Legion: "I would not say "actuality hot" because actuality is a noun, not an adverb. Actually, actual, actuality, actualize, etc are all different forms of the same concept, but since all aren't nouns or adverbs, all aren't used the same. "Actually hot" in noun form would be "hot in actuality", but that's a lot bulkier."
This is a problem, because you are supposed to be defining your terms, but then you seem to be saying that your definitions aren't to be considered binding because they are bulky. You said that "actually" should not be considered as an adverb, but as the noun "actuality." I agree that it sounds weird to say "actuality hot," but it sounds weird to combine any other noun the phrase in the same way -- "softness hot," "hardness not," "concrete hot," etc. And that is not a problem of language, but a problem for your definition.
So I think you should keep on trying to tighten up your definition. Maybe you'll start to see that the problem is in the muddled concepts, and that making your words more precise will continue to reveal this to you.
Legion: "Now, if he was wanting to point out what you are saying the point is - that only a hot thing causes something else to become hot - he would have said so in the sentence prior, because the example sentence begins with "thus"."
Why won't you guys ever cite? It's truly bewildering.
From the OP: "For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in act, and in this way the wood is moved and altered."
So, nope. It still seems clear to me that Aquinas is saying that only a real (actual) and hot thing makes another real (actual) thing become hot, etc.
Legion: "Rather, his point is that something can cause burning only if it is in an actualized state."
Okay. Something that doesn't exist can't do anything. This seems like pretty agreeable stuff to me, so I'll check that one off on the agreed column.
Legion: "Something potentially on fire cannot cause burning, but rather has to be in an actualized state of being on fire in order to cause burning."
Right. And something that isn't actually in motion can't cause another motionless thing to move. Again, agreed.
Aquinas: "He is trying to get the listener thinking about the causal power of actualized states, and the lack of causal power in potential states, for later in the argument. And as we have said all along, neither Aristotle nor Aquinas nor any of us here are trying to say that something being actualized is sufficient to cause any effect, so that is not a valid objection."
Then I don't know think you have been paying attention. We have been pointing out that a motionless thing's mere existence is not sufficient to cause another motionless thing to move. Now you seem to agree with us, and think that this has not been part of our refutation all along?
Legion: "Obviously the actualized state that causes burning must be something hot, but what he wants to highlight is the necessity of the cause being actualized in order to produce the effect."
I can think of few things less remarkable than that a in order for a thing to have a state a thing must exist. This kind of goes without saying, now, doesn't it?
" And on that note, since we have entered the era of the mega posts again, this evening I will begin the line-by-line analysis. We'll see where the faulty reasoning lies."
Ok, in your line by line analysis please address Self contradiction Begging the question Ad hoc Non Sequitur False dichotomy
Further, the incomplete notation of the OP missing these terms G E
See these posts for more details and notation March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
Cal: "Legion (earlier): "You also lie and say that I'm trying to use "actually" by itself, when in fact I'm using the noun form (actuality)."
Exactly. You don't discuss "actually", you discuss "actuality". Actuality, as a noun, can be discussed with no elaboration, though it helps to bring in specific examples to illustrate the point. So long as it is understood that the concept being discussed is actuality.
Cal: "You said that "actually" should not be considered as an adverb, but as the noun "actuality."
My point isn't to literally replace "actually" with "actuality" in the sentence, but to use the word properly. No one would say "actually causes" because actually is not a noun. That is what I was getting at. Much like "soft causes soft" is complete gibberish that no native English speaker would ever say with a straight face, but the correct grammatical (still factually inaccurate) form would be "softness causes softness".
Cal: "Right. And something that isn't actually in motion can't cause another motionless thing to move. Again, agreed."
We'll get to it.
Cal: "I can think of few things less remarkable than that a in order for a thing to have a state a thing must exist. This kind of goes without saying, now, doesn't it?"
It's a premise of his argument. It's not supposed to be profound, but rather he wants the reader/listener to have firmly lodged in the back of their mind "actualized states can cause change, potential states cannot".
Stardusty: "Ok, in your line by line analysis please address..."
Feel free to bring up your cited objections when we reach those points.
(1) - For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves.
Aquinas defines what he means by "motion" in (2)c, a potential becoming actualized. In other words, what he means by "motion" is change, and not just physical location change.
So, Aquinas says in (1) that we observe change occurring. Objections?
" (1) - For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves." A key point being that Aquinas is building upon sense experience. His observations are not mere imagination, rather, observations using our senses.
" Aquinas defines what he means by "motion" in (2)c, a potential becoming actualized. In other words, what he means by "motion" is change, and not just physical location change." All change is a physical location change. To change state a thing must physically move. To go from potential to actual is necessarily a physical positional change.
" So, Aquinas says in (1) that we observe change occurring. Objections?" Change is motion. This is an argument from motion. When we observe a change that change necessarily requires a physical positional motion.
Because Aquinas is founding his argument on sense perception of the apparently real world his further observations are rightly interpreted as making sense if and only if they makes sense in our sensory perceptions of the real world we really observe.
Stardusty: "A key point being that Aquinas is building upon sense experience. His observations are not mere imagination, rather, observations using our senses."
Quite so.
Stardusty: "All change is a physical location change. To change state a thing must physically move. To go from potential to actual is necessarily a physical positional change."
Are you referring to subatomic motion? Aquinas would have had no knowledge of atoms, beyond the mistaken Greek concept, so his argument would not be referring to atomic motion. Another school of thought he inherited from Aristotle was what he believed were the three types of change. From http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi022old/arilec.htm
"There are several ways in which things change, becoming what they were not. Aristotle called three ways of change "motion." The three are: quantitative change, increase and diminution (e.g. the growth and decline of the oak), qualitative change (e.g. the changing of the color of the leaves), and change of place or motion proper."
So what he would describe as a qualitative or quantitative change, he would not consider to be a physical movement change. They didn't know about atoms or cell movement, so the First Way argument is not based upon "every instance of change being a physical movement change". Now, whether or not every instance of change is a physical movement based upon modern understanding, we know that neither Aristotle nor Aquinas were making that argument, because they simply didn't know that.
Either way, his point is that we observe change occurring.
I believe one of your interlocutors seeks to limit the discussion of the entire argument to the realm of materialistic philosophy.
Strawdusty: Because Aquinas is founding his argument on sense perception of the apparently real world his further observations are rightly interpreted as making sense if and only if they makes sense in our sensory perceptions of the real world we really observe.
You may have noticed this but I thought is was worth pointing out.
Stardusty: "All change is a physical location change. To change state a thing must physically move. To go from potential to actual is necessarily a physical positional change."
" Are you referring to subatomic motion? Aquinas would have had no knowledge of atoms," Doesn't matter for the validity of his argument today.
For his argument to be valid today it must be valid in light of modern knowledge. I really don't care if a room full of people in his little medieval cult all agreed with him and it all made sense to everybody based on the false notions of the day.
" beyond the mistaken Greek concept, so his argument would not be referring to atomic motion." Then Aquinas fails already. If his concepts do not stand up over time then they were always mistaken.
" So what he would describe as a qualitative or quantitative change, he would not consider to be a physical movement change." Then he was wrong and thus his argument is unsound because it is based on this false premise (among many other reasons).
We can keep that in mind as we go, but the reason I keep pointing out what Aquinas thought is because inserting knowledge he did not have into the argument could theoretically show it to be a bad argument, sure (hasn't happened yet), but it could also twist the argument into being a strawman if we don't follow what Aquinas was trying to say based upon his own knowledge. And this HAS happened already.
So long as you are able to separate your modern conceptions from what the argument is actually saying, it won't be a problem.
Legion: "We can keep that in mind as we go, but the reason I keep pointing out what Aquinas thought is because inserting knowledge he did not have into the argument could theoretically show it to be a bad argument, sure (hasn't happened yet), but it could also twist the argument into being a strawman if we don't follow what Aquinas was trying to say based upon his own knowledge."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; do you mean that we should be evaluating Aquinas's argument based on his "own knowledge" rather than what we understand now?
This discussion is not an indictment of Aquinas's (per se) for thinking what he thought and knowing what he knew; it's a refutation of the argument that he made. An argument is bad when it is shown to be bad, and does not become good by changing the rules of argument. And the rules of argument are what they are -- they don't get to change based on the time period from which the argument sprung.
Stardusty: "For his argument to be valid today it must be valid in light of modern knowledge. I really don't care if a room full of people in his little medieval cult all agreed with him and it all made sense to everybody based on the false notions of the day."
This is central to these kinds of discussions. Anyone reading here can see that the standard for apologists is consensus; the standard for skeptics is consistency.
In other words, apologists feel they have won an argument when they feel enough of their fellow apologists agree with them. That is their standard. And that is why it is so discombobulating for them when faced with measured resistance from a number of critics -- preferably one in which the numbers are not on their side. That is why ridicule is anathema to religious ideas; take away the protective veneer offered by a shared sense of consensus, and the apologist realizes they have been defending the indefensible.
Skeptics feel they have won when an argument is exposed as being inconsistent (with the rules of argument -- invalid, not sound, fallacious, etc.).
And that is why you so often see this played out on the internets -- a single or minority of skeptics, easily and consistently defending a set of unassailable principles, failing to convert the inconvertible because the chorus around them is all the convincing they require.
Isolate a skeptic and he won't change his mind because he can adhere to an objective set of principles -- and objective sets of principles are unchangeable. Ridicule the inconsistent beliefs of the religious and strip away the sense of protection offered by consensus, and many of the religious will back away, because their reasons for believing are only supported by a group whose standards are the whims of that group -- and whims are always changeable.
Cal: "I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; do you mean that we should be evaluating Aquinas's argument based on his "own knowledge" rather than what we understand now?"
Yes. Not to avoid evaluating the argument from what we know now, but rather to delay that evaluation until everyone agrees what Aquinas is actually arguing for.
If we do not evaluate Aquinas' argument based upon what he knew and thus the point he is trying to make - if we inject modern knowledge into the argument, even if that knowledge is factually correct - then there is a huge risk of transforming the argument into something that he is not even trying to say - this thread is proof of that. And if we were to evaluate Aquinas' argument based upon what he is not even saying, then we are not actually evaluating Aquinas' argument.
That's why I'm asking for us to look at what Aquinas is actually saying, based upon what Aquinas knew, and once we know his premises and conclusion, THEN we critique it.
That's why we've been saying it's invalid to claim Aquinas is making an argument from physical motion, when Aquinas believed in three types of change, only one of which was physical motion. Even if Aquinas was wrong about being able to divide change into those three groups, we still know for a fact that Aquinas is not making an argument from physical motion. That's not what he believed, so he didn't make that argument. That's like accusing a witness of lying based upon him not knowing something - that's not a true evaluation of his testimony.
If you don't want to do things that way then I'll abandon the discussion, but I don't see that his actual argument has truly been critiqued.
" we still know for a fact that Aquinas is not making an argument from physical motion." Both of his examples, fire and the staff, are of physical motion.
If he wanted to argue from a change of mind, or a change of color, or whatever, he could have done so.
Aquinas chose 2 examples, both of which necessarily move. A flame obviously moves, and further the wood itself visibly moves in the process of burning. A staff physically moves, and is moved only by a moving hand, not a stationary hand.
You are assuming Aquinas was too dull witted to come up with more generalized examples of things that change without apparent physical motion.
Further, Aquinas states that the wood is both moved and changed (altered), clearly expressing a point about motion differentiated from but related to change. "in this way the wood is moved and altered" So, if we substitute your definition of "move=change" then we get: "in this way the wood is changed and altered" Altered being a synonym for changed the statement becomes redundant. So again, your definition, when applied consistently, turns Aquinas to clumsy language at best and gibberish at worst.
Worse, is this from the OP: "Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand."
Obviously, Aquinas is referring to physical motion. A hand moves a cane by changing its physical location, not by changing its color or some other property not immediately recognizable to the ancients as physical motion.
Notice even more clearly, that Aquinas is arguing about a second mover, a first mover, and a moving cane, all in the same sentence! You would have to apply equivocation of the worst sort to switch from "move=change" to "move=move" in the same sentence!
So, I find your assertion that you know better what Aquinas meant to say that what Aquinas actually said to be extremely pretentious, or perhaps just so blinded by your preexisting religious prejudices that you literally are incapable of reading for comprehension the actual words in the actual text.
Stardusty: "Both of his examples, fire and the staff, are of physical motion."
It still remains true that both of his examples are of change caused by actualized states, as opposed to potential states, which is his point for using those examples. So you're still wrong - it's not an argument about motion, it's an argument about actuality vs potentiality, with examples to illustrate.
Regardless, you are leaping all over the place, and I'm not playing that game in this exercise.
Back to the first line, he says that we observe "motion", and defines motion in (2)c as a potential state becoming actualized, which can include any of his three conceptions of change, including physical movement. Does anyone object that we observe potential states becoming actualized, which is what Aquinas clearly states in (2)c to be what he means by "motion"?
Stardusty: "Both of his examples, fire and the staff, are of physical motion."
" It still remains true that both of his examples are of change caused by actualized states, as opposed to potential states, which is his point for using those examples." I respect Aquinas more than you. I think he was a very intelligent man of letters and reasoning, a prolific writer, who would have said "change" if he meant change, who would have been smart enough to use two different words to mean two different things, and who would have chosen his examples carefully to illustrate his point.
You apparently think he was too dull witted to say what he meant and mean what he said so you have unbridled pretentiousness to say he really meant something other than what he said.
Perhaps I have given Aquinas too much credit for assumed writing skills.
" So you're still wrong - it's not an argument about motion, " Except that it is known as the argument from motion, he uses the word move over 20 times, sometimes explicitly juxtaposed with change, and his examples are explicitly examples of motion and the example of the staff would require equivocation within a single sentence to make the reference to first and second mover not about motion.
" Regardless, you are leaping all over the place, and I'm not playing that game in this exercise." You don't mind jumping to 2c when it suits you. " Back to the first line, he says that we observe "motion", and defines motion in (2)c "a
"Does anyone object that we observe potential states becoming actualized, " Yes, it is archaic Aristotelian language that is a macroscopic approximation at best, and an invalid anthropomorphization in worse cases.
The First Way is an argument for god based on an attempted analysis of how cause and effect actually works. Among it's many failings is its failure to correctly describe how cause and effect actually work, and thus it has no value as a true argument for the origin of existence, much less of god.
The language itself is defective, so I object to that defective language. I acknowledge that people in medieval times used such defective language.
Legion: "It still remains true that both of his examples are of change caused by actualized states, as opposed to potential states, which is his point for using those examples. So you're still wrong - it's not an argument about motion, it's an argument about actuality vs potentiality, with examples to illustrate. / Regardless, you are leaping all over the place, and I'm not playing that game in this exercise."
Um, it is apologists who jump all over the place here. Equivocation is jumping about. Pretending that an argument's evident confusing language, contradictions, lack of soundness, etc. are all understood in some uncited elsewhere is jumping about. Claiming that an argument is good if judged by different standards than those used in evaluating good arguments is jumping about. Claiming to have provided examples without ever citing those examples is jumping about. Etc.
So stop pretending that skeptics are the ones who aren't focusing on the actual words of the argument. On the contrary.
Legion: " Does anyone object that we observe potential states becoming actualized, which is what Aquinas clearly states in (2)c to be what he means by "motion"? "
Yes. How does one observe a potential state? If a potential state doesn't exist, how can it be observed?
Wow. I had no idea that such a simple concept as the very first line of the argument could cause this much confusion among skeptics.
Stardusty: "Except that it is known as the argument from motion"
And he defines motion in (2)c - potential states becoming actualized. If you are using any other definition of "motion" than what Aquinas himself says he is describing, then you are not talking about the First Way. That's why I mentioned (2)c in analyzing the first line - I'm not making up the definition of motion, because Aquinas says what he means.
Stardusty: "Yes, it is archaic Aristotelian language that is a macroscopic approximation at best, and an invalid anthropomorphization in worse cases."
So Stardusty denies that potential states of things can become actualized. That's a truly remarkable admission that flies in the face of reality. No wonder he can't even begin to comprehend the First Way if such simple concepts that even children can grasp are beyond him. Cue retreat into the provisional postulate known as scientism.
Cal: "Um, it is apologists who jump all over the place here. Equivocation is jumping about. Pretending that an argument's evident confusing language, contradictions, lack of soundness, etc. are all understood in some uncited elsewhere is jumping about. Claiming that an argument is good if judged by different standards than those used in evaluating good arguments is jumping about. Claiming to have provided examples without ever citing those examples is jumping about. Etc."
No, jumping all over the place is not analyzing the premises in order, since one builds upon the previous. All of the things you listed are indeed problems, except for the inconvenient fact that I did none of them. The first line says we observe that some things are in motion, and motion is clearly defined in (2)c. There is no ambiguity there, you either agree with Aquinas or you deny reality like Stardusty did.
Cal: "So stop pretending that skeptics are the ones who aren't focusing on the actual words of the argument."
Stardusty is doing exactly that by ignoring the definition of motion in (2)c. Of course he denies that potential states of things can become actualized, so obviously he is not a very good judge of reality.
Cal: "Yes. How does one observe a potential state? If a potential state doesn't exist, how can it be observed?"
One uses reason. If you set water outside in the winter and you watch it freeze into ice, then you melt it and boil it and it becomes steam, then congratulations, you have just witnessed potential states of water becoming actualized.
Or do you also deny that things have potential states that can become actualized given the right conditions, despite the fact that we see this very thing countless times every day?
Legion: "So Stardusty denies that potential states of things can become actualized. That's a truly remarkable admission that flies in the face of reality."
Things move. Things that don't exist don't move. That is reality. What you describe is fanciful.
Legion: "No wonder he can't even begin to comprehend the First Way if such simple concepts that even children can grasp are beyond him."
The simple concept you describe is fanciful. A potential state is, by the terms of your definitions no thing, does not exist, and thus cannot move.
Only real things can move. If you disagree, then you are the one who thinks as a child.
Me: "Yes. How does one observe a potential state? If a potential state doesn't exist, how can it be observed?" Legion: "One uses reason. If you set water outside in the winter and you watch it freeze into ice, then you melt it and boil it and it becomes steam, then congratulations, you have just witnessed potential states of water becoming actualized."
Nope. You have observed real things changing. Everything you describe is an observation of a real (actual) thing, never a potential none-thing.
As we have been saying, your terminology remains a kind of gibberish.
Cal: "Things move. Things that don't exist don't move. That is reality. What you describe is fanciful."
So we have two skeptics who deny that ice is a potential state of water. Incredible.
Cal: "The simple concept you describe is fanciful. A potential state is, by the terms of your definitions no thing, does not exist, and thus cannot move."
What is this even trying to address?
Cal: "The OP states 2c to be this: " In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act."
Yes, which is exactly what I said. The version of the First Way I am familiar with says this: "For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality." If, according to the First Way, motion is the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality, then to move something is to actualize a potential state of that thing. There is zero contradiction there.
Cal: "And that is because neither you nor the OP will respond to my question about how it is that a potential thing can exist."
The definition of "potential" I offered addresses this. An intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been realized, is not in effect, etc. Ice is a potential state of water. Glowing is a potential state of a light bulb that's off. Unless you deny that things have states that they could be in, but are not, then you can't deny that potential states exist. That's not fanciful, that's reality. (Cue provisional postulates)
Cal: "Nope. You have observed real things changing. Everything you describe is an observation of a real (actual) thing, never a potential none-thing."
You have indeed observed real things changing. You have also observed water becoming one of its potential states. A reasonable person who placed water in a cold environment and observed it freezing, then watched it melt back at room temperature, would conclude that ice is a potential state of water given the correct conditions. There is nothing controversial about that.
Stardusty: "Yes, it is archaic Aristotelian language that is a macroscopic approximation at best, and an invalid anthropomorphization in worse cases."
"So Stardusty denies that potential states of things can become actualized. That's a truly remarkable admission that flies in the face of reality. "
"Reality". Since you raise my supposed lack of grasp of it, allow me to address it, on the postulates of logic, math, and the basic reliability of the human senses.
The A-T language you employ fails to describe reality. You are applying a macro approximation, or perhaps anthropomorphization of water. Liquid water molecules are not floating around thinking "one day I could become ice". They simply have an average kinetic energy (temperature) and when that energy level drops, bonds form between the molecules at particular angles due to intermolecular forces.
"Reality".
But why? Because of the interatomic forces of hydrogen and oxygen that formed the water molecules. But why? Because of the subatomic forces between the electrons, neutrons, and protons. But why? Because of the nuclear forces between the quarks. But why? Because some of fundamental structure of the universe that is highly accurately, but not completely, described by quantum mechanics and the whole of modern physics.
But why? Nobody knows, but a whole lot of very bright people continue to work on these issues of fundamental structures of "reality".
"Reality". All we know so far tells us that cause and effect is a continuous or continual multibody process of vast complexity. This process is far too complex to analyze in detail so we make large scale approximations or macro analytical models. Fine, I'm gonna live my life and I can't calculate nuclear forces to do so.
But must there be a first mover, a first cause? To answer this question we must dispense with our macro approximations and anthropomorphizations, rather, consider the very smallest and most fundamental structure of the universe. That is where the answer to our question of the origin of existence resides, in the unanswered question of the fundamental structure of the universe.
A-T language is inherently defective and unable to get us to "reality".
Literally nothing you said contradicts the premise of the First Way which states that potential states of things become actualized. The only way to deny that premise is to deny reality. The anthropomorphic angle you are attempting to employ is bizarre and not applicable to the First Way.
