 2017 8:46 AM.
>> "What are the dominoes? What are they called?"
" I can't list them all by name, and we don't need to."
--You haven't listed more than 1. That isn't much of a list.
Yes you do need to list them to form a sound argument, else you are just waving your arms around with vague references to imaginary things you can't even identify.
>> “Yes you do need to list them to form a sound argument, else you are just waving your arms around with vague references to imaginary things you can't even identify.”
My sound argument is the FW argument. It argues by referencing a type of observed thing, not by referencing a specific list of things. You know that, right?
I’m not making a vague reference. I’m making a specific reference to what the logic of the argument requires. Your job is to show how the FW argument is wrong. All you’re doing is claiming it is. That’s not gonna fly here.
stevek: "My sound argument is the FW argument."
The argument has been shown to be a bad argument based on many ways it violates the rules of good argument. Claiming that an obviously bad argument is sound is something that stupid people do.
stevek: "It argues by referencing a type of observed thing, not by referencing a specific list of things. You know that, right?"
The above adds more evidence to the simplest explanation for your comments: that you are either stupid, a liar, or the combination of the two which makes each trait more severe.
An first mover argument is necessarily about a series, which is another way of saying a "list of things". Aquinas acknowledge this when he writes, "If, therefore, that which moves is moved, then it must be moved by another; and this by another [and so on]. But this [series] cannot proceed to infinity:"
You are apparently too stupid and dishonest to understand the simplest of concepts. Sad.
Aquinas referenced a series of existing THINGS. Those existing things were stated by Aquinas to be of a particular type - the type that is in potency to that towards which it is moved (line 2a)
You really are a stupid atheist, Cal. But I repeat myself.
SteveK said.. October 13, 2017 3:14 PM.
" Aquinas referenced a series of existing THINGS."
--The example is of a train, which you say is an essential series.
You say the things in that series require a causal explanation.
You say the things in that series cannot go back to infinity.
So, that should make it very easy to name those things in that series since you say there are a finite number of them.
How hard is this? Don't you know the parts of the series in your own example?
What are they named?
The FW argument doesn’t require a specific list. Any list of physical objects that cannot move themselves will do. The logic goes through on that basis.
stevek: "The FW argument doesn’t require a specific list."
If the First Way doesn't describe a specific list of real events then the First Way fails on soundness. By your prior agreement, the First Way fails.
stevek: "Any list of physical objects that cannot move themselves will do."
Nope. The First Way is about motion -- change over time. A list of physical objects that cannot move themselves is the opposite of the First Way. Yet another indication that you don't even know what the First Way is actually about.
stevek: "The logic goes through on that basis."
The "logic" of the First Way fail on because it is circular (an endless regression is impossible because an endless regression is impossible). So it fails on logic alone.
But it also fails in that the argument actually does to purport to describe reality (despite your denial of this fact), and arguments that describe reality but are not actually sound (fail on observation or induction) are bad arguments.
All you and bmiller have done for hundreds of comments now is demonstrate that you are both too dishonest and stupid to absorb this information.
Sad.
Post a Comment