See, the problem once again is your commitment to scientism. By all appearances, you believe that if a description is not scientific in nature, then it does not apply or is not useful. I can discuss virtually any subject without appealing to scientific description and still be accurate, because science is not synonymous with truth. Science is a particular description of reality that does not, and cannot, fully describe it.
If you can't even agree with the obvious truth of the first premise, which is by far the simplest premise and most difficult to deny, then you aren't even remotely qualified to ponder the first mover.
" Literally nothing you said contradicts the premise of the First Way which states that potential states of things become actualized." We can consider the macro approximation language of A-T from our human perspective. It seems to us that a whole collection of molecules is an object in some particular state, and that this object we can imagine can be changed to some other state if we take some sort of action or it is subjected to some sort of process.
" See, the problem once again is your commitment to scientism. " I have no commitment to "scientism" that I am aware of. I guess that depends how you define the word. I never refer to myself as a "scientismist", and I doubt very much that you can accurately characterize my views about science in general.
"By all appearances, you believe that if a description is not scientific in nature, then it does not apply or is not useful." Different sorts of descriptions are useful for different sorts of things. To learn the origins of existence we must learn fundamental physics. To live day to day we make many sorts of approximations and macro classifications.
" I can discuss virtually any subject without appealing to scientific description and still be accurate, because science is not synonymous with truth. Science is a particular description of reality that does not, and cannot, fully describe it." That depends how you define "truth".
" If you can't even agree with the obvious truth of the first premise, which is by far the simplest premise and most difficult to deny, then you aren't even remotely qualified to ponder the first mover." A-T language has utility as a means for humans to model reality and function. It is very clumsy and dubious to use in a serious modern discussion of causality which is why physicists who discuss causality never use A-T language. You can frame a discussion of how things appear to work at our ordinary level of perception using A-T language if you wish, but if you do not keep in mind at all times that you are employing obsolete language of macro approximations that does not adequately describe the realities of fundamental physics you are not even remotely qualified to ponder the first mover.
You do realize that your last paragraph illustrates my point - physicists, physics, "serious discussion"...if it isn't science, it isn't serious. If scientists don't use it as part of science, it isn't adequate. That is scientism.
The First Way is not a science argument. It is what Aquinas believes to be the logical conclusion of what we observe about potential states of things becoming actualized, and how only actualized states have causal power. Of course scientists don't talk about such notions as part of science - they aren't scientific. That doesn't mean they aren't true.
Unless you can demonstrate that potential and actualized states do not describe things that are real, you have no grounds to reject the first premise.
" You do realize that your last paragraph illustrates my point - physicists, physics, "serious discussion"...if it isn't science, it isn't serious." If it isn't a discussion of how things work at the very smallest scales then it isn't a discussion about reality that applies to the origin of existence.
Nobody knows if string theory is correct but the asserted strings are modeled as being at the Plank scale, much smaller than any ordinary particles we are familiar with. This immediately dictates not only the structure of our big bang (the largest structures we can observe) but also leads to certain conclusions about the speculated multiverse.
To know how things got to be the way we are we must study the very smallest, most fundamental, structures of existence, which in turn dictate the very largest structures, thus potentially falsifying certain models of the very smallest.
Science is the only tool we have for discovering these fundamental realities, both at the very smallest and the very largest scales.
" If scientists don't use it as part of science, it isn't adequate." If you have another tool for study of fundamental reality at the Plank scale and at the big bang please share it with the rest of us.
" The First Way is not a science argument." Of course it is. It is an argument from motion. Aristotle was wrong about motion. Science proved Aristotle wrong about motion.
" It is what Aquinas believes to be the logical conclusion " Logic is wonderful, perhaps you would call me a logicist, but we cannot merely reason our way to the reality of how existence is structured. An iterative process of observation and reason is required.
Aquinas actually does this in a rudimentary form, you may not have realized. He employs the rudiments of science, observation and reason. His foundation is our sense perception, and he seeks to make logical conclusions that are in line with our sense perception, which is the core of what science does.
Aquinas was thus an early practitioner of a sort of rudimentary science. Unfortunately, he did not have access to technological aids to the senses such as telescopes and particle accelerators, and his logic is faulty, but I give him a lot of credit for the attempt to apply logic to observation, the core of the scientific method.
"of what we observe about potential states of things becoming actualized, and how only actualized states have causal power. Of course scientists don't talk about such notions as part of science - they aren't scientific." Not any more. They are a process of applying logic to observation, but the observational methods have become obsolete and the logic was shown to be faulty, so modern scientists have moved on.
" That doesn't mean they aren't true." Depends how you define "true". It is true that we function using macro scale approximations, models, analogs of systems far too complex to analyze completely even if we could measure every parameter accurately (which is not possible even in principle).
It's not that I think macro scale approximations are somehow bad or stupid, in fact, they are the only way we can function. My purpose in being so apparently stubborn and persnickety on what seems to you to be such a fundamental and incontrovertible point is that we cannot emphasize too strongly that A-T language does not actually address the fundamental and is in fact controvertible.
But, I think you have done a fine job of summarizing the language and concepts employed at that time.
" Unless you can demonstrate that potential and actualized states do not describe things that are real," What is really real is that everything is in a continuous/continual mutual multibody causal relationship with everything else. In classical relativity causal effects propagate locally no faster than the speed of light described as a light cone. Some indications point to non-local (super luminal) propagation of causal effects, and contrary to ordinary logic certain experiments actually support the notion of an effect without a cause, so called intrinsic randomness.
But yes, we human beings don't ordinarily consider all of that. We tend to think of objects that can or cannot do certain things, and causes that make those objects do the things they can do, but not do the things they can't do. So, at the human scale A-T language seems fairly reasonable, which is why it found favor for some 2 millennia.
"If it isn't a discussion of how things work at the very smallest scales then it isn't a discussion about reality that applies to the origin of existence."
1) This argument isn't about the origin of existence. 2) This argument isn't about how things work at the smallest scales. Motion/change works at the macro scale. Causality works at the macro scale.
SP "If it isn't a discussion of how things work at the very smallest scales then it isn't a discussion about reality that applies to the origin of existence."
" 1) This argument isn't about the origin of existence." The argument asserts "~I". Now, as I have already shown, Aquinas begs the question in that assertion, invalidating his argument, but let's just ignore for a moment that structural defect in the argument of Aquinas.
If "I" is the case then there simply is no need for a first mover. In that case the answer to the origin of existence is that motion continues infinitely into the past, and therefore existence must continue infinitely into the past, since it makes no sense to speak of infinitely occurring motion without an infinitely existing existence.
However, if "~I" is the case then existence is either finite or existence is infinite but motion is finite, neither case logically requires a god or is explained by god since on a god that god exists, so the same questions apply to it, explaining nothing.
But the argument asserts that "~I" is understood by all to be god, which is not a claim to existence of god, rather merely a claim to universal human understanding of a first mover. Still, the First Way is purported to be an argument for god, so on this asserted universal view god created our existence and set it in motion at a finite time in the past.
So, how you can say this is not an argument about the origin of existence I don't know, since it palpably is.
" 2) This argument isn't about how things work at the smallest scales." Indeed, that is one of many reasons the argument fails as a modern argument from motion.
" Motion/change works at the macro scale." Sorry, you just do not know much of anything about how the universe works. Nobody knows everything, of course, but all change is a function of fundamental motion, molecular motion, atomic motion, subatomic motion.
I realize LoL thinks I am belaboring certain points obstinately or unnecessarily. But your comment exposes the wrong headedness I anticipated and seek to prevent at the outset.
Motion/change is properly understood only as the aggregate behavior of a vast number of subatomic constituents.
" Causality works at the macro scale." That's like saying an engine runs at the macro scale, or a computer works at the macro scale. What makes these macro assemblages work? The aggregate behavior of all the little parts.
If you want to learn how your car engine works the answer is not "you cause the engine to turn by turning the key and it starts to turn and keeps turning until you cause the engine to stop by turning the key the other way". While that macro causal analysis is what one needs for a human functional interaction it does not analyze how your car engine actually works. You have to learn a great deal about the subsystems and their components to truly learn what causes a car engine to work, and what causes it to stop working without a human wishing it to stop.
Causality works at the very smallest scales and we perceive ourselves interacting with the aggregate of those vast numbers of causal effects.
>> "So, how you can say this is not an argument about the origin of existence I don't know, since it palpably is."
The First Way is an argument about the "here and now". It has NOTHING to do with the past. This point has been made several times. You are such an ignorant and dishonest person.
(the below is a distraction and has NOTHING to do with the argument) >> "That's like saying an engine runs at the macro scale, or a computer works at the macro scale"
I say it because it's true. It's true that F=mA works at the macro scale. It works very well, in fact. I don't need to know what occurs at the subatomic level - or the Unmoved Mover level - to know that that the resulting "F" causes change.
One, this is by no means an argument regarding the origin of the universe. Aquinas did not believe it could be logically demonstrated that the universe had a beginning. The First Way ultimately deals with contingent causes - things with causal power, but whose causal power is derived from another cause acting upon them. It is a simultaneous causal series, like a train, rather than a subsequent series, like child/parent/grandparent. Whether the universe was eternal or had a beginning, the First Way leads to the same conclusion.
Two, while it is certainly possible to take the logic of the First Way and descend into the quantum world, it doesn't change the basic premises of the argument - something must be actualized in order to have causal power, and contingent causes cannot extend to infinity or else no causal power would exist. That holds true on the micro or macro scale. Much like our consisting mostly of empty space doesn't prevent me from stubbing my toe and swearing like a sailor, the spooky stuff going on at subatomic levels doesn't get around the problems of an infinity of contingent causes - it has to terminate somewhere.
" The First Way is an argument about the "here and now". It has NOTHING to do with the past. " WTF? The asserted first mover would be in the past, certainly further back than any human memory or history, else it would not be first, now would it?
Aquinas even explores (fallaciously) the assertion of an infinite regress of movers, thus an infinite past.
Yet you say the First Way "has NOTHING to do with the past. " Were you drunk at the time you wrote that? I mean, WTF?
"It's true that F=mA works at the macro scale. It works very well, in fact." In fact, Newton was wrong. F!=mA. F~=mA at low velocities. In most cases the error can be neglected for practical functioning.
" I don't need to know what occurs at the subatomic level" You don't even know that Aquinas was making an argument about a regress of events into the deep past, much less the past at all, so your level of knowledge is clearly negligible.
" contingent causes cannot extend to infinity or else no causal power would exist." I thought you did not want to jump around. You have already skipped ahead to where Aquinas begs the question about "~I" in 4.
" the spooky stuff going on at subatomic levels doesn't get around the problems of an infinity of contingent causes - it has to terminate somewhere." Again, you are skipping ahead to the question begging Aquinas commits in 4.
You mentioned the first mover (the conclusion) in your post on April 20, 2017 at 11:10 AM. You mentioned the line to the theology students "and this everyone understands to be God" in your post on April 21, 2017 at 8:07 PM. It certainly did jump, though there is no question begging (as I shall demonstrate once we get there) at that point.
So I suppose the question remains, do you agree with what Aquinas says in the first line?
(1) - For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves.
He says that we observe "motion", and defines motion in (2)c as a potential state becoming actualized. Does anyone object that we observe potential states becoming actualized, which is what Aquinas states in (2)c to be what he means by "motion"?
>> "Aquinas even explores (fallaciously) the assertion of an infinite regress of movers, thus an infinite past.
Yet you say the First Way "has NOTHING to do with the past. " Were you drunk at the time you wrote that? I mean, WTF?"
Here we are, over 1000 comments, and still this IDIOT is unable to grasp the basics of the argument. How many times has causal series ordered per accidens vs. causal series ordered per se been discussed and clarified? Probably a dozen times. These so-called rational skeptics cannot reason their way out of a wet paper bag.
These are the people you are dealing with, Legion. God be with you.
Legion: "Does anyone object that we observe potential states becoming actualized, which is what Aquinas states in (2)c to be what he means by "motion"? "
Yes, I object. I object because the language is unclear -- it muddles things.
As explanation, you wrote:
Legion: "You have indeed observed real things changing. You have also observed water becoming one of its potential states. A reasonable person who placed water in a cold environment and observed it freezing, then watched it melt back at room temperature, would conclude that ice is a potential state of water given the correct conditions. There is nothing controversial about that."
If all you mean by potential is possible -- that whatever change occurs was possible because it occurred, then, well, this shouldn't be controversial.
But if you mean by potential that a state of ice exists independent of water, and that this potential pops into existence ex nihilo (as opposed to being a description of real things being arranged), then I think you are speaking in a kind of gibberish.
Do you have an answer yet for how it is that a potential thing exists? I think that if you try and work that out, you'll see the problem inherent in the language you are trying so hard to salvage, and learn more about why it is that the language was abandoned so very long ago.
"These are the people you are dealing with, Legion. God be with you."
I have no expectation of ever getting past the first line. At this point I'm simply fascinated.
Cal: "Do you have an answer yet for how it is that a potential thing exists?"
If it helps you to think of a potential state as a possibility, as you said, then that could work. Due to the inherent properties of water, it is possible for water to turn into steam or ice given the correct conditions, so those are potential states of water. It isn't possible for water to turn into a couch, so a couch is not a potential state of water.
Think of it like this. Any state a thing could be in (given its properties) but is not in, is a potential state. The state it is in is its actualized state. So ice is a potential state of liquid water, and liquid water is a potential state of ice.
Legion: "Think of it like this. Any state a thing could be in (given its properties) but is not in, is a potential state. The state it is in is its actualized state. So ice is a potential state of liquid water, and liquid water is a potential state of ice."
In the 2(c) you keep referring to (actual text here -- Aquinas (from, 2(c)): "In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act."), which is the "a thing" that is being brought to an actualized state -- the liquid water that becomes ice, or the potential ice that becomes actual (real)?
I think if you could just clarify that for me I'd like to move forward.
>> "Aquinas even explores (fallaciously) the assertion of an infinite regress of movers, thus an infinite past.
Yet you say the First Way "has NOTHING to do with the past. " Were you drunk at the time you wrote that? I mean, WTF?"
" Here we are, over 1000 comments, and still this IDIOT is unable to grasp the basics of the argument. How many times has causal series ordered per accidens vs. causal series ordered per se been discussed and clarified? Probably a dozen times. These so-called rational skeptics cannot reason their way out of a wet paper bag."
Gee, that's a lot of name calling and Aristotelian ideas but what about your claim that "First Way has NOTHING to do with the past "?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt suggesting you were drunk at the time you wrote that, hoping it was some sort of temporary mental debilitation.
Obviously, a first mover would have done it's first moving in the past, else it would not be first. Are you still too drunk to understand this simple logic? Spending too much time at the pub? This is pretty simple.
The asserted first mover would have necessarily acted to impart the first motion in the past. You do know what the past is, right? That's the stuff that happened before right now, ok? Do you get that much at least?
Stardusty: "The asserted first mover would have necessarily acted to impart the first motion in the past. You do know what the past is, right? That's the stuff that happened before right now, ok? Do you get that much at least?"
In the case of water freezing, it would be the inherent capacity for water to become ice that is being actualized. So I guess with your two choices, it would be the potential ice becoming actual. That's assuming I understand your question.
"The asserted first mover would have necessarily acted to impart the first motion in the past." SteveK: "This is not part of the First Way argument. That's my point, and since it's true you can stop mentioning it here."
The past describes time, and motion involves time.
You are so slow that you don't even understand that much.
" In the case of water freezing, it would be the inherent capacity for water to become ice that is being actualized. " That is how people often think of things. It is a kind of folk science, which is what A-T language reflects.
"So I guess with your two choices, it would be the potential ice becoming actual. That's assuming I understand your question." False dichotomy. Water molecules form or break bonds with each other according to intermolecular forces, presence of other substances in solution, temperature, and pressure.
That's how causality works. Everything is in a continuous/continual process of the propagation or mutual causal effects with everything else. A-T language no longer has analytical value.
But yes, if you want to agree upon certain archaic folk science terms for the purpose of a folk science discussion then OK, you have defined those terms pretty well.
SP "The asserted first mover would have necessarily acted to impart the first motion in the past."
" This is not part of the First Way argument." (4) But this cannot proceed to infinity (5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:"
Motion occurs over time, it is a process. An infinity of motion necessarily requires an infinity of time.
"To come to" is an arrival over time.
The time being reference is necessarily past time
" That's my point, and since it's true you can stop mentioning it here." In your cloud of intoxication it seems true to you. If you ever sober up you should realize your idea is nonsense.
Me: "In the 2(c) you keep referring to (actual text here -- Aquinas (from, 2(c)): "In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act."), which is the "a thing" that is being brought to an actualized state -- the liquid water that becomes ice, or the potential ice that becomes actual (real)?"
Legion: "In the case of water freezing, it would be the inherent capacity for water to become ice that is being actualized. So I guess with your two choices, it would be the potential ice becoming actual. That's assuming I understand your question."
Okay, thanks for answering.
So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist).
Stardusty: "That is how people often think of things. It is a kind of folk science, which is what A-T language reflects."
So you are saying that water does not have the inherent capacity to become ice? 'Kay. Folk science ftw.
Stardusty: "Water molecules form or break bonds with each other according to intermolecular forces, presence of other substances in solution, temperature, and pressure."
You're right. A potential is an inherent property of a thing that manifests, if you will, given the right conditions. Such as what happens when water freezes, which it won't do if not under the right conditions. Aquinas knew this to be true even not knowing anything about water molecules, so it is good that "folk science" is validated by science.
Stardusty: "That's how causality works. Everything is in a continuous/continual process of the propagation or mutual causal effects with everything else."
This is hardly damaging to the argument.
Stardusty: " A-T language no longer has analytical value."
Not in science. But then, science is not the only valid method of analysis.
Stardusty: "But yes, if you want to agree upon certain archaic folk science terms for the purpose of a folk science discussion then OK, you have defined those terms pretty well."
I'm assuming you meant this to be dismissive or scornful, but it's actually progress. You've realized that it's not a science argument and wasn't meant to be one. You're still a bit behind the curve with "folk science" since you're still using the science word, but that's progress nonetheless.
" OMG, you've found the fatal flaw in the argument! #sarcasm" If by "the" argument you mean the First Way it suffers from begging the question, ad hoc assertion, factually false premise, false dichotomy, and non-sequitur.
More generally A-T language suffers from being just a folksy set of notions about causality that are now obsolete.
The OP suffers further from the glaring omission of G and E from his notation.
I summarized and restated these many deficiencies in "the" argument in this series of posts: March 12, 2017 9:25 AM March 12, 2017 9:27 AM March 12, 2017 9:28 AM March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
Your inane scattered quips do nothing to correct the many flaws of "the" argument detailed therein.
Stardusty: " A-T language no longer has analytical value."
" Not in science." Hallelujah!
" But then, science is not the only valid method of analysis." Aquinas is practicing a rudimentary sort of science, beginning with observation of the apparently real world and attempting to apply logic to observations to explain the origin of the observed system.
Aquinas failed, of course, and the language he employed was a factor in his failure, but I give him a lot of credit for the attempt since it was so very long ago.
Stardusty: "But yes, if you want to agree upon certain archaic folk science terms for the purpose of a folk science discussion then OK, you have defined those terms pretty well."
" I'm assuming you meant this to be dismissive or scornful, but it's actually progress. You've realized that it's not a science argument" Wrong, it is a folk science argument that fails as it is replaced with modern science and analytical techniques.
Stardusty: "Wrong, it is a folk science argument that fails as it is replaced with modern science and analytical techniques."
Wrong. It is not a science argument, nor is it a folk science argument, nor is it a proto-science argument. Observations and conclusions are made routinely without being scientific. Adherents to scientism often make this mistake - science uses observation and conclusion, ergo any use of observation and conclusions are rudimentary science of some sort. That's not the case at all. Science is a systemic and formal process that utilizes those things, but those things themselves aren't science. If it isn't scientific, it isn't science.
Also, the First Way is not an argument about the origin of the universe, since Aquinas did not believe that a non-eternal universe could be philosophically proven. It would be really weird for a guy who did not believe you could logically prove the universe had a beginning to then present a logical argument that the universe had a beginning, so obviously that isn't the intent of the First Way.
Stardusty: "Wrong, it is a folk science argument that fails as it is replaced with modern science and analytical techniques."
" Wrong. It is not a science argument, nor is it a folk science argument, nor is it a proto-science argument. Observations and conclusions are made routinely without being scientific." Not properly, or validly, or authoritatively, or accurately.
If an individual draws conclusions from observations then those conclusions are subject to scientific correction.
Aquinas might have failed to use a modern scientific method, but since he based his argument on logic applied to observation his argument is subject to scientific analysis.
Legion: "Observations and conclusions are made routinely without being scientific."
Stardusty: "Not properly, or validly, or authoritatively, or accurately."
This is easily the most incredible statement I've seen in a long time, and again points to the flaw of scientism. If it isn't science, it isn't proper. If it isn't science, it isn't valid. If it isn't science, it isn't authoritative. If it isn't science, it isn't accurate.
Wow.
Stardusty: "If an individual draws conclusions from observations then those conclusions are subject to scientific correction."
Yes, but this is not synonymous with saying that all conclusions derived from observation are scientific, or that all non-scientific conclusions derived from observation are inaccurate. Neither of those things is true.
Stardusty: "Aquinas might have failed to use a modern scientific method, but since he based his argument on logic applied to observation his argument is subject to scientific analysis."
I have no problem with Aquinas' ideas being scrutinized by the findings of modern science, so long as it is indeed Aquinas' ideas that are being scrutinized.
Legion: "Observations and conclusions are made routinely without being scientific."
Stardusty: "Not properly, or validly, or authoritatively, or accurately."
" This is easily the most incredible statement I've seen in a long time," I am happy to have been of service to you in introducing you to some important thinking that is apparently foreign to you. You are welcome.
" If it isn't science, it isn't proper. If it isn't science, it isn't valid. If it isn't science, it isn't authoritative. If it isn't science, it isn't accurate." What do you define as "it"? You seem to be over generalizing my specific statement. Science is, among other things, the methodical application of logic to observation. Sure, one can just sort of look at things and think about it and draw personal unscientific conclusions, but that is sloppy thinking and sloppy acting.
Stardusty: "Aquinas might have failed to use a modern scientific method, but since he based his argument on logic applied to observation his argument is subject to scientific analysis."
" I have no problem with Aquinas' ideas being scrutinized by the findings of modern science, so long as it is indeed Aquinas' ideas that are being scrutinized." Aquinas observed motion, the physical change in position from one location to another location. Both his examples are of physical positional change (fire and a moving staff). He might have had the mistaken notion that some sorts of change do not require a physical motion, but physical motion is at least a sort of change that must conform to his arguments.
Motion is physics. For the arguments of Aquinas to be valid they must conform to modern physics. You can argue some imaginary additional realm that his arguments are also applicable to if you like, but his arguments must also hold true for the modern physics of motion to be valid today.
Aquinas thus fails as a modern argument for god. His errors include begging the question, ad hoc assertion, factually false premise, non sequitur implied conclusion, and false dichotomy fallacy.
By your own statement A-T language no longer has analytical value in science. The First Way is an argument for god from motion. Even if you suggest the First Way is more broadly applicable than physical positional change it must still be valid as an analysis of physical positional change, which is rightly a subject of science, making A-T language no longer of analytical value for a necessary subject of the First Way, physical positional change motion.
Irrespective of the obsolete language of Aquinas I can show you the many structural and factual defects of the First Way if you wish. In truth, I already have, many times, but you seem to think that I have somehow missed something in my analysis.
Stardusty: "I am happy to have been of service to you in introducing you to some important thinking that is apparently foreign to you."
It is foreign to me because it is garbage. Science isn't synonymous with truth. Using logic to form conclusions based on observations isn't science. Otherwise I've seen my dog perform scientific experiments. My cat saw me turn a doorknob and open a door, and now it jumps for the doorknob because it figured out the knob is what opens the door. Quick, publish its findings in a scientific journal.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that science is not the sole arbiter of truth? It is certainly the best tool we have currently for determining how natural things function, but it is by no means the only tool we have for determining truth.
Stardusty: "Motion is physics. For the arguments of Aquinas to be valid they must conform to modern physics."
Okay. I'm unaware of anything in physics that contradicts the First Way, since the First Way is not an early attempt at a physics argument.
Stardusty: "Aquinas thus fails as a modern argument for god."
This assertion has been refuted repeatedly, as will be demonstrated as Cal and I proceed.
Stardusty: "By your own statement A-T language no longer has analytical value in science."
Indeed. However, this is not a problem to the First Way. It isn't a science argument. You don't understand what his purpose is with the argument, so you are deferring back to your scientism and trying to make it a science argument, which is the First Strawman.
Stardusty: "Irrespective of the obsolete language of Aquinas I can show you the many structural and factual defects of the First Way if you wish."
Legion: "This is easily the most incredible statement I've seen in a long time, and again points to the flaw of scientism. If it isn't science, it isn't proper. If it isn't science, it isn't valid. If it isn't science, it isn't authoritative. If it isn't science, it isn't accurate. / Wow."
You seem fairly under-developed in your thinking on this topic.
Yes, observations and conclusions are made all the time. If those observations and conclusion are correctable, they are correctable through a process that is scientific.
If those observations and conclusions aren't correctable, then they are in need of refinement so that they can be examined and tested, and if they are not, they fail to be productive -- which just means that they have nothing to add to the body of knowledge that is most accurately represented by a scientific approach to those things that can be made tractable.
Legion: "It is foreign to me because it is garbage. Science isn't synonymous with truth."
Then define truth. I have a suspicion you mean something like, "Important to me."
Legion: "Using logic to form conclusions based on observations isn't science. Otherwise I've seen my dog perform scientific experiments. My cat saw me turn a doorknob and open a door, and now it jumps for the doorknob because it figured out the knob is what opens the door. Quick, publish its findings in a scientific journal."
You don't understand science. Apologists, as a rule, don't understand science.
Science isn't working in a lab, or publishing. Those are things that some people do when engaged in science, but they are not science itself. Science is rigorous testing of those things that can be examined, in order to better explain the nature of all reality which can be experienced intersubjectively.
Legion: "Why is it so hard for you to accept that science is not the sole arbiter of truth? It is certainly the best tool we have currently for determining how natural things function, but it is by no means the only tool we have for determining truth."
Define truth, then. Is it similar to, "Important to me"?
Legion: "Okay. I'm unaware of anything in physics that contradicts the First Way, since the First Way is not an early attempt at a physics argument."
Physics is the study matter and energy and how those things interact. If the First Way isn't an argument about those things then it's a basically a meaningless argument -- in particular I can't think of a worse argument for a thing (a god) which is supposed to be the basis for all of everything described in physics.
After all this, do you really think that the First Way is supposed to be meaningless?
Stardusty: "Aquinas thus fails as a modern argument for god." Legion: "This assertion has been refuted repeatedly, as will be demonstrated as Cal and I proceed."
mkay.
Stardusty: "By your own statement A-T language no longer has analytical value in science." Legion: "Indeed. However, this is not a problem to the First Way. It isn't a science argument. You don't understand what his purpose is with the argument, so you are deferring back to your scientism and trying to make it a science argument, which is the First Strawman."
If The First Way is supposed to explain real things, but doesn't involve real things, then I don't think the First Way is the argument it's purported to be. Oh, that's right, that's what I've been saying all along. Only now it seems that you agree with me.
Me: "So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist). " Legion: "Cal, if you are ready, I'll springboard off of this and proceed."
Cal: "If those observations and conclusions aren't correctable, then they are in need of refinement so that they can be examined and tested, and if they are not, they fail to be productive -- which just means that they have nothing to add to the body of knowledge that is most accurately represented by a scientific approach to those things that can be made tractable."
Being open to scientific inquiry is not the same as needing it. There are countless things I know to be true that I have no need of scientific input to know for sure.
One other thing, you are addressing the First Strawman, not the First Way. The purpose of the First Way is stated directly prior to the argument itself - "The existence of God can be proved in five ways." This is not a science argument, but rather an argument about why what we observe logically leads one toward a first mover, which Christians identify as God.
(2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another. a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency to that towards which it is moved. b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act. c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act.
So then, (2) states that what is moved is moved by another. Using Cal's previous definition of motion, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist). So according to (2), when this process occurs, it is due to the influence of another thing. A ball doesn't start bouncing in of itself, wood doesn't ignite in of itself, etc.
(2)a is basically stating that a thing can only be moved (per Cal's definition) if it possess the potential to do so. A match can ignite wood, but a match will not ignite a block of steel. Wood has that potential, steel does not. So wood can undergo that particular motion, but steel cannot.
(2)b is the other side of the coin - a thing can only move something else to the extent that the thing is in some actualized state that is capable of producing the motion. When a piece of wood goes from not burning to burning, this is motion per Cal's definition. A match can cause this motion in the wood, but only if the match is in the actualized state of burning. If the match is not in the actualized state of burning, then it can't ignite the wood. Basically, the type of motion a thing can cause is dependent upon what state the thing is in.
(2)c has been covered. Cal's definition of motion is what I'm going with.
Me: "Cal: "If those observations and conclusions aren't correctable, then they are in need of refinement so that they can be examined and tested, and if they are not, they fail to be productive -- which just means that they have nothing to add to the body of knowledge that is most accurately represented by a scientific approach to those things that can be made tractable." Legion: "Being open to scientific inquiry is not the same as needing it. There are countless things I know to be true that I have no need of scientific input to know for sure."
You still haven't defined truth.
What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge.
Are you still confusing "true" with "important to me?"
Do you realize that what's important to you isn't necessarily important to others, and isn't necessarily experienceable by others?
Do you realize that science does a pretty good job of figuring out what we know about intersubjective reality?
Do you think that the First Way should only be important to you, and not correct about reality (which we know intersubjectively)?
It doesn't seem to me that you've thought about these topics very much.
Legion: "One other thing, you are addressing the First Strawman, not the First Way. The purpose of the First Way is stated directly prior to the argument itself - "The existence of God can be proved in five ways." This is not a science argument, but rather an argument about why what we observe logically leads one toward a first mover, which Christians identify as God."
If the First Way isn't about intersubjective reality, then it's not about knowledge.
Legion: "So then, (2) states that what is moved is moved by another. Using Cal's previous definition of motion..."
WTF. My definition of motion is a change in position for something over time. You are the one who insists that defining motion otherwise (as you have above) will somehow avoid the problems we've pointed out in The First Way. Stick to the facts.
Legion: "... motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist). / So according to (2), when this process occurs, it is due to the influence of another thing. A ball doesn't start bouncing in of itself, wood doesn't ignite in of itself, etc."
Hmm. Are you saying that ball doesn't exist before it bounces? Or that the force that moved the ball before it bounces didn't exist? The fact is, before the force bounced the ball, and before the ball was moved by the force, they both existed. So I'm not sure what was brought into existence here. Can you be more specific about what, exactly, was brought into existence -- because it seems like all the parties involved at the start were involved at the end, and that what you are defining as being brought INTO EXISTENCE is more like being brought INTO REARRANGEMENT. They are not the same, and I think that it's pretty obvious which one is more accurate description of what occurs over time.
Legion: "Blah blah blah... Cal's definition of motion is what I'm going with."
You are the one defining the terms of this argument, per your insistence that these definitions will free the First Way from the problems that have been pointed out.
If, on review, you don't like the definitions you have offered so far, you should amend what you wrote prior and redefine them for us now, so that we have a precise understanding of the terms as they should be applied consistently throughout the argument. Because we are interested as you are in examining the real argument this time (not the strawman one!) -- and that should, of course, mean that we examining the terms of the argument as you define it (not us).
Cal: "What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge. Are you still confusing "true" with "important to me?"
It's a real head-scratcher where you came up with "truth = important to me", since nothing I have said can even be remotely construed to mean that. At this point, it appears you are either projecting or making stuff up.
Cal: "If the First Way isn't about intersubjective reality, then it's not about knowledge."
Scientism again. Sigh.
Cal: " WTF"
Okay.
You said, and I quote, "So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist)." You said this on April 27, 2017 at 3:08 PM. I then agreed that this definition would suffice, and we could then move on. You offered what motion was for the purposes of the argument, and I went with your phrasing.
Are you now retracting your post that I quoted? Do you no longer understand what Aquinas means by motion?
I see the flaw in that phrasing of the definition based upon your next post, so I will not use it anymore.
Think of the "thing" being brought into existence (not quite true but as an illustration) as the state of something. A ball sitting still is not bouncing, but a ball has the potential to bounce given the right conditions due to its inherent properties as a ball. Thus bouncing is a potential state of a ball.
When the right conditions are met, the ball undergoes motion (First Way definition, not physics) and bounces. The potential state of bouncing is actualized so that the ball is actually bouncing, rather than merely potentially bouncing. In a sense, the potential state is "brought into existence", though it exists as a possibility even when not in effect.
I know you understand the concept of an actual state, but the potential state still seems fuzzy. A potential state is a state that something could be in, given its inherent properties, but is not in. It's not that the state "doesn't exist", but rather the state is not realized. It is not in effect. A ball sitting still has the potential to bounce, even if it never bounces, but the potential exists nonetheless.
Me: "What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge. Are you still confusing "true" with "important to me?" Legion: "It's a real head-scratcher where you came up with "truth = important to me", since nothing I have said can even be remotely construed to mean that. At this point, it appears you are either projecting or making stuff up."
You could clear all this up by defining what you mean by "true."
Why are you avoiding explaining what you mean by the word, "true."?
Do you suppose it's because when you do, it starts to reveal how your objections to examining something with what approaches scientific rigor evaporates into a kind of narcissism?
Like I said, this conversation reveals that you don't appear to have thought very hard about his topic.
Legion: "You said, and I quote, "So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist)." / You said this on April 27, 2017 at 3:08 PM. I then agreed that this definition would suffice, and we could then move on. You offered what motion was for the purposes of the argument, and I went with your phrasing. / Are you now retracting your post that I quoted? Do you no longer understand what Aquinas means by motion?"
Get your head together. You have been complaining for some time now that our criticism fails to understand the terms used by Aquinas. You claimed to have defined the terms.
Legion: "The definitions have been provided."
And now, even at this late date, you still want to fob off some variety of definition for the argument you are supposed to be defending as "mine."
When I restate your definition, it is an opportunity for you to clarify, and offer more precision. Failure to define terms for your argument is not my failing. That one's on you.
Me: "In the 2(c) you keep referring to (actual text here -- Aquinas (from, 2(c)): "In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act."), which is the "a thing" that is being brought to an actualized state -- the liquid water that becomes ice, or the potential ice that becomes actual (real)?" Legion: "In the case of water freezing, it would be the inherent capacity for water to become ice that is being actualized. So I guess with your two choices, it would be the potential ice becoming actual. That's assuming I understand your question." Cal: "So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist). " Legion: "Yes. There are nuances, but I think this could be a functional understanding." Me: "Hmm. Are you saying that ball doesn't exist before it bounces? Or that the force that moved the ball before it bounces didn't exist? The fact is, before the force bounced the ball, and before the ball was moved by the force, they both existed. So I'm not sure what was brought into existence here. Can you be more specific about what, exactly, was brought into existence -- because it seems like all the parties involved at the start were involved at the end, and that what you are defining as being brought INTO EXISTENCE is more like being brought INTO REARRANGEMENT. They are not the same, and I think that it's pretty obvious which one is more accurate description of what occurs over time." Legion: "I see the flaw in that phrasing of the definition based upon your next post, so I will not use it anymore." and then: Legion: "It's not that the state "doesn't exist", but rather the state is not realized. It is not in effect. A ball sitting still has the potential to bounce, even if it never bounces, but the potential exists nonetheless."
So, you now retract the working definition that you agreed to prior -- that "motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist)."
So, a potential thing does exist, then?
Why is it so hard for you guys to state and stick to definitions when you're supposed to be the ones who truly understand the terms you're using?
Has it occurred to you yet that the argument is so hard to actually defend because the its so bad and its terms are so fuzzy?
Cal: "Do you suppose it's because when you do, it starts to reveal how your objections to examining something with what approaches scientific rigor evaporates into a kind of narcissism?"
If one of us is narcissistic, all evidence would indicate it isn't me. I'd be careful throwing an accusation around that could so easily backfire, friendly advice.
Cal: "Get your head together. You have been complaining for some time now that our criticism fails to understand the terms used by Aquinas. You claimed to have defined the terms."
I have defined them multiple times. I have provided examples as illustrations of what I am talking about. The terms and concepts are extremely easy to understand. I have no idea what your hangup is, because either I am far more intelligent than you (doubtful) or I simply am not understanding what your problem is.
Cal: "And now, even at this late date, you still want to fob off some variety of definition for the argument you are supposed to be defending as "mine."
The time for childish (and faulty) psychoanalysis is not in this discussion. When you restated the definition (and I'm not denying it's a rephrasing of my definition, I didn't literally mean it was YOUR definition that you came up with) and I said I could work with it, I assumed that meant you understood it. I was obviously incorrect in that assumption, but obviously I was not trying to say you pulled it from thin air. False accusation.
Cal: "So, you now retract the working definition that you agreed to prior -- that "motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist)."
Only because I mistakenly thought you had grasped what Aquinas was talking about. Since you very obviously did not, and I figured out what you were actually meaning by your next post, then I realized I couldn't work with that definition anymore. I'm not retracting any of my own definitions, I'm simply trying to figure out what your hangup is so I can phrase the definition in a way that overcomes it. For whatever reason, illustrations that appear to be easy enough for a child to understand (which I've proven with my 10 year old daughter) are not getting through to you, and barring you being disingenuous, I have no idea why.
Do you believe water can freeze under the right conditions? Of course you do. That means water possesses within its properties the inherent capacity to freeze given the right circumstances. Even if water never actually froze, it would still possess the capacity to do so given the right conditions. That capacity to freeze under the right circumstances is precisely what Aquinas means by a potential state.
As a possibility, yes, the potential state of freezing exists, even if there was literally no ice anywhere in the world. Ice itself would not exist in such a world, but the potential for water to freeze into ice would exist.
Cal: "Why is it so hard for you guys to state and stick to definitions when you're supposed to be the ones who truly understand the terms you're using?"
I remember one of my physics classmates who could never grasp Newton's third law of motion. She didn't believe that any movement at all would be possible if the law was true, because an "equal and opposite" reaction would nullify any attempted action. A pencil should keep getting heavier as someone tries to pick it up in order to keep it "equal and opposite", in her mind, so the law appeared to be obviously false to her.
Was the problem Newton's law, or was it the student not being able to grasp it, even though it's a simple concept?
I know for a fact there is no problem with the terminology. They are clear and simple concepts that are remarkably easy to grasp and comprehend. I know this because I didn't know hardly anything about the First Way until this discussion started. Long ago, when the first thread on this opened, that was when I first looked into it and understood it. Took me less than a day to figure out what the argument was saying, though it took a bit longer not to stray occasionally. Chris came along later and picked it up just as fast. So there is no reason to believe the problem is the terminology or concepts themselves.
However, I am no closer to figuring out what your hangup is than I was before, so I don't know which part of my definitions is causing the problem. I know the concepts themselves aren't problematic, so what's the deal?
Legion, >> "As a possibility, yes, the potential state of freezing exists, even if there was literally no ice anywhere in the world. Ice itself would not exist in such a world, but the potential for water to freeze into ice would exist."
Given Cal's complaint, I expect you will now get accused of flip-flopping, saying potentials both do, and do not exist. Astute readers will understand that you are referring to different things. The first is the inherent potential, which actually exists. Water actually has the inherent potential to become ice. The second potential is the ice itself. That potential does not actually exist - yet.
Me: "Do you suppose it's because when you do, it starts to reveal how your objections to examining something with what approaches scientific rigor evaporates into a kind of narcissism?" Legion: "If one of us is narcissistic, all evidence would indicate it isn't me. I'd be careful throwing an accusation around that could so easily backfire, friendly advice."
You still haven't answered the question concerning what you mean when you say you know all kinds of things to be true. I asked, What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge? You won't answer that.
I think you haven't thought about this question very much either, and that explains a lot of what you write when you naively pronounce that a scientific approach toward knowledge would somehow limit our understanding of an argument like the First Way. On the contrary; it reveals how vapid the argument really is.
Legion: "I have defined [the terms from the First Way] multiple times."
Often vaguely. And more recently, contradictorily. You deserve credit for trying (this is more than the other apologists here), but that doesn't mean that you haven't struggled to consistently define the terms you are trying to make work in an argument that makes that exceedingly difficult (impossible).
Legion: "I have provided examples as illustrations of what I am talking about."
True. The examples introduce problems, however. And those problems raise valid questions about the value of the terms. That is why I asked you about existence, versus re-arrangement. Not because you have not used the terms correctly per Aquinas's likely use of them, but because you should be able to see how Aquinas's terms fail to adequately describe the real states of real things. In the same way that Phlogiston fails to adequately describe the chemical reaction that occurs when something burns.
You seem to act as if an adequate understanding of what is meant by the term "Phlogiston" will somehow result in Phlogiston causing things to burn. This is a map and territory problem. You may want to consider that.
Legion: "Using Cal's previous definition of motion, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist)."
Legion: "When you restated the definition (and I'm not denying it's a rephrasing of my definition, I didn't literally mean it was YOUR definition that you came up with) and I said I could work with it, I assumed that meant you understood it. I was obviously incorrect in that assumption, but obviously I was not trying to say you pulled it from thin air. False accusation."
Cal's definition = your [referring to Cal] definition.
It's not a false accusation. The definition is yours. I paraphrased your definition, following your offer to define your terms, so that you understood what I understood by your terms. These are your definitions. Don't pretend they are mine.
Cal: "What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge?"
What do you mean by "adding to our body of knowledge"? Whose body? If I figure out something other people already know, since it doesn't "add to" any body of knowledge but my own, is it therefore not knowledge? What percentage of people have to share the knowledge before it becomes intersubjective knowledge? If I see someone do something and no one else sees it, is it not true because it doesn't "add to our body of knowledge" and it isn't "intersubjective"?
What exactly are you trying to get at? Because it does not seem to be addressing anything important.
Cal: "a scientific approach toward knowledge would somehow limit our understanding of an argument like the First Way"
It is actually precisely the opposite. You believe a scientific analysis of the First Way would demolish it because you don't actually know what the argument is saying. Sticking to (1)-(2)c, since I'm not going to jump ahead, there is literally nothing in there that science contradicts. Not one thing.
Cal: "And more recently, contradictorily"
I already explained what the "contradiction" was about - I mistakenly thought you were on the same page as me when it came to understanding what Aquinas meant. Once I found out you weren't, I retracted use of that definition. There is no contradiction there.
Cal: "you should be able to see how Aquinas's terms fail to adequately describe the real states of real things."
They do adequately describe the real states of real things, because they fulfill the purpose of his argument - which is not a science argument. Ice is in fact a potential state of liquid water that will be actualized given the right conditions. Glowing is a potential state of an unbroken light bulb that is off. There is zero controversy around that. It is an adequate description of reality for the purposes that Aquinas is using.
Legion: "(and I'm not denying it's a rephrasing of my definition, I didn't literally mean it was YOUR definition that you came up with)"
Cal: " These are your definitions. Don't pretend they are mine."
Now you're just lying. I clearly stated I wasn't trying to say it was literally YOUR definition. Stop lying.
Moving on to (2)a-c. "a thing can only move something else to the extent that the thing is in some actualized state that is capable of producing the motion. " This is a meaningless tautology. All you are saying is "only stuff that can make X happen can make X happen."
" Think of the "thing" being brought into existence (not quite true but as an illustration) as the state of something." A state is a property of a thing, not a thing itself. Things change state.
" A ball sitting still has the potential to bounce, even if it never bounces, but the potential exists nonetheless." "Exist" is a very risky word to use in this context because it can easily be misunderstood as an existent thing, which it is not.
Stardusty: "All you are saying is "only stuff that can make X happen can make X happen."
We'll see how meaningless it is later on.
Stardusty: "A state is a property of a thing, not a thing itself. Things change state."
Agreed, but I am trying to figure out an illustration that Cal will grasp about what a potential state is.
Stardusty: "Exist" is a very risky word to use in this context because it can easily be misunderstood as an existent thing, which it is not."
Well we are talking about a thing's intrinsic properties. Using water again, even if there was no ice anywhere due to there being no freezing temperatures anywhere, water would still have the inherent capacity to become ice if it was subjected to freezing temperature. That capacity exists within water, even if it never actually froze.
" Do you believe water can freeze under the right conditions? Of course you do. That means water possesses within its properties the inherent capacity to freeze given the right circumstances." Perhaps this is what Cal meant by "a kind of narcissism". I don't think he meant to suggest you are some sort of selfish uncaring jerk who has no empathy for anybody and is continually making others suffer.
We human beings simply can have a short range perception of the universe.
No, just because I think of water that can freeze does not mean it possesses some property. My belief just means that is how my brain looks at things. Things might actually be very different.
Water molecules attract each other with intermolecular forces. Temperature is a measure of molecular kinetic energy. At lower kinetic energies water molecules bond with each other at certain angles. When we observe large collections of these molecules bonding we call our observation "freezing".
But the molecules act accosting to their constituent components, and down and down to some realm nobody knows at this time.
It is in that as yet undiscovered realm of the ultra small that the answers to the riddles of causation and existence reside, not in some medieval theological tract.
" However, I am no closer to figuring out what your hangup is than I was before," For myself, my hangup is you are looking in the wrong place. You are trying to reason your way through this problem with obsolete language and macro observations. You might just as well try to measure the width of a human hair with a yardstick.
Inevitably you will continue with your tautologies and begging the question and ad hoc assertions and demonstrably false premises because no human being has ever solved and published the solution to this problem. The problem remains unsolved by all.
But yes, from our human perspective we think of a bowl of water as a thing that could freeze because we know that if we put the bowl in the freezer in a few hours it will be full of solid water.
From our human perspective? Does water freeze or not?
It looks to me like the inevitable conclusion of your approach here is that nothing actually occurs when we observe it occurring, it just seems that way to us. Are you denying that what we observe on a macro scale is actually occurring? If that's the case, then it would follow that I could claim this conversation isn't actually occurring because neither of us sits in front of a computer and operates it to say the word we want.
Legion: "What exactly are you trying to get at? Because it does not seem to be addressing anything important."
Your (weak) defense of the argument.
You wrote:
Legion: "The First Way is not a science argument. It is what Aquinas believes to be the logical conclusion of what we observe about potential states of things becoming actualized, and how only actualized states have causal power. Of course scientists don't talk about such notions as part of science - they aren't scientific. That doesn't mean they aren't true."
If you are going to argue that the First Way is a good argument, I think that we should agree on what the standards are for a good argument.
In your quote above, you seem to be trying to disqualify the First Way from the requirements of a good argument.
If you think that the First Way should not be subject to those processes used in science -- intersubjectivity, precision of terms, valid, sound, objective, reliable, verifiable, etc., then I think you should declare what these new standards are by which the argument should be evaluated.
So far, you have failed to respond to this request. That is why I keep on asking.
Cal: "In your quote above, you seem to be trying to disqualify the First Way from the requirements of a good argument."
No, I am pointing out that it is not a science argument. I have no reason to believe that only science provides good arguments. Nor am I trying to avoid evaluating the argument with science. The problem is thus far, it is only the First Strawman that has been evaluated by science, which is why I am trying to go line by line now.
Cal: "intersubjectivity..."
I asked the following questions: "What do you mean by "adding to our body of knowledge"? Whose body? If I figure out something other people already know, since it doesn't "add to" any body of knowledge but my own, is it therefore not knowledge? What percentage of people have to share the knowledge before it becomes intersubjective knowledge? If I see someone do something and no one else sees it, is it not true because it doesn't "add to our body of knowledge" and it isn't "intersubjective"?
Cal: "precision of terms"
I have been trying repeatedly. I understand the terms easily, so I don't know what the hangup is. Which is why I ask the following questions:
Given the right conditions, liquid water will freeze into ice. Yes or no? Given the right conditions, liquid water will freeze into gold. Yes or no?
Cal, >> "If you are going to argue that the First Way is a good argument, I think that we should agree on what the standards are for a good argument."
Validity and soundness are the standards for any logical argument.
>> " I think you should declare what these new standards are by which the argument should be evaluated."
A common sense (or agreed upon) understanding of the words being used in the argument is the standard for evaluating whether an argument is valid and sound.
As Legion has correctly stated, an argument does NOT have to be couched in the science-laden language of physics and chemistry in order to be understood as valid and sound.
>> "It looks to me like the inevitable conclusion of your approach here is that nothing actually occurs when we observe it occurring, it just seems that way to us."
It just SEEMS like water in a bowl is a thing that could freeze and it just SEEMS like water actually has the inherent ability to freeze, but NONE of these statements are actually True(tm) because you failed to use the official, skeptic-approved, science-laden language.
Legion: "No, I am pointing out that it is not a science argument. I have no reason to believe that only science provides good arguments. Nor am I trying to avoid evaluating the argument with science. The problem is thus far, it is only the First Strawman that has been evaluated by science, which is why I am trying to go line by line now."
Then please indicate what parts of the First Way aren't to be evaluated using the principles of scientific inquiry.
Is it that First Way isn't logical? Is it that the First Way isn't intersubjectively testable (objective, reliable, verifiable) -- meaning that we can check for ourselves whether or not its premises are sound?
The First Way is about real things, in the real world. If it's not, I don't know what the First Way is about.
What principles of scientific inquiry are you saying that the First Way should not be evaluated by? Why is it unfair to evaluate the First Way by that principle?
Do you think that we should consider Phlogiston to be a good argument for why things burn because that argument should only be evaluated by what those who found it convincing knew at the time? Is that the standard you're using?
Legion: "I asked the following questions: "What do you mean by "adding to our body of knowledge"?"
A body of knowledge is commonly understood to be the sum of things known that are reliably verified through intersubjective testing. Physical laws, real objects, routines, data, etc. -- these are all the things that make up our body of knowledge. As opposed to introspective knowledge, which are those things that you can only know, and that others can't examine for themselves (like, you preference for chocloate, e.g.).
Legion: "Whose body?"
See above.
Do you even know what intersubjective means? This is very basic stuff. I don't have time to do remedial teaching. Look up some phrases if you aren't familiar with them, and if that doesn't jive with how I'm using them then ask me for clarification.
Legion: "If I figure out something other people already know, since it doesn't "add to" any body of knowledge but my own, is it therefore not knowledge?"
Verifiability is a key component of knowledge. So, no, the fact that you verify something that others know only increases our confidence in that knowledge. Again, basic stuff.
Legion: "What percentage of people have to share the knowledge before it becomes intersubjective knowledge?"
There's no hard and fast rule. But if intersubjective testing fails to reliably verify, then we have good reason to question what others claim. Basic basic.
Legion: "If I see someone do something and no one else sees it, is it not true because it doesn't "add to our body of knowledge" and it isn't "intersubjective"?"
If you are seeing something that no one else sees you might be hallucinating. If you are seeing something that is really there but for some reason no one else sees, then there are ways to test for that. Basic.
Legion: "Cal: "precision of terms" / I have been trying repeatedly. I understand the terms easily, so I don't know what the hangup is."
The hangup is how you can explain how something like ice exists without water. That's a hangup. That you claim to understand your terms easily despite this fact is an indication that you are fooling yourself when you say that you understand your terms and that they are precise.
Legion: "Given the right conditions, liquid water will freeze into ice. Yes or no?"
Yup.
Legion: "Given the right conditions, liquid water will freeze into gold. Yes or no?"
Legion: "Nor am I trying to avoid evaluating the argument with science."
Cal: "Then please indicate what parts of the First Way aren't to be evaluated using the principles of scientific inquiry."
Did you even read what I wrote? I literally just said I'm NOT trying to do that. But if you have no idea what the argument is saying, you can't very well analyze it with science, can you? That's what I am doing - once you understand what the argument is saying, THEN analyze it with science.
Cal: "What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge?"
This quote was the basis for my flurry of questions about the body of knowledge and intersubjective knowledge. The point wasn't that I didn't know what those terms meant, but rather to demonstrate where your thinking is grounded. You seem to be disdainful of knowledge that isn't scientific in nature, up to and including the possibility of me hallucinating if I see something no one else is around to see that some scientist somewhere can't calculate probabilities of the event occurring. All of your answers were couched in scientific terminology. That is scientism. Both you and Stardusty are suffering from this malady, and I'm pretty sure it's the reason the First Way is so much of a struggle for you to understand. It's not a science argument, and science isn't the sole means of knowledge.
Cal: "The hangup is how you can explain how something like ice exists without water."
I can't explain that, since neither I nor Aquinas said that.
Cal: "That you claim to understand your terms easily despite this fact is an indication that you are fooling yourself when you say that you understand your terms and that they are precise."
No, it's an indication that they aren't difficult and that I understand them, but you don't. Hence I'm trying to figure out the problem, though I suspect scientism is a lot of it.
However, with your answers about water freezing in to ice (yup) and gold (nope)...congratulations, you now understand that ice is a potential state of water, but gold is not a potential state of water.
So then, why can water freeze into ice, but not gold? Because water possesses the inherent capacity to freeze into ice due to its physical properties, but water does not possess the inherent capacity to freeze into gold.
That is why ice is a potential state of water, but gold is not. Water possesses the inherent capacity to freeze into ice given the correct conditions, and this is synonymous with "Ice is a potential state of water". The potential state of ice exists in the exact same manner that an inherent capacity to freeze into ice exists, for they are the same thing. If you don't deny that the possibility for water to freeze into ice exists, then you can understand why I say a potential state exists.
Me: "Then please indicate what parts of the First Way aren't to be evaluated using the principles of scientific inquiry." Legion: "Did you even read what I wrote? I literally just said I'm NOT trying to do that. But if you have no idea what the argument is saying, you can't very well analyze it with science, can you? That's what I am doing - once you understand what the argument is saying, THEN analyze it with science."
The principles of science include: testability (objective, reliable, verifiable) and logically consistent.
When you say that the First Way is not a scientific argument, and since you won't be explicit about what you mean, I must now conclude that that you think the First Way is a good argument WITHOUT BEING objective, reliable, verifiable, and logically consistent.
I can thus conclude that you are not evaluating the First Way based on what makes an argument good or bad, and that your assessment is meaningless.
>> "Verifiability is a key component of knowledge. So, no, the fact that you verify something that others know only increases our confidence in that knowledge."
A topic for another day but this seems obviously wrong. To verify requires that you have knowledge of the thing you are seeking to verify. You have knowledge first and then you look for it again to then verify. This means verifiability is NOT a requirement for knowledge. It raises our confidence, yes indeed, but it's not necessary for knowledge.
Legion: "You seem to be disdainful of knowledge that isn't scientific in nature, up to and including the possibility of me hallucinating if I see something no one else is around to see that some scientist somewhere can't calculate probabilities of the event occurring."
You just seem confused.
The question of whether or not you are hallucinating is a scientific one. In other words, what other way would you suggest we determine you are or are not hallucinating if we don't approach the question scientifically?
Approaching the question scientifically means first being able to examine the question. It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge.
If you disagree, you should be able to explain how it is that we can determine whether or not you are likely hallucinating without using the processes above.
Over and over it seems that you want to privilege your assessments (I deem this a good argument therefore it is good! I deem this precise and understandable therefore it is! I deem this real because it is what I see even if no one else sees it! Etc. That's why I suggest that you appear to think like a narcissist -- finding your own observations and thoughts to be definitive and obvious, when those who are less self-involved and more empathetic are much more circumspect about rushing toward these conclusions.
Me: "The hangup is how you can explain how something like ice exists without water." Legion: "I can't explain that, since neither I nor Aquinas said that."
Legion (earlier): "As a possibility, yes, the potential state of freezing exists, even if there was literally no ice anywhere in the world. Ice itself would not exist in such a world, but the potential for water to freeze into ice would exist."
Cal: "The principles of science include: testability (objective, reliable, verifiable) and logically consistent."
Aquinas isn't making a science argument. A potential state is a concept based upon a thing's inherent properties which could become actualized, given the proper conditions. It is not a mechanical description of how a thing functions or what it consists of. If liquid water freezes under certain conditions, then ice is a potential state of water. If something undergoes some change, then it had a potential state actualized. That is not something science can test, it is simply an accurate logical concept of how things are.
You don't seem to know the difference between a scientific argument, a non-scientific argument, a good argument, and a bad argument. Am I going to have to teach those things too, before we can get to the First Way?
Cal: " In other words, what other way would you suggest we determine you are or are not hallucinating if we don't approach the question scientifically?"
The question could be a scientific one, assuming it was a repeating or ongoing experience, if we got scientists involved who made predictions, set up an experiment, and tested their hypothesis based on observations from the experiment. Or, we could not contact the nearest scientist, and simply find out if other people could see the same thing, in which case it wouldn't be science. It would simply be observation and conclusion, but the conclusion would still be reliable for all practical purposes.
Science is not the sole arbiter of reality.
Cal: "Approaching the question scientifically means first being able to examine the question. It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge."
Okay. In order to refute (1) through (2)c using science, you would have to show that nothing undergoes any sort of change, or that when something does change, it is not because it was acted upon by something other than what is undergoing change, or that when something changes it is not due to inherent properties of the thing undergoing change.
Feel free to refute that with science.
Cal: "That's why I suggest that you appear to think like a narcissist -- finding your own observations and thoughts to be definitive and obvious, when those who are less self-involved and more empathetic are much more circumspect about rushing toward these conclusions."
So understanding Aquinas' simple argument makes me a narcissist, since you have yet to understand it? 'Kay. I think you need to go look up what a "narcissist" is. Understanding someone else's argument is not a defining characteristic of a narcissist, however using one's own ignorance in order to critique what one does not understand could very well be a sign of a narcissist. Perhaps you should reflect on that.
Cal: "Choke on your own words much?"
Nope. But feel free to explain how you derive Statement 1 from Statement 2.
Statement 1: "Ice exists without water." Statement 2: ""As a possibility, yes, the potential state of freezing exists, even if there was literally no ice anywhere in the world. Ice itself would not exist in such a world, but the potential for water to freeze into ice would exist."
"Does water freeze or not?" From our human perspective. Sorry, despite what you might think, I really am not trying to be an obstinate pain in the ass. The distinctions I draw here are important to the study of causation, but given that the ancients practiced a sort of macro level proto-science, and given the utility of the notion in our daily lives, in those respects, yes, water freezes.
" It looks to me like the inevitable conclusion of your approach here is that nothing actually occurs when we observe it occurring, it just seems that way to us." The brick seems solid to us. Is the brick solid? No, of course not. We all know the brick is mostly space. If I get hit on the head with a brick the knowledge of how much space is in its envelope will not take the pain away.
Our human level observations are very useful, but reality is much different when we learn the science of the very small.
" Are you denying that what we observe on a macro scale is actually occurring?" In the aggregate our macro scale observations are valid and useful approximations.
" If that's the case, then it would follow that I could claim this conversation isn't actually occurring because neither of us sits in front of a computer and operates it to say the word we want." There are a great many distortions, illusions, and inaccuracies in our perceptions of this conversation. A fully accurate description of this conversation, however, is much too complex for us to deal with usefully, even if we could arrive at such, which we in principle cannot.
For the purpose of making a kind of folksy, archaic, armchair protoscience argument A-T language can be employed in conversation. In the end it will be a dead end leading to the irrationality of the first mover juxtaposed with the irrationality of an infinite regress.
But go ahead and drive into that blind alley, most people do :-)
Me: "The principles of science include: testability (objective, reliable, verifiable) and logically consistent." Legion: "Aquinas isn't making a science argument. "
Okay. Per my prior comments and your avoiding my questions, I can only conclude that you mean that the argument you are defending eschews things like objectivity, reliability, verifiability, and logical consistency.
No one need take any argument seriously that does that. It can be dismissed out of hand.
Legion: "A potential state is a concept based upon a thing's inherent properties which could become actualized, given the proper conditions."
That is one of the things you are saying about potential. But you also appearing to be saying more about a potential -- that a potential state exists without reference to the thing of which it is a state.
Definition 1. Potential = a possible state of a thing Definition 2. Potential = something that exists independently of the thing it describes
To be clear, I think 2 is incoherent. I don't have a problem with the 1st definition, however, so if you want to proceed with those two understandings then you should.
Legion: "It is not a mechanical description of how a thing functions or what it consists of."
What? You have been saying that ice is a potential state of water. If you think that the possible state of ice doesn't break down to a mechanical description (which can be as rudimentary as "hard" or "solid" or "crystalline", etc.) or that ice doesn't consist of water then this definition is even less coherent than I originally thought.
You should clarify this, absolutely: - does ice describe ANY state of water? - does ice consist of water?
Legion: "If liquid water freezes under certain conditions, then ice is a potential state of water."
Using the terms you described earlier (and the caveats repeated by Stardusty) I think this much is pretty straightforward.
Legion: "If something undergoes some change, then it had a potential state actualized."
I read this as identical to, "a thing that changed changed". (That the changed state is possible is either tautological, or predictive based on induction. I'm not really sure what this does for us, but I can work with either of those understandings.)
Legion: "That is not something science can test, it is simply an accurate logical concept of how things are."
And this is where you demonstrate that you completely fail to understand the simple concepts behind scientific thinking. Because you get this completely backward. Water changing state a) is something we can test, and b) and it is an accurate description (NOT a concept!) of how things really are.
Water becomes ice. Water boils. This is something that we get to examine and test for ourselves all the time (Albeit with more or less rigor.) But since you appear to have a hangup on science only occurring in a laboratory setting (as if), even this basic example is lab tested ALL THE TIME. In basic Chemistry classes generations of students have fired up bunsen burners under flasks of water and charted temperatures as they witness what happens when water transitions from a liquid to a gas. (Hint: the transition is less intuitive than you'd originally imagine.)
Legion: "Or, we could not contact the nearest scientist, and simply find out if other people could see the same thing, in which case it wouldn't be science. It would simply be observation and conclusion, but the conclusion would still be reliable for all practical purposes. Science is not the sole arbiter of reality."
????
You seem to be saying several different things above. The first is that only scientists can do science. This is, of course, wrong -- science is a process, with more or less rigor (depending on what's being studied), but there's no reason whatsoever that we can't apply the principles of science (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.) to test and confirm or disprove what we already know, or to just find out something for yourself. You may make mistakes, you may jump to conclusions, but applying rigor to your thinking, identifying and taking steps to eliminate biases, and making cautious (based on probabilities) thinking is both scientific and mundane; almost anyone can do it -- at least with regard to ordinary events.
Then you seem to agree with the above, that approaching things with a scientific mindset CAN lead to more reliable conclusions (including more cautious and circumspect conclusions which are, after all, more reliable than over-confident ones).
And then you re-state your dismissal of scientific thinking but offer no alteranative -- despite my repeated requests for you identify what you mean by your claims of having knowledge outside of the principles I have mentioned, and for you to (finally) define what you mean by "truth."
Me: "Approaching the question scientifically means first being able to examine the question. It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge." Legion: "Okay. In order to refute (1) through (2)c using science, you would have to show that nothing undergoes any sort of change, or that when something does change, it is not because it was acted upon by something other than what is undergoing change, or that when something changes it is not due to inherent properties of the thing undergoing change. / Feel free to refute that with science."
I don't really know where to begin.
I make what should be a commonsense and obvious gesture to the ground rules of argument.
Instead of agreeing to what should go without saying, you now seem to want to jump ahead to a claim I'm not even making.
Legion: "If something undergoes some change, then it had a potential state actualized."
" I read this as identical to, "a thing that changed changed"." Yes, that is the brilliance of Aquinas, he says "only stuff that can cause X causes X" We were promised to be shown the importance and value of these inane tautologies, and I suppose that is likely to be true if we consider zero a the most likely value.
In truth, I suspect Aquinas meant to make the meaningful statements he did in fact make in his examples, wherein he showed that only the same sort of thing as X causes X (a flame causes burning, a moving hand causes a staff to move). Those are meaningful observations, but lead to later self contradiction, so the apologist reduces Aquinas to tautological babble to prevent the clear later breakdown...but I am getting ahead of things it has been said.
Cal: "I can only conclude that you mean that the argument you are defending eschews things like objectivity, reliability, verifiability, and logical consistency."
Nope. Here is what you can conclude. In a later post, you say this: "but there's no reason whatsoever that we can't apply the principles of science (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.) to test and confirm or disprove what we already know, or to just find out something for yourself."
Where you and I are talking past each other is twofold. First, since science uses observation and forming conclusions based on those observations, you subsume all instances of observation and forming conclusions based on them as "principles of science". I reject this. One can make observations and form conclusions on them without performing science. Science is a subset of observation/conclusion, not the other way around, as humans have been making ideas based off observation for far, far longer than science has been around. Science has specific requirements and has a specific purpose - the formation of naturalistic explanations for how things work, etc. That isn't the purpose of the First Way, which leads to the second failure of communication.
You keep comparing it to phlogiston theory, which is quite guilty of attempting to explain how things work and getting it wrong. Phlogiston makes an observation (things burn) and attempts to explain why that happens, so in a sense it is an early science-like endeavor. The First Way doesn't make an observation and attempt to explain why it happens - it makes observations and comes to a logical conclusion based on those observations. It is not an attempt at explaining how nature works mechanically, like phlogiston theory, ergo it is not science-like.
Finally, as I have said all along, I don't care if you hold up what the First Way says to what science says, so long as you are actually holding up what the First Way says, rather than the First Strawman. I find it ridiculous, since it's like using science to determine whether a thing is in fact a thing. The experiments there will be pretty amusing.
Cal: "Definition 1. Potential = a possible state of a thing"
I hesitate to agree after the last time I thought we were on the same page, but provisionally I will go with this. When I say a potential state exists, it is pretty much synonymous with saying that a possibility exists about how a thing could change based upon its characteristics. But I'll try Definition 1 and see what happens.
Cal: "What? You have been saying that ice is a potential state of water. If you think that the possible state of ice doesn't break down to a mechanical description (which can be as rudimentary as "hard" or "solid" or "crystalline", etc.) or that ice doesn't consist of water then this definition is even less coherent than I originally thought."
It doesn't matter if ice can be broken down to a mechanical description - that's not the purpose of the argument, any more than what sort of tree the wood in his example came from is relevant. Ice is a potential state of water - that's the takeaway. You're throwing scientific explanations of the physical properties of ice, and completely missing the point. The closest that could come to being relevant to the premise would be that indeed, because water has "x" properties, it freezes into ice, which is why ice is a potential state of water. But again, not relevant. The only thing we need to know to confirm the premise is that water can freeze into ice - any further exposition is unnecessary.
Cal: "Water changing state a) is something we can test, and b) and it is an accurate description (NOT a concept!) of how things really are."
Sigh. Yes, science can do those things. You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are true. I suppose that scientists could wonder if water can freeze into ice and then test it, but that's hardly necessary to the argument because ANY change in anything is a potential state being actualized, regardless of how it happens. Those aren't scientific concepts, but they are true nonetheless. Science is less than unnecessary in those premises, because there is nothing to test - it's simply true based on the concepts. There are no examples of things changing that aren't potential states being actualized, so what exactly is science supposed to test?
(You seem desperate for me to define truth. Since I can't imagine how this is even remotely relevant to the First Way, and since there is no conceivable answer I can give that will avoid yet another tangent, Wikipedia has an entry on truth that you can ponder. Feel free to inaccurately claim I haven't thought about it, though, or am trying to have something both ways, etc.)
Cal: "I make what should be a commonsense and obvious gesture to the ground rules of argument."
Let's see the result when applied to the First Way premises. I'll stick with the ice/water example.
"It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge."
Premise: Ice is a potential state of water. When water freezes, ice is the actualized state.
It's reliable, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's verifiable, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's objective, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's consistent, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. And all background knowledge supports it, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. Yay science and the First Way!
Perhaps I'm being too loose in my language. Yes, science can indeed analyze it, but it is shown to be extremely unnecessary, and ridiculous when applied. So it's not that science CAN'T analyze potential states being actualized, it's simply hilariously unneeded.
Stardusty: "Yes, that is the brilliance of Aquinas, he says "only stuff that can cause X causes X" We were promised to be shown the importance and value of these inane tautologies"
If certain people could grasp simple concepts that even children have been proven capable of understanding, then perhaps I could fulfill that promise. Also, your First Strawman of what Aquinas meant is still completely wrong, and again I would love to be able to progress far enough to demonstrate.
Legion: "Where you and I are talking past each other is twofold. First, since science uses observation and forming conclusions based on those observations, you subsume all instances of observation and forming conclusions based on them as "principles of science"."
No. Re-read what I wrote.
Among other things, I wrote: "Approaching the question scientifically means first being able to examine the question. It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge."
I didn't say what that all observation or conclusion are scientific. I wrote that we need to approach the question in ways that can be examined -- in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. I wrote that we should be consistent, and use background knowledge. If such an approach is fatal to the First Way, well, then, so much for the First Way.
Legion: "I reject this. One can make observations and form conclusions on them without performing science."
An observation alone is not science per se. Sure.
Legion: "Science is a subset of observation/conclusion, not the other way around, as humans have been making ideas based off observation for far, far longer than science has been around."
Sure. We make all kinds of casual observations, many of which are of little scientific value. And race to all kinds of conclusions, based on the fact that we don't have time or the inclination to be rigorous in every aspect of our activities. But that doesn't mean that we can't make more rigorous observations when we want to, and that we can test our conclusions more carefully when we apply processes and measures that reveal flaws in our thinking.
You seem to be wanting to make a case that we should evaluate the First Way based on casual observations, imprecise terms, and shoddy thinking. And that's because every time we point out instances of these things, instead of recognizing them, you jump to this transparent special pleading that tries to exempt the First Way from the kind or rigor that all good arguments can withstand.
That's obvious. The rest of this is just waiting for you to come to terms with the fact that you've wasted so much time trying to salvage an old and discarded argument that you should have been able to recognize as obviously flawed a looong time ago. Still, it seems like you're (slowly) learning things, so there's that.
Legion: "Science has specific requirements and has a specific purpose - the formation of naturalistic explanations for how things work, etc."
You were doing well at the beginning there, but they you had to go for that old saw about bad, silly old science somehow ruling out the incoherence and contradictions of superstitious thinking. No, superstitious thinking is just a non-explanation explanation, and scientific thinking doesn't so much require it's exclusion as recognize that superstitious thinking has nothing to offer. You could argue otherwise, but it's apparent by your refusal to explain how we can know things outside of the processes I've explicated, and what you mean by truth, that you would rather insist you realize you cannot.
Legion: "That isn't the purpose of the First Way, which leads to the second failure of communication."
I know what the purpose of the First Way is. Someday, you may recognize the same.
Legion: "You keep comparing it to phlogiston theory, which is quite guilty of attempting to explain how things work and getting it wrong. Phlogiston makes an observation (things burn) and attempts to explain why that happens, so in a sense it is an early science-like endeavor. The First Way doesn't make an observation and attempt to explain why it happens - it makes observations and comes to a logical conclusion based on those observations. It is not an attempt at explaining how nature works mechanically, like phlogiston theory, ergo it is not science-like."
Um hm.
So, the First Way doesn't try to explain why things move?
Instead, it "makes a logical conclusion" about why things move?
At this point it just seems like you're trying to avoid defending the argument by trying to create meaningless distinctions that serve no purpose.
It doesn't so much explain it, as it makes a logical conclusion about why!
I think Legion is just flailing around now. There's really not much left worth responding to -- I can only hope that he is having a bad day, and needs some more time to collect himself.
Legion: "Sigh. Yes, science can do those things. You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are true. I suppose that scientists could wonder if water can freeze into ice and then test it, but that's hardly necessary to the argument because ANY change in anything is a potential state being actualized, regardless of how it happens. Those aren't scientific concepts, but they are true nonetheless. Science is less than unnecessary in those premises, because there is nothing to test - it's simply true based on the concepts. There are no examples of things changing that aren't potential states being actualized, so what exactly is science supposed to test? / (You seem desperate for me to define truth. Since I can't imagine how this is even remotely relevant to the First Way, and since there is no conceivable answer I can give that will avoid yet another tangent, Wikipedia has an entry on truth that you can ponder. Feel free to inaccurately claim I haven't thought about it, though, or am trying to have something both ways, etc.)"
Suffice to say that the above is one of the weakest and shabbiest comments I've read in awhile. I might come back later to go over it with some thoroughness, but at this point there's little enjoyment in picking over part of this carcass.
What a mess. But, I suppose, what a testament to what apologetics does to someone's mind.
Cal, How about you let Legion continue explaining the argument rather than getting him sidetracked on discussions about science and what counts as knowledge.
Legion of Logic said... Perhaps I'm being too loose in my language. Yes, science can indeed analyze it, but it is shown to be extremely unnecessary, and ridiculous when applied. So it's not that science CAN'T analyze potential states being actualized, it's simply hilariously unneeded. May 05, 2017 6:45 AM Blogger Legion of Logic said... If certain people could grasp simple concepts that even children have been proven capable of understanding, then perhaps I could fulfill that promise. May 05, 2017 6:47 AM
Yes, science can analyze it, making it a science argument, or a scientific argument, or an argument subject to scientific analysis, or an argument that is scientifically invalid if science shows it to be invalid.
I say the First Way is a science argument, not because I think Aquinas intended to argue from a modern scientific perspective, rather, that the argument is on a subject within the scientific realm. An argument from motion can be shown to be scientifically false.
Even a child understands? Yes, even a child understands that the Earth is still and the sun moves across the sky and sets. When we grow up we learn to investigate further to discard such notions as not really being as they seem to a child, or seemed to the ancients.
Water has the potential to freeze? Sure, just like the sun has the potential to set. Where do these potentials reside? In the macro approximations made by the human brain. Really, a body of water, like the sun, is composed of a vast number of sub atomic parts, all interacting in a mutual multibody process of causal influences on each other.
Hilariously unneeded? For the average individual to blithely function in life oblivious to what we now know about the underlying reality, yes.
For those of us who continually seek greater enlightenment and depth of understanding discarding the ancient macro language is essential.
Stardusty: "I say the First Way is a science argument, not because I think Aquinas intended to argue from a modern scientific perspective, rather, that the argument is on a subject within the scientific realm. An argument from motion can be shown to be scientifically false."
Exactly. All of this talk of the First Way properly residing outside of a realm where it can be examined and evaluated on the same grounds by which all other arguments are judged is just a shabby way of indicating that one can't actually defend a patently bad argument.
>> "I say the First Way is a science argument, not because I think Aquinas intended to argue from a modern scientific perspective, rather, that the argument is on a subject within the scientific realm. An argument from motion can be shown to be scientifically false."
1) Legion has already stated that the First Way does not contradict science.
2) First you'll need to understand the argument (you don't yet). Then you can show us how it's scientifically false (you haven't).
3) It's not a science argument any more than an argument that claims a man swinging a bat caused a baseball to land in center left field is a science argument. You can ATTEMPT to develop one from that if you'd like. Then you can show us where it fails (See #2)
Cal: "We make all kinds of casual observations, many of which are of little scientific value."
Unfortunately for you, the First Way is not a scientific argument, so having scientific value is a meaningless standard.
Cal: "But that doesn't mean that we can't make more rigorous observations when we want to"
And I showed that yes, you can do that to the premises we have done (up to (2)c)), and that doing so is pointless. Because *drum roll* the First Way is not a scientific argument.
Cal: "You seem to be wanting to make a case that we should evaluate the First Way based on casual observations, imprecise terms, and shoddy thinking."
You seem to not be able to comprehend anything I write. I haven't done anything remotely resembling your accusation here. I've simply (and accurately) pointed out that the First Way is not a scientific argument, it is not like phlogiston theory. At all.
Cal: "And that's because every time we point out instances of these things, instead of recognizing them, you jump to this transparent special pleading that tries to exempt the First Way from the kind or rigor that all good arguments can withstand."
The terms are easy to understand, so the problem isn't with the argument. And I demonstrated that the premises up to (2)c withstood your "rigor". So again, you are huffing about absolutely nothing.
Cal: "The rest of this is just waiting for you to come to terms with the fact that you've wasted so much time trying to salvage an old and discarded argument"
Neither of you have scratched the surface of refuting it, since you haven't even understood it yet. That's why I attempted the line-by-line approach, so you could understand it and THEN attempt to refute it. I suspect your scientism will continue to be a hurdle, which is why I've spent time demonstrating how the First Way is not intended to be a scientific argument, can withstand your "rigor", and is not a bad or useless argument simply because it isn't scientific.
Cal: "but it's apparent..."
Haha called it. Useless tangent.
Cal: "I know what the purpose of the First Way is"
You don't have the faintest clue what it is. You haven't even been able to grasp its simplest premises.
Cal: "So, the First Way doesn't try to explain why things move? Instead, it "makes a logical conclusion" about why things move?"
Abandon the scientism, and you'll learn to think again. Your "meaningless distinction" jab was embarrassing to yourself. Consider the following:
"Wood burns, and some other things burn, so there must be some substance within some things that allows them to burn." This is an attempt to explain why things burn, your phlogiston theory that you are so fascinated by.
"Wood burns, which means burning is a potential state of wood that can be actualized in a causal series." This is a logical conclusion about the fact that wood burns - it is not attempting to explain WHY wood burns. And rather than being the tautology you guys want it to be, Aquinas is pointing it out not to make some brilliant observation, but rather to have a thought planted to consider when he establishes the essentially ordered causal series.
Cal: "Instead of not addressing my original question, why don't you answer it?
- does ice describe ANY state of water? - does ice consist of water?
I wonder how many times I have to address the same questions and be told I haven't addressed it? But since this is finally relevant to the argument, I will clearly answer now so you can't huff about me not answering.
Does ice describe a state of water? Yes, in both the scientific and Aristotelian sense. Ice is the solid state of water. Ice is also a potential state of water, since water can freeze into ice given the proper conditions.
Does ice consist of water? Ice is crystallized H20, so yes it consists of water.
Cal: "I think Legion is just flailing around now."
Is that what my attempt to teach you simple premises in non-scientific terminology looks like as you retreat into your comfortable ignorance?
Cal: "Suffice to say that the above is one of the weakest and shabbiest comments I've read in awhile."
Feel free to try and counter it, I'll just point out why you're wrong again. You simply don't have a clue about any of this material, nor do you want to know, frankly. Scientism is a brain rot.
Stardusty: "I say the First Way is a science argument, not because I think Aquinas intended to argue from a modern scientific perspective, rather, that the argument is on a subject within the scientific realm. An argument from motion can be shown to be scientifically false."
Demonstrate that anything within (1) to (2)c is false.
Stardusty: "When we grow up we learn to investigate further to discard such notions as not really being as they seem to a child, or seemed to the ancients."
Except you guys haven't scratched the surface of the First Way, so why discard it? The only reason to discard it would be for someone who understands it to point out its flaws. Someone who doesn't understand it, such as you and Cal, cannot refute it.
Stardusty: "Really, a body of water, like the sun, is composed of a vast number of sub atomic parts, all interacting in a mutual multibody process of causal influences on each other."
And at the end of the day, water freezes under the proper conditions, so ice is a potential state of water.
Stardusty: "For the average individual to blithely function in life oblivious to what we now know about the underlying reality, yes."
Do you have to pull out quantum mechanical formulas to demonstrate to someone how to get from one town to another? No? Do you have to appeal to subatomic particles to tell someone you love them? No? Then it appears that one can explain reality without appealing to quantum theory.
Stardusty: "For those of us who continually seek greater enlightenment and depth of understanding discarding the ancient macro language is essential."
That's wonderful, but it is irrelevant to the First Way in the same sense that the type of tree burning in his example is irrelevant.
Cal: "Exactly. All of this talk of the First Way properly residing outside of a realm where it can be examined and evaluated on the same grounds by which all other arguments are judged is just a shabby way of indicating that one can't actually defend a patently bad argument."
Except I did just that for you, and showed that it withstood your "rigor". So now you're lying again. You can't blame your constant lying on scientism, that's another problem.
SteveK: "How about you let Legion continue explaining the argument rather than getting him sidetracked on discussions about science and what counts as knowledge."
Unfortunately, the brain rot of scientism is preventing them from even understanding the basic premises. I mean really, how difficult is it to understand what a potential state is? Not nearly as difficult to a normal thinking person as it is to someone mired in scientism.
So, I won't ever get past (2)c until they understand that something can be non-scientific (and understand what I mean by that, as I have clearly done so multiple times now) and still be coherent. I'd be willing to take bets on the likelihood of getting past (2)c based on that requirement, but oh well.
Stardusty: "I say the First Way is a science argument, not because I think Aquinas intended to argue from a modern scientific perspective, rather, that the argument is on a subject within the scientific realm. An argument from motion can be shown to be scientifically false."
" Demonstrate that anything within (1) to (2)c is false." c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act. This language is so simplistic as to be childish by modern standards, but I am glad you acknowledge that the First Way is a science argument in that it is subject to scientific analysis.
Stardusty: "When we grow up we learn to investigate further to discard such notions as not really being as they seem to a child, or seemed to the ancients."
" Except you guys haven't scratched the surface of the First Way, " Funny. I have gone deeper than the OP and I have told him so in explicit criticisms and additional necessary notation I have posted here repeatedly.
Stardusty: "Really, a body of water, like the sun, is composed of a vast number of sub atomic parts, all interacting in a mutual multibody process of causal influences on each other."
" And at the end of the day, water freezes under the proper conditions, so ice is a potential state of water." At the end of the day the sun sets so setting is a potential state of the sun. This is primitive thinking.
Stardusty: "For the average individual to blithely function in life oblivious to what we now know about the underlying reality, yes."
" Do you have to pull out quantum mechanical formulas to demonstrate to someone how to get from one town to another? No? Do you have to appeal to subatomic particles to tell someone you love them? No? Then it appears that one can explain reality without appealing to quantum theory." False. One has not "explained reality" with those macro human approximations. One has only provided high level approximate models of reality.
Stardusty: "For those of us who continually seek greater enlightenment and depth of understanding discarding the ancient macro language is essential."
" That's wonderful, but it is irrelevant to the First Way in the same sense that the type of tree burning in his example is irrelevant." The relevance becomes more apparent as Aquinas begs the question in denying an infinite regress, fails to address the irrationality of an unmoved mover, introduces his own infinite regress, asserts a false and ad hoc understanding, and invalidly implies that human understanding equals existence.
" 3) It's not a science argument any more than an argument that claims a man swinging a bat caused a baseball to land in center left field is a science argument." Yes, baseball is physics, it is subject to scientific investigation and falsification.
After 1100 comments it looks to me that Strawdusty thinks that water does not really have a capacity to freeze. Although we observe this happening all the time at 0C using (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.), but this is apparently some sort of illusion (so much for the study of thermodynamics). If using 'SCIENCE' only leads to illusions then why make such a big fuss that only 'SCIENCE' leads to 'truth'? I guess we have progressed since 'medeval' times when we thought arguments should be coherent.
If the real objection is that 'reality is an illusion' then discussion of the First Way is useless since it assumes that reality is not an illusion.
I still have no idea what Cal thinks about water and ice. Does he think water ceases to exist when ice appears? Does water not have a capacity to turn to ice at 0C? I wish he would tell you his take on this process so you could compare and contrast. Maybe he has a superior argument that things don't have inherent capacities to change in predictable ways. Since he objects to this concept, he must have a different one, but I can't pick it out.
I agree with you that you won't get past 2c, but I think you're doing a service. For instance no one in the thread is doing 'SICENCE'(observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.) but all apparently consider the discussion a way to reach the truth....no test tubes or particle accelerators required.
>> "False. One has not "explained reality" with those macro human approximations. One has only provided high level approximate models of reality."
Anyone who says this is either lying or delusional and can be ignored. "It was a brick in motion that broke the glass" explains reality very well. Nothing false about such a statement.
>> "False. One has not "explained reality" with those macro human approximations. One has only provided high level approximate models of reality."
" Anyone who says this is either lying or delusional and can be ignored. "It was a brick in motion that broke the glass" explains reality very well. Nothing false about such a statement."
Profound ignorance of the theist thus laid bare.
To say "the brick broke the glass" is a valid macro approximation of reality. This statement does not "explain reality", rather, it models reality at a simplified high level that is functionally useful.
To "explain reality" would require a very great deal of examination. For example, that same brick, in the same motion if thrown against lexan would not break a window of that material. Why? Because the reality of the mechanical structure of the glass as compared to the mechanical structure of the lexan are very different. The glass is a material composed of amorphous and weakly bonded silicon dioxide molecules, whereas the lexan is composed of polymer chains of polycarbonate molecules that form very strong bonds.
The lexan and the glass look about the same. Stand back and you probably could not tell the difference. Yet if two bricks were thrown at two seemingly identical windows one would break and the other would not. Simply stating "it was a brick in motion that broke one window and a brick in motion that bounced off the other window" would not "explain reality", merely provide a very crude macro description of reality.
After 1100 comments it looks to me that Strawdusty thinks that water does not really have a capacity to freeze. " Although we observe this happening all the time at 0C using (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.), but this is apparently some sort of illusion" Yes, of course. Don't you know that? Don't you realize that what you see and taste and feel are just high level approximations of a much more complex underlying reality?
"(so much for the study of thermodynamics)." You don't really know anything about thermodynamics, do you? Some hundreds of years ago scientists formulated some very good approximate models of thermodynamics.
But over the years these models were shown to break down under certain conditions, for example PV=nRT generally works well, except when it doesn't.
To account for these inaccuracies more detailed analysis of molecular forces and quantum mechanics are needed.
" If using 'SCIENCE' only leads to illusions then why make such a big fuss that only 'SCIENCE' leads to 'truth'? " What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Science leads to increasingly accurate models.
" If the real objection is that 'reality is an illusion'" Are you trying to be dense? Reality is whatever reality is. It is our perception of reality that is necessarily inaccurate, and to that extent illusory.
" I agree with you that you won't get past 2c," If you don't realize that terms like "potential to freeze" are human concepts of macro approximations that is your problem.
Stardusty: "This language is so simplistic as to be childish by modern standards, but I am glad you acknowledge that the First Way is a science argument in that it is subject to scientific analysis."
This was your response to my request that you demonstrate anything from (1) to (2)c was false. So as a means of demonstrating a part or all of it was false, you state your opinion that it is childish by modern standards.
Needless to say, it remains unrefuted by you and science both.
Stardusty: "At the end of the day the sun sets so setting is a potential state of the sun. This is primitive thinking."
Yes, that is definitely primitive thinking. As far as water freezing goes, that is accurate thinking. You keep taking us on a Fantastic Voyage into the subatomic world as some sort of attempt to say that water doesn't freeze into ice, but thus far, water still freezes into ice regardless of what the quarks are up to.
Stardusty: "False. One has not "explained reality" with those macro human approximations."
It is beyond asinine to expect a comprehensive subatomic thesis when explaining how to get from Orlando to San Francisco. I guarantee I can leave out the motion of electrons on my map, and you'll get there. You have a serious cognitive blind spot with your obsession with quantum mechanics, since you are by all appearances struggling to accept that water freezes into ice.
Stardusty: "Oh, I'm sorry, am I scratching too deep too soon?"
It's rather childish that you're unable to go at my pace, since my pace is quite reasonable given the people I am dealing with. Regardless, your scratching has yet to leave a mark. Perhaps you should take off the scientism mittens and then you'll have a little more scritch in your scratch.
Stardusty: "You theists don't think very deeply, do you?"
StekeK offers an observation: "It was a brick in motion that broke the glass" Stardusty: "Profound ignorance of the theist thus laid bare."
Stardusty's response is literally the dumbest thing that has been said in this entire thread. But we can be even more specific.
Stardusty: "To say "the brick broke the glass" is a valid macro approximation of reality."
No, to say "the brick broke the glass" is a valid description, period. Words are concepts. "Brick" describes the object striking the "glass", which describes the object being "broken", which describes a solid object coming apart when it shouldn't. There is literally nothing in the quantum world you can use to either refute that or to enhance understanding, since no one is benefited in any way by knowing how many protons are in the molecules of the glass. It is utterly irrelevant to the truth of the statement "the brick broke the glass".
All the lexan stuff was completely irrelevant, as well. The statement was "the brick broke the glass". If the brick had bounced off a lexan panel, then there would have been no observation of "the brick broke the glass". Why even bring up lexan?
I think I see what you are doing, though. You are losing badly in the battle of ideas, so you are nitpicking "explain reality" to mean it has to be a fully comprehensive explanation that accurately defines and describes every single aspect of every single thing ever, which obviously no one can do. However, the rest of us here accept certain provisional postulates that this ridiculously technical definition of "explaining reality" is not the only definition of "explaining reality", let alone the proper one to use. When all of us watch a brick go through a glass window and land on a frozen pond, you will be the only one claiming that bricks and glass and ice don't exist. The rest of us will be dealing with reality.
Stardusty: "potential to freeze" are human concepts of macro approximations"
Obviously. Science also deals in human concepts of macro approximations. Every human endeavor deals with human concepts of macro approximations.
The difference is, any change in any thing can be accurately described as a potential becoming actualized. By definition, if the change occurred, then it had the potential to do so, and since it occurred, then it was actualized. Those statements are simply true, and there is nothing in science that refutes them. And unlike science, it doesn't have to be a mechanical description of the inner workings of how things function - if something changed, a potential state was actualized. It's that simple, and it's all the premise needs in order to be true. Which, of course, it is.
An edit to above: Even when dealing with quantum mechanics, much of it is symbolic mathematical formulas which themselves are approximations, even if they aren't "macro". It is impossible for any human to fully and accurately describe any thing, but it is definitely possible for a human to go into far too much irrelevant detail when describing a thing for a particular purpose.
<<<<< After 1100 comments it looks to me that Strawdusty thinks that water does not really have a capacity to freeze. " Although we observe this happening all the time at 0C using (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.), but this is apparently some sort of illusion" Yes, of course. Don't you know that? Don't you realize that what you see and taste and feel are just high level approximations of a much more complex underlying reality? >>>>>
OK, here you've confirmed that you think using scientific methods produce illusions. But on the other hand, you assert that scientific methods produce "increasingly accurate models". Sounds incoherent to me.
"If you don't realize that terms like "potential to freeze" are human concepts of macro approximations that is your problem." Sorry. I happen to be human, as are most scientists (the jury is still out on Tesla) so therefore I use human concepts. What type of concepts to you use? (Sorry Legion, I see you already had a similar response, but I already had mine pasted in the box.)
Stardusty: "At the end of the day the sun sets so setting is a potential state of the sun. This is primitive thinking."
" Yes, that is definitely primitive thinking. As far as water freezing goes, that is accurate thinking. You keep taking us on a Fantastic Voyage into the subatomic world as some sort of attempt to say that water doesn't freeze into ice, but thus far, water still freezes into ice regardless of what the quarks are up to." You have it back to front, not "regardless", rather "because of".
The First Way attempts to answer a fundamental riddle of first cause versus infinite regress of causes. The only way to answer a fundamental question is to understand fundamentals.
The question is not "can water freeze and melt in an infinite series?" or "can wood burn in an infinite series?".
The question is "can there be an infinite series of the most fundamental constituents of existence, or can there be a first cause of the most fundamental constituents of existence, or is there some other as yet undiscovered alternative for the origins of the most fundamental constituents of existence?".
First you must learn to shed your primitive thinking to ask the correct questions. I am trying to teach you this but you are a thus far incorrigible student.
Stardusty: "You theists don't think very deeply, do you?"
Stardusty: "To say "the brick broke the glass" is a valid macro approximation of reality."
" No, to say "the brick broke the glass" is a valid description, period. Words are concepts. "Brick" describes the object striking the "glass", which describes the object being "broken", which describes a solid object coming apart when it shouldn't." Solid object? You do understand the glass is mostly empty space, right?
Shouldn't? That is a rather bizarre choice of words. Why "shouldn't" the glass break? You are somehow assigning intentionality, or right and wrong, or purpose or something...to glass. How very odd.
" I think I see what you are doing, though. You are losing badly in the battle of ideas, so you are nitpicking "explain reality" to mean it has to be a fully comprehensive explanation that accurately defines and describes every single aspect of every single thing ever, which obviously no one can do." Right, which is why nobody has truly explained reality. But we get closer and closer as physics derives ever more accurate models.
" When all of us watch a brick go through a glass window and land on a frozen pond, you will be the only one claiming that bricks and glass and ice don't exist. The rest of us will be dealing with reality." Actually, there are a significant number of us that frequently contemplate the illusory nature of our sense based macro scale models of reality. You are the sort that proudly beats your chest in ignorance of this more enlightened perspective.
" An edit to above: Even when dealing with quantum mechanics, much of it is symbolic mathematical formulas which themselves are approximations," Indeed.
" even if they aren't "macro"." They probably are. If strings or some other more fundamental structure is discovered then the most fundamental things we presently know will be known to actually be derivatives.
Stardusty: "potential to freeze" are human concepts of macro approximations"
" Obviously. " Hallelujah
" The difference is, any change in any thing can be accurately described as a potential becoming actualized. By definition, if the change occurred, then it had the potential to do so, and since it occurred, then it was actualized. " By definition you have created a useless tautology "stuff only does what stuff can do."
In truth, nobody knows why or how things progress in orderly patterns as causal influences mutually propagate.
"Those statements are simply true, and there is nothing in science that refutes if something changed, a potential state was actualized. It's that simple, and it's all the premise needs in order to be true. Which, of course, it is." If something happens then something that could happen happened because something that can't happen can't happen.
Wow, what an impressive insight into how the world works.
<<<<< After 1100 comments it looks to me that Strawdusty thinks that water does not really have a capacity to freeze. " Although we observe this happening all the time at 0C using (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.), but this is apparently some sort of illusion" Yes, of course. Don't you know that? Don't you realize that what you see and taste and feel are just high level approximations of a much more complex underlying reality? >>>>>
" OK, here you've confirmed that you think using scientific methods produce illusions. But on the other hand, you assert that scientific methods produce "increasingly accurate models". Sounds incoherent to me." Yes, I realize my word are incomprehensible to you. Your proximate error is in this statement "you think using scientific methods produce illusions".
Me:" Although we observe this happening all the time at 0C using (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.), but this is apparently some sort of illusion" Strawdusty: "Yes, of course...."
Strawdusty:"Your proximate error is in this statement "you think using scientific methods produce illusions"."
Well I did use Cal's definition of scientific methodology and you confirmed that it was an illusion at 11:20 AM. Then at 4:50 PM it is now an error to think it is an illusion. So hard to keep track.
"Yes, I realize my word are incomprehensible to you." Must be because you use non-human concepts unlike us humans.
Stardusty: "You have it back to front, not "regardless", rather "because of"."
All science except for quantum physics operates perfectly without reference to quarks. All non-scientific observation and conclusions operate perfectly without reference to quarks. That is because regardless of what is going on at the quantum level, what we see occurring on the macro level is in fact occurring. Regardless of the quarks.
Stardusty: "The First Way attempts to answer a fundamental riddle of first cause versus infinite regress of causes."
I more than suspect you are thinking of a different sort of causal series than Aquinas.
Stardusty: "Solid object? You do understand the glass is mostly empty space, right?"
You do realize that the states of matter are a valid principle in physics, right? A solid object has distinct properties, hence why it is called a solid rather than a liquid, gas, plasma, or one of the other oddball states.
Stardusty: "Shouldn't? That is a rather bizarre choice of words. Why "shouldn't" the glass break? You are somehow assigning intentionality, or right and wrong, or purpose or something...to glass. How very odd."
Or, perhaps I'm using language to describe concepts. What do you think the word "broken" means? Have you ever seen something break? How do you know it broke?
Stardusty: "Right, which is why nobody has truly explained reality."
Yes, but a comprehensive explanation (which is currently impossible, if not literally impossible in principle) is not what I or anyone else means when we say "explain reality". When someone says water froze into ice, that is true due to the definition of words. It doesn't enumerate everything going on physically at the subatomic level, but by definition it encapsulates everything going on because it is, in fact, water that froze into ice. So "froze into ice" does describe reality, even if it doesn't define every and subatomic nuance. It is a non-comprehensive explanation that is valid for the vast majority of situations.
Stardusty: "Actually, there are a significant number of us that frequently contemplate the illusory nature of our sense based macro scale models of reality. You are the sort that proudly beats your chest in ignorance of this more enlightened perspective."
I am well aware that things at the quantum level appear very different than things at our level of experience. I'm also aware that I can throw a brick through a glass window and that water freezes into ice. The properties of bricks, glass, and water at the subatomic level do not invalidate bricks through windows or water becoming ice. Unless I am making a claim like "a solid is a solid because there is no empty space between particles" then appealing to the quantum level is not going to be useful or game-changing in the vast majority of situations.
Stardusty: "They probably are. If strings or some other more fundamental structure is discovered then the most fundamental things we presently know will be known to actually be derivatives."
Sure. But there comes a point where if you completely abandon experience and observation at the macro level, you become forced to deny that water freezes into ice. You're almost into simulation territory there.
Stardusty: "By definition you have created a useless tautology "stuff only does what stuff can do."
As I've been saying, the reason Aquinas hits on potential and actual states is not to make a profound observation, but to set the stage for explaining an essentially ordered series later. It's not a useless tautology because it is not supposed to explain how things work, like Cal's phlogiston theory. The First Way doesn't have to appeal to how things work, it simply observes what things are doing and forms a conclusion based upon it.
Stardusty: "In truth, nobody knows why or how things progress in orderly patterns as causal influences mutually propagate."
The First Way is dependent on whether or not things change. If they do, it doesn't matter why or how, the First Way covers it.
Stardusty: "Wow, what an impressive insight into how the world works."
The important question is, can you refute it? Using science, can you demonstrate that when change occurs with something, it was not a potential state of that something being actualized?
Dusty believes in reductionism and physicalism. Both are well known *philosophical* understandings of reality. The tragic irony is he thinks he's being scientific. A symptom consistent with brain rot.
I've spent very little time on learning all the 'isms out there, but the reductionist article referenced eliminative materialism, and that definitely hit some familiar points.
SP "Yes, I realize my word are incomprehensible to you." " Must be because you use non-human concepts unlike us humans." Close.
I use science to go beyond the immediate naked eye human concepts of reality.
Science doesn't "produce" illusions. Science exposes illusions of our sense experience.
Science did not "produce" the illusion of the sun setting. Science exposed that the stationary Earth and Sun moving to set is an illusion. Science did not "produce" the illusion of solid objects. Science exposed that seemingly solid objects are mostly empty space.
Scientists do indeed attempt to get as close to a non-human perspective as possible in that the method is intended to eliminate and correct for human biases and limitations as much as possible.
I want to point out where Legion (et al.) went entirely back off the rails (again).
Usually there’s a low-level rejection from apologists where they a) try to appear rational, while b) rejecting those approaches to rational thinking that threaten their silly beliefs.
Legion: "Sigh. Yes, science can do those things. You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are true.”
What do you mean by “true”? You still won’t explain, despite my asking SO MANY TIMES. And we still don’t know.
Potential states are actualized, and that’s true, and science won’t deal with them because mean old science isn’t… true?
I suppose you mean that it’s tautologically true. But we’re talking about reality, in which case our terms describe real phenomena. So, it’s still on you to define your terms precisely enough so that they describe what we actually observe. If you won’t or can’t do this, then there’s no reason to pay further attention to your comments.
Legion: “I suppose that scientists could wonder if water can freeze into ice and then test it, but that's hardly necessary to the argument because ANY change in anything is a potential state being actualized, regardless of how it happens.”
Gibberish. The only way we can know of any external change is by observation. Observed change is entirely necessary to the argument. Observed change IS the argument. Change that is NOT observed is
Legion: “Those aren't scientific concepts, but they are true nonetheless.”
Sigh indeed. No, those are exactly scientific concepts. We observe things changing (in your phraseology, the potential becomes actual), and THAT is why we can start to follow the argument.
Legion: “Science is less than unnecessary in those premises, because there is nothing to test - it's simply true based on the concepts.”
If there is no change, there is no concept of change. To think otherwise is to be incoherent. (To think is to change; ergo, to entertain the concept of change — first then, then that — REQUIRES change.) This is not complicated or high level stuff.
Legion: “There are no examples of things changing that aren't potential states being actualized, so what exactly is science supposed to test?”
Anything that changes. Only just that.
Legion: “(You seem desperate for me to define truth. Since I can't imagine how this is even remotely relevant to the First Way… "
Hysterical. You are the one who keeps prattling on about things being “true” without defining what you mean by that word. (Here’s you - Legion: “You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are TRUE.”)
I keep on asking you define what you mean by true only because you keep on using that word and insisting that your pet argument works because it is, in your words, just “true.”
Hey, even though my argument equivocates, is unsound, contradicts itself, and begs the question, it’s just true!
I’ll fix it for you: Legion: “You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are true.” Fixed: “You know what science does deal in? Observed change — because observed change can examined and tested, in ways that are objective, reliable, and verifiable.”
bmiller: “I still have no idea what Cal thinks about water and ice. Does he think water ceases to exist when ice appears?”
No — as usual, you have it exactly wrong. Something magically ceasing to exist would be a consequence of Aquinas’s thinking. In fact, as a consequence of Aquinas’ thinking, things MUST disappear when change occurs. That is one of the reasons why Aristotles physics were abandoned so long ago — because in AT physics things go “poof” out of existence, when a more accurate description is that an unimaginably complex set of interacting things undergo motion that results in macro changes that we can observe.
Does the potential for water to become ice exist? The defender of this language says, “Yes!”
When the water becomes ice (in act!), does the potential for the water to become ice exist? Nope, not according to AT physics. That’s said to be impossible.
What’s the consequence of this fuzzy language? That something that once existed (potential) ceases to exist.
The only way to save this is to do away with the fuzziness, and embrace a more accurate and precise set of terms.
Oh, that’s right. The modern world did that looong ago. And here in the outback, like a bunch of Japanese soldiers stranded on an island for decades, don’t know that you lost that war so long ago.
Stardusty: "You have it back to front, not "regardless", rather "because of"."
" All science except for quantum physics operates perfectly without reference to quarks." False. Your use of the word "perfectly" is incorrect. You should have said "to a usefully accurate approximation".
" All non-scientific observation and conclusions operate perfectly without reference to quarks. " False. Your use of the word "perfectly" is incorrect. You should have said "to a usefully accurate approximation".
"That is because regardless of what is going on at the quantum level, what we see occurring on the macro level is in fact occurring." False. What we see happening at the macro level is a usefully accurate approximation of reality.
" Regardless of the quarks." False. Because of the fundamental constituents of reality, not irrespective of them.
You theists don't think very deeply, do you?
Stardusty: "Solid object? You do understand the glass is mostly empty space, right?"
" You do realize that the states of matter are a valid principle in physics, right?" Yes, they are valid macro level approximations.
Stardusty: "Right, which is why nobody has truly explained reality."
" Yes, but a comprehensive explanation (which is currently impossible, if not literally impossible in principle) is not what I or anyone else means when we say "explain reality"." False. I am part of "anyone else" with respect to you. So you are wrong by counter example.
Now, I suppose you might dismiss me as 1/7000000000 and therefore insignificant. However, history shows us that frequently even just 1 individual with a new perspective does in fact plant a seed that changes the perspective throughout educated humanity.
Actually, I am not that unique. A large number of people express these same perspectives. Alas, I cannot honestly lay claim to originating such ideas.
" When someone says water froze into ice, that is true due to the definition of words." If one postulates certain definitions then one can declare "true" or "false" within that closed definitional set, fair enough.
I imagine you think I am being obstinate or obstructionist of pedantic or just a pain in the ass or some such thing. I have a very serious reason for insisting on the illusory nature of our macro level sense perceptions and that truth is found at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence.
The reason is that humanity can only hope to solve this as yet unsolved riddle by learning more about these most fundamental constituents. There is no hope that we will solve this riddle at the level of logic applied to ordinary sense perception, as it has been tried uncounted times and all published attempts fail.
For example, one candidate is that somehow there can be an effect without a cause in ordinary stuff. That seems preposterous and completely counter to our ordinary sense experience but the Copenhagen interpretation holds that entities do not have definite properties until they are measured. Further, some say randomness can be intrinsic, meaning an effect without a cause is commonplace in ordinary wave structures. If true, this would eliminate the need for an original first cause, since there are a multitude of uncaused effects occurring continually.
For another example, light does not "experience" the passage of time, according to relativity. Time goes to zero for electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum, by this model. This is a clue as to how, perhaps, energy could have always existed, because an infinite regress of time is not needed if time equals zero.
And no, I do not claim these ideas solve the problem, but they show my point, that the fundamental constituents of existence act in ways that are very different from our ordinary sense experiences, and that is where humanity has hope of someday solving this riddle, not by rehashing ancient and medieval hack reasoning, such as that of Aquinas.
Stardusty: "You theists don't think very deeply, do you?"
I feel like so much of this thread is watching apologists write knee jerk reactions to thoughts they have never before taken the time to actually consider.
Cal: "What do you mean by “true”? You still won’t explain, despite my asking SO MANY TIMES. And we still don’t know."
A person sitting on a nuclear warhead when it detonates will die. True or false? If you answer "true", you will know what I mean by "true". If you answer "false", I would love to hear your explanation.
Cal: "So, it’s still on you to define your terms precisely enough so that they describe what we actually observe."
This has been done many times, through definition and example. I am fully confident the definitions are sufficient, so obviously the problem is with you, not me.
Cal: "Gibberish"
Your failure to understand simple concepts does not make them gibberish. Perhaps you should begin questioning why you are struggling so much to understand such simple concepts.
Cal: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation."
Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.
Cal: "Observed change is entirely necessary to the argument. Observed change IS the argument."
We do observe change. Change that isn't observed but occurs anyway is not fundamentally different.
Cal: "No, those are exactly scientific concepts."
So now you are saying that potential states and actualized states are terms used in experiments and found in scientific literature? Please point me to the study and journal that uses them.
Cal: "Anything that changes. Only just that."
Except it is entirely unnecessary. By definition, if a change in anything occurs, there was a potential state that was actualized. Science is utterly irrelevant to that premise, and does nothing to contradict it.
(2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another. a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency to that towards which it is moved. b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act. c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act. Objections?
Yes, I object.
The notion of an effect without a cause is in question. It seems irrational, yet for a great many scientists it seems to be the case. This assertion of (2) is highly scientifically debatable.
Is motion change? If a thing is moved it is moved by another, the assertion goes. What of uniform linear motion? X is moving, therefore X is changing position. Is X changing itself or is X being changed by something else or is it not actually changing? If X is not actually changing but X is moving how can it be said that motion is change? If X is not actually changing yet it is in different positions at different times how can it be said that position is a property of X?
Aristotle thought the latter, that speed = force * resistance A-T thinking was that a force had to be continuously applied for motion to continue and that objects went to their natural stationary place.
So, section 2 up to c is highly dubious, although it makes great sense from the perspective of our ordinary perceptions. Beware our ordinary perceptions, they led to many false assessments in the days of A-T and continue to do so to this day for those who find thinking deeply to be tedious.
Me: "What do you mean by “true”? You still won’t explain, despite my asking SO MANY TIMES. And we still don’t know." Legion: "A person sitting on a nuclear warhead when it detonates will die. True or false? If you answer "true", you will know what I mean by "true". If you answer "false", I would love to hear your explanation."
So by true, you are now claiming that you mean "correct", in ways that have been checked, objectively reliably, and verifiably, and that we can reliably predict (test) for these events?
But this is different than what you said earlier -- that you could know things to be true that weren't examinable. Here, I'll remind you of what you had said in response to me earlier:
Me: "If those observations and conclusions aren't correctable, then they are in need of refinement so that they can be examined and tested, and if they are not, they fail to be productive -- which just means that they have nothing to add to the body of knowledge that is most accurately represented by a scientific approach to those things that can be made tractable." Legion: "Being open to scientific inquiry is not the same as needing it. There are countless things I KNOW TO BE TRUE that I have no need of scientific input to know for sure."
So which is it -- that we know things to be true without being able to check on them (the existence of other person, the existence of nuclear warheads, the events that unfold during a nuclear explosion, etc.), or that you know countless things to be true that you have no need to ever examine or test (as opposed to your example, which involves all the things I pointed out we need in order to know)?
It helps if you think about these things for awhile before answering. This is really basic epistemology stuff -- there's a lot written on it, but it's not that complicated. Still, you should spend some time thinking about it before answering. Otherwise, I think you'll continue to struggle with the equivocations found in the First Way.
Stardusty: "False. Your use of the word "perfectly" is incorrect. You should have said "to a usefully accurate approximation".
I write how I speak. "I can hear perfectly well, thank you" does not literally mean that my hearing is perfect. I shall try to remember that I am dealing with Nitpicking Personified. :)
Stardusty: "You theists don't think very deeply, do you?"
We think as deeply as the situation calls for, which is why your struggle to deny that water freezes into ice has amused us so much. To take things to the level that you are attempting to go, we would essentially have to deny all experience. A thing's components do not necessarily share the characteristics of the whole, so to attempt to define everything at the subatomic level is to miss out on what is going on up above.
Stardusty: "False. I am part of "anyone else" with respect to you. So you are wrong by counter example."
If I was referring to you, I would have said "you". I said "anyone else", which refers to everyone else in the thread, and specifically the other theists. Again, I shall try and write more precisely.
Stardusty: "If one postulates certain definitions then one can declare "true" or "false" within that closed definitional set, fair enough."
And this is what I am doing when I say that any change is a potential state becoming actualized, by definition. It requires no further exposition than the definition being met.
Stardusty: "truth is found at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence."
Careful, Cal might start asking what you mean by "truth". As I referenced above, I don't believe the properties of a thing at the subatomic level can truly define the whole thing, since parts do not always have the properties of the whole. And in the case of an argument such as the First Way, I don't believe appealing to quantum mechanics is appropriate simply because the only requirement for the premises to be true is that the definitions are met.
Stardusty: "the Copenhagen interpretation holds that entities do not have definite properties until they are measured."
Contrast this with the macro level, in which we do not have to be limited by dependence on probabilities and our measurements do not affect the outcomes. We can predict exactly where a planet is going to be and can launch a satellite and slingshot it around other planets to arrive at the target planet's location. This is why physicists are attempting to find a unifying theory, because the standard model and quantum mechanics don't fully mesh currently. Both explain different aspects, but neither explains all aspects.
I don't deny that one can truly describe reality without regard to quantum mechanics, but at the level of the First Way's premises (things change), quantum mechanics simply aren't required. The definitions are too general to need it.
These skeptics cannot grasp basic concepts that every normal human being understands because they are blinded by their commitment to physicalism/reductionism. The demand to get more precise is code language for you to state your terms in the language of the physical. Anything else but that is considered "woo" or "gibberish" or "hand waving" or "a model" - but not True(tm) reality.
In the next blog conversation - say, about morality, rationality, humanity, justice, etc - those requirements are jettisoned. Funny how that works.
The reason I asked you for your description of water changing to ice was so Legion could compare and contrast your version to his.
This was your positive response to the question:
"when a more accurate description is that an unimaginably complex set of interacting things undergo motion that results in macro changes that we can observe."
Does this process of "unimaginably complex set of interacting things" undergoing motion and resulting in macro changes have the potential to actually change the water to gold? Or does the process always actually result in ice?
You also wrote this:
"Does the potential for water to become ice exist? The defender of this language says, “Yes!”
When the water becomes ice (in act!), does the potential for the water to become ice exist? Nope, not according to AT physics. That’s said to be impossible."
Is you answer to the question "Does the potential for water to become ice exist?" "No!"? Because it looks as if you are criticizing Legion for saying "Yes!"
Regarding your further remark, when a particular quantity of water is completely frozen, does that particular chunk of ice now have still have the potential to become ice? Would you accept the concept that the nature of water is to be in either a liquid or frozen state depending on the surrounding conditions? That when conditions are above 0C ( in air, at sea level, etc) that a quantity of water will actually be in a liquid state with a potential to be in a solid state if the temperature drops? And when conditions are below 0C (in air, etc) that said quantity of water will be in a solid state (ice) with a potential to be in a liquid state if the temperature rises above 0C?
The Copenhagen interpretation of reality states that until the waveform is collapsed there are various potential outcomes. Once something actually collapses the waveform the object has actual properties so potential states are actualized. This is in line with the potency/act distinction under discussion.
The stochastic process of quantum mechanical measurements likewise does not invalidate the potency/act distinction.
Newton established inertia as the continued cause of motion after the impressed force is removed. Not the object causing itself to move, and not "nothing". Before being called inertia, it was called impetus.
Woo Monger Lawrence Krauss claims the universe is caused by nothing. If some scientists use cause and effect to conclude that effects happen without a cause, it seems they've undermined their own credibility.
Me: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation." Legion: “Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
Reading comprehension.
Try reading what I wrote again. Maybe move your lips or something when you do. Now give yourself time to realize that your reply is just another kind of non sequitur.
Pull. Yourself. Together. Seriously. You seem more unhinged than usual.
Me: "Observed change is entirely necessary to the argument. Observed change IS the argument." Legion: “We do observe change. Change that isn't observed but occurs anyway is not fundamentally different.”
Congratulations. You’ve accepted a key principle of induction — the assumption that what is true for one thing remains true for similar instances across space and time. But this is also (famously) something that you cannot know — you need to accept it as provisional (and necessary), but with the admission that the knowledge is an assumption / axiomatic. This is what I mean by taking some time to actually study things about which you make sweeping statements — it’s just obvious that you haven’t thought about these things very deeply or become familiar with the basic stances at the heart of these positions.
Legion: “I suppose that scientists could wonder if water can freeze into ice and then test it, but that's hardly necessary to the argument because ANY change in anything is a potential state being actualized, regardless of how it happens. Those aren't scientific concepts, but they are true nonetheless.” Me: "No, those are exactly scientific concepts." Legion: So now you are saying that potential states and actualized states are terms used in experiments and found in scientific literature? Please point me to the study and journal that uses them.
Reading comprehension.
Concepts ≠ scientific terms. Like I’ve said, you probably need to calm down and stop worrying about saving face. Think of yourself, and what you can learn, as the audience here, and stop worrying about trying to redeem your earlier comments and positions.
Legion: “There are no examples of things changing that aren't potential states being actualized, so what exactly is science supposed to test?” Me: “Anything that changes. Only just that.” Legion: “Except it is entirely unnecessary. By definition, if a change in anything occurs, there was a potential state that was actualized. Science is utterly irrelevant to that premise, and does nothing to contradict it.”
Reading comprehension.
You asked what science is supposed to test — as if the terms you use are what science examines. I replied that science can test anything that changes. This is obvious. You see, science is NOT the study of terms — it’s the study of real things, by humans, who use tools (of which language is one) to communicate concepts, describe real objects and phenomena, etc. If people study reality with the discipline and precision that scientific processes offer, and they have found that terms like “potency” and and “actualized” are too fuzzy and imprecise for practical use, then they are under no obligation to humor you.
Your terms are not the territory. Reality is the territory. If your terms offer a poor description of the territory, then those who want to study the territory are under no obligation to continue using your map when they have the actual territory for which they can create their own, better map.
Stardusty: "False. Your use of the word "perfectly" is incorrect. You should have said "to a usefully accurate approximation".
" I write how I speak. "I can hear perfectly well, thank you" does not literally mean that my hearing is perfect." Right, so your statement was not literately correct, in other words, it was literally incorrect.
"I shall try to remember that I am dealing with Nitpicking Personified. :)" I appreciate conversational English, and A-T language is a sort of folksy conversational view of things. However, that does not make for a sound argument when attempting to solve one of the most vexing problems known to humankind.
Given the seriousness of the question I think nitpicking precise language is called for.
Stardusty: "You theists don't think very deeply, do you?"
" We think as deeply as the situation calls for, ." You clearly do not grasp the necessity of solving the problems of origins at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence.
Have you ever noticed how cosmologists seem to bounce back and forth from things like string theory to inflation to the ultimate decay of all matter? That is because the answers to why the largest things we observe are the way they are is to be found at the very most fundamental level of existence.
Stardusty: "If one postulates certain definitions then one can declare "true" or "false" within that closed definitional set, fair enough."
And this is what I am doing when I say that any change is a potential state becoming actualized, by definition. It requires no further exposition than the definition being met.
Stardusty: "truth is found at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence."
" Careful, Cal might start asking what you mean by "truth"." I would welcome that. The definition of "truth" is critical.
" These skeptics cannot grasp basic concepts that every normal human being understands because they are blinded by their commitment to physicalism/reductionism. The demand to get more precise is code language for you to state your terms in the language of the physical." What else is there? Can you point me something that is not physical?
" Anything else but that is considered "woo" or "gibberish" or "hand waving" or "a model" - but not True(tm) reality." Indeed.
" In the next blog conversation - say, about morality, rationality, humanity, justice, etc - those requirements are jettisoned. " Not by me. The above are emotions, brain processes, internal dynamic brain structures. No need to jettison the physical to account for them.
" The stochastic process of quantum mechanical measurements likewise does not invalidate the potency/act distinction." LoL asked for objections to 2, a, b, c. The notion of an effect without a cause conflicts with 2.
" Newton established inertia as the continued cause of motion after the impressed force is removed. Not the object causing itself to move, and not "nothing". Before being called inertia, it was called impetus." So, is the object changing? If not, then position is not a property of the object. If not then motion is not a sort of change.
If so either it is changing itself or something else is changing it. Since the First Way asserts it cannot change itself then there must be something else changing the object. But the object is in linear uniform motion in a vacuum, so what else could there be that is changing the object?
The answer is that A-T had physics wrong and their language breaks down to self contradiction under analysis of what we now know about linear uniform motion. speed = force / resistance This is an error, and the language of A-T is build on this error and thus fails when applied to a situation A-T got wrong.
" Woo Monger Lawrence Krauss claims the universe is caused by nothing. " At last we agree.
"If some scientists use cause and effect to conclude that effects happen without a cause, it seems they've undermined their own credibility." One would think so, but that is not the case, as it is rather commonplace to assert intrinsic randomness.
The probabilistic nature of quantum physical measurements are merely not deterministic. This does not violate causality or mean effects happen without causes.
Me:" Newton established inertia as the continued cause of motion after the impressed force is removed. Not the object causing itself to move, and not "nothing". Before being called inertia, it was called impetus." Strawdusty:"So, is the object changing? If not, then position is not a property of the object. If not then motion is not a sort of change."
If you disagree with Newton's explanation then tell us why. His explanation is in line with the First Way.
"speed = force / resistance" is a non-sequitor and is not found in Aristotle's works anyway. It is simply not part of the First Way.
Me:"If some scientists use cause and effect to conclude that effects happen without a cause, it seems they've undermined their own credibility." Strawdusty:"One would think so, but that is not the case, as it is rather commonplace to assert intrinsic randomness."
Yes, woo mongers like Krauss. See item 1 above. But why bring up objections that you do think are groundless? If some effect happens without a cause, then how can one use the scientific method to know it? Here is Cal's description: "(observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.) feel free to give us your own description.
Your entire last post to me was nothing but juvenile gibberish that had no basis in reality. Did you suddenly revert to an edgy teenage personality, or what? Having your profound ignorance demonstrated does not excuse you suddenly throwing in some self-defeating insult in every sentence. Hopefully your adult self will reemerge, and we can again attempt to help you overcome whatever ideological hurdles you've barricaded yourself into so you can see what these simple concepts mean. Let me know when you're ready to abandon the silly tantrums.
Legion: "Your entire last post to me was nothing but juvenile gibberish that had no basis in reality."
Hmm.
Why was pointing out your trouble in reading comprehension juvenile? From the start of my comment:
Me: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation." Legion: “Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
Reading comprehension.
Try reading what I wrote again. Maybe move your lips or something when you do. Now give yourself time to realize that your reply is just another kind of non sequitur.
Why is juvenile to point out that what you wrote 1) shows no comprehension of what I wrote, and b) is a non sequitur?
Stardusty: "Right, so your statement was not literately correct, in other words, it was literally incorrect."
Under certain provisional postulates, perhaps.
Stardusty: "You clearly do not grasp the necessity of solving the problems of origins at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence."
The First Way is not an argument of origins, as Aquinas did not believe it was possible to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning (or not) through philosophical argument. What you are no doubt referencing is not the same sort of causal series that Aquinas is talking about.
Stardusty: "Have you ever noticed how cosmologists seem to bounce back and forth from things like string theory to inflation to the ultimate decay of all matter? That is because the answers to why the largest things we observe are the way they are is to be found at the very most fundamental level of existence."
There is talking past each other going on here, but let's say for a moment that I agreed with you. Using the water/ice example again, there is a clear physical difference between liquid water and ice - one is a solid, one is a liquid. They have a different physical structure on a molecular level. Whatever is going on at the subatomic level results in the clear physical difference we observe on our level.
The thing about the First Way is it only requires observed change for the initial premises to hold up. To go to a ridiculous extreme, we can say that everything is a "thing". Even things that don't exist, we can put an adjective like "imaginary" and then "thing" still includes them. So if we define each and every existent and imaginary object, energy, concept, and fantasy as a "thing", then by definition, whatever you come up with is a "thing". There is no getting around it - all are things.
In a vaguely similar manner, if something goes from "not x" to "x", then regardless of what "x" is, a potential state was actualized by definition. It doesn't matter what physically happened on a macro or micro level so long as that transition "not x" to "x" occurred. The First Way isn't concerned with explaining nature in that sense, and that's why I am saying that for purposes of analyzing the argument, appeals to quantum mechanics would only be appropriate if there was something in quantum mechanics that flat-out contradicted something in the argument.
I see you touched on some things regarding that subject with others. I'll hop in on that when I get back.
Cal: "Why was pointing out your trouble in reading comprehension juvenile?"
You haven't comprehended a single thing I've been saying all along, and blamed each of your reading comprehension failures on me for being obscure, whether intentional or not (even though the definitions and examples are clear). Then you turn around and whine at me about reading comprehension in the most condescending manner possible. That's juvenile, as well as hypocritical. I can stoop to that level of discourse, but I frankly see no point.
Something for you to think about, as I'm sure you undoubtedly will, yep. In the meantime, Stardusty is the one offering up actual ideas, so I'll be responding to him. Feel free to join in when adult Cal arrives.
"speed = force / resistance" is a non-sequitor and is not found in Aristotle's works anyway. " May 07, 2017 3:14 PM
The motion according to Aristotle
One of the fundamental propositions of Aristotelian philosophy is that there is no effect without a cause. Applied to moving bodies, this proposition dictates that there is no motion without a force. Speed, then is proportional to force and inversely proportional to resistance
There are numerous sources indicating Aristotle proposed speed is proportional to force and inversely proportional to viscosity or resistance.
Because Aquinas employed Aristotelian physics his notions with respect to uniform linear motion, motion as change, the prohibition against X moving itself, the requirement that if X is moved it is moved by Y, and the notion of objects possessing properties such as position...all put together lead to self contradictions.
Yes, Aristotelian physics is in the first way, but you have to think deeply enough to analyze the consequences of the statements in the First Way in a variety of circumstances to realize how the underlying Aristotelian assumptions of Aquinas lead to inevitable self contradictions of Aquinas when modern understandings of motion, change, and causality are applied.
Stardusty: "You clearly do not grasp the necessity of solving the problems of origins at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence."
" The First Way is not an argument of origins," The origin of causation is one sort of origin. Was there a first cause or has there always been an infinite series of causation?
" as Aquinas did not believe it was possible to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning (or not) through philosophical argument." Too bad he was not insightful enough to realize the origin of causation is just as insoluble through philosophical argument.
Stardusty: "Have you ever noticed how cosmologists seem to bounce back and forth from things like string theory to inflation to the ultimate decay of all matter? That is because the answers to why the largest things we observe are the way they are is to be found at the very most fundamental level of existence."
" The thing about the First Way is it only requires observed change for the initial premises to hold up." That is were the question begging comes in. Aquinas places his conclusion in the premise ad hoc.
" To go to a ridiculous extreme, we can say that everything is a "thing". Even things that don't exist, we can put an adjective like "imaginary" and then "thing" still includes them." An "imaginary thing" is not an existent thing, rather, it is a brain process, an abstraction, that has no realization outside the imagination of the imaginer.
" So if we define each and every existent and imaginary object, energy, concept, and fantasy as a "thing", then by definition, whatever you come up with is a "thing". There is no getting around it - all are things." To call an "existent thing" and a "non-existent thing" members of the same set of things is a mangling of language. We may as well define anything we wish to be anything we wish. I define a house as a rock, a dog as a blade of grass, and on and on until we have defined the English language into a soup of babble.
" so long as that transition "not x" to "x" occurred. The First Way isn't concerned with explaining nature in that sense, and that's why I am saying that for purposes of analyzing the argument, appeals to quantum mechanics would only be appropriate if there was something in quantum mechanics that flat-out contradicted something in the argument." There is, in some interpretations of QM. That's my point.
Further, in some notions of time and energy the infinite regress stated to be impossible in the First Way becomes possible when time goes to zero. For ordinary objects the causality of the First Way can seem reasonable, but there is no requirement that the fundamental constituents of existence act the same way as the objects we observe.
Legion: "You haven't comprehended a single thing I've been saying all along, and blamed each of your reading comprehension failures on me for being obscure, whether intentional or not (even though the definitions and examples are clear)."
Nope. I've pointed out numerous problems with the language of the argument, and before that with the argument itself. And I've drawn attention to the imprecise language you use, and pointed out how your imprecision is consistent with someone who hasn't thought very long about the subject we're discussing.
Legion: "Then you turn around and whine at me about reading comprehension in the most condescending manner possible."
You are the one whining here. I pointed out that your responses appear to suffer from an acute lack of reading comprehension.
Here it is again:
Me: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation." Legion: “Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
Instead of admitting that the above reply from you is just, well, a complete non sequitur, you pretend.
Grow up.
Legion: "That's juvenile, as well as hypocritical. I can stoop to that level of discourse, but I frankly see no point."
Grow up.
Legion: "Something for you to think about, as I'm sure you undoubtedly will, yep. In the meantime, Stardusty is the one offering up actual ideas, so I'll be responding to him. Feel free to join in when adult Cal arrives."
Stardusty and I agree. Nice try.
Like I said, you're having a bad time of it recently. Take a deep breath. Try and do better.
As I mentioned, this formulation is not in Aristotle's works. The author of this article you googled even says so:
"force=(resistance)×(speed)
(though none of these quantities were unambiguously defined). This notion is not at all unreasonable if one takes as one's defining case of motion, say, an ox pulling a cart: the cart only moves if the ox pulls, and when the ox stops pulling the cart stops."
F=ma is a 17th century definition, so it is unreasonable to force (heh) this definition on Aristotle.
Regardless, the First Way does not rely on Aristotelian physics. It merely states that: Things don't change themselves so if they are changing something else is responsible for changing them. If there are a bunch of things involved in a change then there must be one that is not changing but causing the others to change.
Not Aristotelian physics, not classical physics, nor modern physics contradict this.
Let me know when you are ready to act like an adult. I have been demonstrating your ignorance repeatedly, and you are delusional enough to think that I am the one having a rough time? Heh. I've rarely had such an easy time in a debate.
As far as that part goes that you keep quoting as if you scored some sort of point against me (which would still put me far ahead, so go you), why don't you act like an adult (which hasn't happened in several posts now) and tell me what you meant? Go ahead and prove that my response missed the mark, rather than behaving like a spoiled brat.
Legion: "As far as that part goes that you keep quoting as if you scored some sort of point against me (which would still put me far ahead, so go you), why don't you act like an adult (which hasn't happened in several posts now) and tell me what you meant?"
There are many. I just used the first instance. But here:
Me: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation." Paraphrase: Unobserved change may occur but without the ability to perceive its effects we cannot know about it. If you have a way around this dilemma millennia of philosophers would be eager to hear. [This in the context of your insistence that you know something unobserved to be "true."] Legion: “Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.” Paraphrase: I, Legion, am totally missing the point. I seem to think that Cal is saying that only an observed object changes, but that is nowhere in what Cal has stated or implied. Instead, I will continue to maintain that I "know" some things about external reality that cannot be observed without explaining what I mean or how this is possible.
That's what I meant. Also, I meant everything else I said above. I think my language is fairly clear. I think you have not read for comprehension for several days now. I think if you patiently and carefully re-read my comments you would start to see where you went off the rails (at least more than usual).
I realize this is insulting to you. But sometimes patience and forbearance in a discussion only prolongs and enables ignorance. So I insult in order to wake you up from your torpor. I suspect you can handle it.
Stardusty: "Too bad he was not insightful enough to realize the origin of causation is just as insoluble through philosophical argument."
" Those of us who agree with the First Way disagree with you. That's why we are here discussing it."
Yes, that is the great error of theists who believe they can logically prove the existence of god. They fail to see the flaws in their "proof"
The same can be said for the atheist who thinks god in general is disprovable with logic or that any particular hypothesis for the origin of existence or causation can be logically proved to be physically true.
However, it is possible to show that certain formulations of god are logically false, such as the Christian god, because the Christian god is asserted to possess mutually exclusive properties.
" Cal, Let me know when you are ready to act like an adult. "
Well, whatever assessments of writing behavior may be I don't see much actual topical argumentation.
I think you were a bit surprised that you got so much objection to seemingly obvious statements in just the first handful of lines, say, up to 2c. There is very good reason for that, and it has nothing to do with being contrary or obstinate or nitpicking. It has to do with practicing rigorous thinking.
Those of us who are skeptical and scientifically minded question everything, especially our most fundamental assumptions. Descartes did something similar, doubting himself all the way back to cogito ergo sum.
Even something as seemingly obvious as water forming ice is not what it seems. Science is largely about digging deeper and deeper and deeper, never satisfied with the mere acceptance of the "obvious".
However, it would be foolish to deny the functional utility of our commonplace observations. Unfortunately no human being has been able to use commonplace observations and logic to reason a way to answer the great riddles of our existence, how there came to be something rather than absolutely nothing at all, and how did the motion and causation we observe originate.
If humanity ever solves these great riddles it will not be by rehashing A-T arguments that come out of medieval times and have long ago been shown to fail. Looking at the world around us with our bare eyes and trying to reason our way to such solutions has proved itself a dead end. You can't get there that way.
We already know through modern physics that very small entities have as yet inexplicable actions very different from what we ordinarily observe. If the answers are ever discovered it will be in the realm of the very small by discovering behaviors that do not make sense to us but are in fact the case.
You say " Those of us who agree with the First Way disagree with you. That's why we are here discussing it." Yes, so go ahead. What you have to gain is the experience of reaching that dead end, which will be a great education to you if you are prepared mentally to comprehend it. You will thus realize that to find the answers we must strip away all our illusions of reality to discover how the very most fundamental constituents of existence operate.
"I think you were a bit surprised that you got so much objection to seemingly obvious statements in just the first handful of lines, say, up to 2c. There is very good reason for that, and it has nothing to do with being contrary or obstinate or nitpicking. It has to do with practicing rigorous thinking."
Hey, if you and Cal want to argue that water doesn't have the potential to freeze no matter how many experiments we carry out, then fine, you can't trust experiments.
It's then an entirely different discussion than what does science say about this or that facet of reality.
Cal: "Paraphrase: I, Legion, am totally missing the point. I seem to think that Cal is saying that only an observed object changes, but that is nowhere in what Cal has stated or implied. Instead, I will continue to maintain that I "know" some things about external reality that cannot be observed without explaining what I mean or how this is possible."
THAT is what you thought I was saying by "“Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it”? And you harp on me for reading comprehension?
Analysis of first part: "I seem to think that Cal is saying that only an observed object changes, but that is nowhere in what Cal has stated or implied.
I said "I suppose that scientists could wonder if water can freeze into ice and then test it, but that's hardly necessary to the argument because ANY change in anything is a potential state being actualized, regardless of how it happens.”
(Translation: By definition, when a change occurs, there was a potential state that was actualized. Scientists could theoretically test different things to see what potential states of it they could find, but the argument doesn't need such testing in order to still function. Science is entirely unnecessary to determining whether a potential state was actualized if change occurs.)
Cal: "Gibberish. The only way we can know of any external change is by observation. Observed change is entirely necessary to the argument. Observed change IS the argument. Change that is NOT observed is"
Now, I don't know what the last sentence was going to say, but I inferred that you left off a "not the argument" type thought regarding unobserved change. So based on that inference, I took you to mean that if we aren't observing a particular change, then that change is somehow invalid, and I disagreed in much the same way I would disagree that if a tree falls down in the woods and no one hears it that it didn't make a sound. Which is why I said:
Legion: “Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
(Translation: Whether or not we observe a change, the change still happens and it is still a potential state being actualized. The argument states that we observe change occurring, which demonstrates that change does occur. It does not mean that observed changes are somehow fundamentally different than unobserved changes when it comes to the premises of the First Way.)
Analysis of the second part: "Instead, I will continue to maintain that I "know" some things about external reality that cannot be observed without explaining what I mean or how this is possible."
Legion: "If liquid water freezes under certain conditions, then ice is a potential state of water. If something undergoes some change, then it had a potential state actualized. That is not something science can test, it is simply an accurate logical concept of how things are."
(Translation: There is nothing science can do to disprove that when a change occurs, a potential state was actualized. By definition, a change entails just that.")
Excerpts from the resulting discussion:
Cal: "Water changing state a) is something we can test, and b) and it is an accurate description (NOT a concept!) of how things really are."
Legion: "Yes, science can do those things. You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are true...Science is less than unnecessary in those premises, because there is nothing to test - it's simply true based on the concepts. There are no examples of things changing that aren't potential states being actualized, so what exactly is science supposed to test?"
(Translation: By definition, a change is a potential state becoming actualized. If change occurs, there is nothing for science to prove or disprove regarding whether the change was a potential state being actualized.)
Cal: "I make what should be a commonsense and obvious gesture to the ground rules of argument." (Referring to ""It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge.")
Legion: "Let's see the result when applied to the First Way premises. I'll stick with the ice/water example.
Premise: Ice is a potential state of water. When water freezes, ice is the actualized state.
It's reliable, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's verifiable, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's objective, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's consistent, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. And all background knowledge supports it, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. Yay science and the First Way!
Perhaps I'm being too loose in my language. Yes, science can indeed analyze it, but it is shown to be extremely unnecessary, and ridiculous when applied. So it's not that science CAN'T analyze potential states being actualized, it's simply hilariously unneeded."
Cal: "But that doesn't mean that we can't make more rigorous observations when we want to"
Legion: "And I showed that yes, you can do that to the premises we have done (up to (2)c)), and that doing so is pointless. Because *drum roll* the First Way is not a scientific argument."
(Translation: By definition, a change is a potential state becoming actualized. If change occurs, there is nothing for science to prove or disprove regarding whether the change was a potential state being actualized.)
So, having seen the actual conversation, let's review.
"I seem to think that Cal is saying that only an observed object changes, but that is nowhere in what Cal has stated or implied."
False. I explained what I meant, based upon everything else I have been saying all along.
"I will continue to maintain that I "know" some things about external reality that cannot be observed without explaining what I mean or how this is possible."
False. I never said I know unobserved things without explaining. I did say why science was pointless when it comes to analyzing whether a change is a potential state being actualized, because by definition, it is.
Now to you explaining what you meant: "Unobserved change may occur but without the ability to perceive its effects we cannot know about it. If you have a way around this dilemma millennia of philosophers would be eager to hear. [This in the context of your insistence that you know something unobserved to be "true."]
We do not need to know about a change to know that if a change occurred, it was a potential state being actualized. I can know that based on the definitions of the terms.
Me: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation." Legion: "Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
You appear to disagree (doesn’t, and don’t) with my statement. Your words say that changes doesn’t wait for an observer. (Duh.) The only way that this could be a disagreement is if I said somewhere, anywhere, that change wait for an observer before it occurs. I did not. Hence, you struggle with reading comprehension. Or misrepresentation, which is even more sinister. Take your pick.
Or maybe you just meant that you agree with me. Which makes all your prior comments, and your use of the negatives, don't and doesn't, incredibly misleading.
Legion: "There are countless things I know to be true that I have no need of scientific input to know for sure."
Stardusty: "Yes, that is the brilliance of Aquinas, he says "only stuff that can cause X causes X" We were promised to be shown the importance and value of these inane tautologies" Legion: “If certain people could grasp simple concepts that even children have been proven capable of understanding, then perhaps I could fulfill that promise. Also, your First Strawman of what Aquinas meant is still completely wrong, and again I would love to be able to progress far enough to demonstrate.”
Legion: "We do not need to know about a change to know that if a change occurred, it was a potential state being actualized. I can know that based on the definitions of the terms."
So, after all this, and your incessant, unsupported protesting about the First Way definitely NOT being tautological, you reveal that in fact what you are defending, that what you claim to know, is indeed just a tautology (“based on the definitions of the terms.”).
Cal: "You appear to disagree (doesn’t, and don’t) with my statement. Your words say that changes doesn’t wait for an observer. (Duh.) The only way that this could be a disagreement is if I said somewhere, anywhere, that change wait for an observer before it occurs. I did not. Hence, you struggle with reading comprehension. Or misrepresentation, which is even more sinister. Take your pick."
I explained what I meant. Go back and read it. If you come to any conclusion that is not what I said my meaning was, you are wrong. Get back to me when you know what I meant, since I explained what I meant very clearly.
Cal: "So, after all this, and your incessant, unsupported protesting about the First Way definitely NOT being tautological, you reveal that in fact what you are defending, that what you claim to know, is indeed just a tautology (“based on the definitions of the terms.”)."
If you either refuse to read what I write, or are incapable of understanding it when you do read it, I don't see much hope for you ever grasping the First Way. Total ignorance hasn't stopped you from believing that you have somehow refuted it thus far (you haven't), so I doubt you are bothered by pretending to know what you don't know.
Obviously I would not be on this thread if I wasn't being entertained, and that's pretty much all you are providing me with at this point. But the purpose of starting this latest exercise was because you did not have the faintest clue what the First Way was actually saying, and by all appearances did not understand a single one of its premises, but still felt you were in a position to declare it to be a bad argument, even though every exchange did little more than prove your ignorance. Someone who doesn't have a clue what someone else is saying is in no position to critique, thus you are in no position to critique the First Way.
The only way for someone who agrees with an idea to find out if the idea is in fact bad, is to hold it up to criticism. If it withstands the criticism, there is no need to abandon the idea, but if a deficiency is demonstrated, then the idea should be modified or discarded. So the whole point of this was to go with you, line by line, and show you each premise one at a time, so that we could build upon each previous premise and thus you could see what Aquinas was actually saying. And that would be your opportunity to demonstrate the flaws.
If you want to do nothing else but exchange insults, that might be beneficial in some unknown manner, but we haven't actually discussed one of the premises of the argument in quite some time now. Just tell me if you want to remain ignorant so you can continue attacking the argument, and I'll leave you alone since we aren't getting anywhere. If you are even remotely curious as to what the argument is actually saying, let me know that as well.
>> "All processes of the brain, and thus physical."
Fascinating. So they're all objective things because they're all physical things. They all have mass and all are made from gray matter, blood cells, oxygen, plasma, water etc. Amazing.
(The stuff you learn from kooks. It never ceases to entertain)
The language of the First Way makes a bit of sense on Aristotelian physics, but fails under Newtonian physics.
The physics of Aristotle is essential to the First Way, a fact connected to the term "A-T"
The First Way asserts that for object X: X cannot move itself. For X to be moved something else must move it. Motion is change.
For Aristotle, so called violent motion or unnatural motion or forced motion requires force. The natural place of a solid object, say a flat rock on dirt, is stationary. Push the rock and it will move. Stop pushing the rock and it will stop. Acceleration effects are discounted.
So, the language of the First Way basically works for ordinary, high friction objects if one discounts acceleration. X (say a flat rock on dirt) does not move itself For the rock to be moved something else must move it. While in motion the rock is changed. The thing being changed is a property of X, position. The change in position of X is caused by whatever other thing is moving the rock. If one stops pushing on the rock, the change stops. ...so that all basically works in accordance with our ordinary sense perceptions.
But Aquinas fails under Newtonian mechanics. The language, of course, stays the same, but the physics model has changed, destroying the validity of the language of Aquinas.
Consider linear uniform motion in Newtonian mechanics. X remains stationary unless acted upon (so far no big problem) If we push X it moves (kind of ok still) As X moves its position changes, presumably because we are pushing X (still sort of OK) If we stop pushing X the object does not stop! (Aquinas fails) X continues to change position, said to be a property of X, yet nothing outside of X is changing X, so X must be changing itself!
The language of Aquinas depends on, and assumes, Aristotelian physics. But Aristotle was wrong, therefore the the ideas expressed by Aquinas are wrong from the earliest stages of the First Way.
Stardusty: "If we stop pushing X the object does not stop! (Aquinas fails) X continues to change position, said to be a property of X, yet nothing outside of X is changing X, so X must be changing itself!"
Except if we use the same example of a rock on dirt, the rock does stop because of gravity, friction, etc. It is acted upon by other things and its motion is stopped, so that is in full accordance with the First Way. Aristotle and Aquinas were certainly not correct in all of their beliefs, but this particular objection doesn't hold.
>> "All processes of the brain, and thus physical."
" Fascinating. So they're all objective things because they're all physical things." Depends what you mean by "objective". If you just mean "of an object", then yes, like the above example of ice forming. Ice forming is an "objective" process in this sense, if you mean to say "of objects".
Or do you suppose there is some ice forming ghost floating around nudging all the water molecules together?
" They all have mass" They are all a process of mass and energy and thus a physical process, no ghosts or spirits or gods or whatever required, just mass/energy doing what mass/energy does.
" and all are made from gray matter, blood cells, oxygen, plasma, water etc. Amazing." Indeed, the human body is rather amazing. Your circulatory system, for example, is just one highly complex physical process, or do you suppose an angel squeezes your heart with every beat?
Stardusty: "If we stop pushing X the object does not stop! (Aquinas fails) X continues to change position, said to be a property of X, yet nothing outside of X is changing X, so X must be changing itself!"
" Except if we use the same example of a rock on dirt, the rock does stop because of gravity, friction, etc." Indeed, and I pointed that out above, perhaps you missed it or are reiterating it for clarity. Yes, the rock does stop.
" It is acted upon by other things and its motion is stopped, so that is in full accordance with the First Way." Superficially under ordinary pre-mechanized, pre-Galileo terrestrial conditions, it seems to, yes. That is why Aristotle was accepted for nearly 2000 years, it seemed to make sense in common experience.
" Aristotle and Aquinas were certainly not correct in all of their beliefs, but this particular objection doesn't hold." For Aquinas to be correct Aquinas must be correct now. Thus Aquinas fails now.
With the rock on the dirt the thing that is changing is position. Whatever is pushing X is changing X, according to Aquinas. If I keep pushing the rock I keep changing the rock by changing the position of the rock. For Aquinas, the position of the rock does not change itself, Something else must change the rock by something else changing its postition.
But what of linear uniform motion? For Aquinas to be correct about X Aquinas must be correct about all Xs. A counter example of X disproves Aquinas.
If I push on a heavy ball instead of a flat rock I am said by Aquinas to be the cause of the change of the ball. It is the position of the ball that is changing. As long as the position of the ball is changing the ball is changing and according to Aquinas nothing changes itself.
Yet, when I stop pushing the ball the ball continues to change! Since nothing else is changing the free rolling ball so the ball must be changing itself! Thus, a simple ball violates a core principle of Aquinas.
Aristotle was well aware of this objection. He asserted that the air continues to push the ball. If that were true then Aquinas would be saved, but it is false so Aquinas fails.
A-T language is just that, Aristotelian. The language of Aquinas fails before we even get half way through the First Way.
3,162 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 3162 Newer› Newest»Legion: "I would not say "actuality hot" because actuality is a noun, not an adverb. Actually, actual, actuality, actualize, etc are all different forms of the same concept, but since all aren't nouns or adverbs, all aren't used the same. "Actually hot" in noun form would be "hot in actuality", but that's a lot bulkier."
This is a problem, because you are supposed to be defining your terms, but then you seem to be saying that your definitions aren't to be considered binding because they are bulky. You said that "actually" should not be considered as an adverb, but as the noun "actuality." I agree that it sounds weird to say "actuality hot," but it sounds weird to combine any other noun the phrase in the same way -- "softness hot," "hardness not," "concrete hot," etc. And that is not a problem of language, but a problem for your definition.
So I think you should keep on trying to tighten up your definition. Maybe you'll start to see that the problem is in the muddled concepts, and that making your words more precise will continue to reveal this to you.
Legion: "Now, if he was wanting to point out what you are saying the point is - that only a hot thing causes something else to become hot - he would have said so in the sentence prior, because the example sentence begins with "thus"."
Why won't you guys ever cite? It's truly bewildering.
From the OP: "For example, an actually burning or hot thing, such as a flame, makes wood, which is potentially burning, to be burning in act, and in this way the wood is moved and altered."
So, nope. It still seems clear to me that Aquinas is saying that only a real (actual) and hot thing makes another real (actual) thing become hot, etc.
Legion: "Rather, his point is that something can cause burning only if it is in an actualized state."
Okay. Something that doesn't exist can't do anything. This seems like pretty agreeable stuff to me, so I'll check that one off on the agreed column.
Legion: "Something potentially on fire cannot cause burning, but rather has to be in an actualized state of being on fire in order to cause burning."
Right. And something that isn't actually in motion can't cause another motionless thing to move. Again, agreed.
Aquinas: "He is trying to get the listener thinking about the causal power of actualized states, and the lack of causal power in potential states, for later in the argument. And as we have said all along, neither Aristotle nor Aquinas nor any of us here are trying to say that something being actualized is sufficient to cause any effect, so that is not a valid objection."
Then I don't know think you have been paying attention. We have been pointing out that a motionless thing's mere existence is not sufficient to cause another motionless thing to move. Now you seem to agree with us, and think that this has not been part of our refutation all along?
Legion: "Obviously the actualized state that causes burning must be something hot, but what he wants to highlight is the necessity of the cause being actualized in order to produce the effect."
I can think of few things less remarkable than that a in order for a thing to have a state a thing must exist. This kind of goes without saying, now, doesn't it?
Legion of Logic said...
" And on that note, since we have entered the era of the mega posts again, this evening I will begin the line-by-line analysis. We'll see where the faulty reasoning lies."
Ok, in your line by line analysis please address
Self contradiction
Begging the question
Ad hoc
Non Sequitur
False dichotomy
Further, the incomplete notation of the OP missing these terms
G
E
See these posts for more details and notation
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
April 17, 2017 5:36 AM
Cal: "Legion (earlier): "You also lie and say that I'm trying to use "actually" by itself, when in fact I'm using the noun form (actuality)."
Exactly. You don't discuss "actually", you discuss "actuality". Actuality, as a noun, can be discussed with no elaboration, though it helps to bring in specific examples to illustrate the point. So long as it is understood that the concept being discussed is actuality.
Cal: "You said that "actually" should not be considered as an adverb, but as the noun "actuality."
My point isn't to literally replace "actually" with "actuality" in the sentence, but to use the word properly. No one would say "actually causes" because actually is not a noun. That is what I was getting at. Much like "soft causes soft" is complete gibberish that no native English speaker would ever say with a straight face, but the correct grammatical (still factually inaccurate) form would be "softness causes softness".
Cal: "Right. And something that isn't actually in motion can't cause another motionless thing to move. Again, agreed."
We'll get to it.
Cal: "I can think of few things less remarkable than that a in order for a thing to have a state a thing must exist. This kind of goes without saying, now, doesn't it?"
It's a premise of his argument. It's not supposed to be profound, but rather he wants the reader/listener to have firmly lodged in the back of their mind "actualized states can cause change, potential states cannot".
Stardusty: "Ok, in your line by line analysis please address..."
Feel free to bring up your cited objections when we reach those points.
(1) - For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves.
Aquinas defines what he means by "motion" in (2)c, a potential becoming actualized. In other words, what he means by "motion" is change, and not just physical location change.
So, Aquinas says in (1) that we observe change occurring. Objections?
Legion: "So, Aquinas says in (1) that we observe change occurring. Objections?"
No objections to the quoted words above.
Legion of Logic said...
" (1) - For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves."
A key point being that Aquinas is building upon sense experience. His observations are not mere imagination, rather, observations using our senses.
" Aquinas defines what he means by "motion" in (2)c, a potential becoming actualized. In other words, what he means by "motion" is change, and not just physical location change."
All change is a physical location change. To change state a thing must physically move. To go from potential to actual is necessarily a physical positional change.
" So, Aquinas says in (1) that we observe change occurring. Objections?"
Change is motion. This is an argument from motion. When we observe a change that change necessarily requires a physical positional motion.
Because Aquinas is founding his argument on sense perception of the apparently real world his further observations are rightly interpreted as making sense if and only if they makes sense in our sensory perceptions of the real world we really observe.
April 18, 2017 5:03 AM
Stardusty: "A key point being that Aquinas is building upon sense experience. His observations are not mere imagination, rather, observations using our senses."
Quite so.
Stardusty: "All change is a physical location change. To change state a thing must physically move. To go from potential to actual is necessarily a physical positional change."
Are you referring to subatomic motion? Aquinas would have had no knowledge of atoms, beyond the mistaken Greek concept, so his argument would not be referring to atomic motion. Another school of thought he inherited from Aristotle was what he believed were the three types of change. From http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi022old/arilec.htm
"There are several ways in which things change, becoming what they were not. Aristotle called three ways of change "motion." The three are: quantitative change, increase and diminution (e.g. the growth and decline of the oak), qualitative change (e.g. the changing of the color of the leaves), and change of place or motion proper."
So what he would describe as a qualitative or quantitative change, he would not consider to be a physical movement change. They didn't know about atoms or cell movement, so the First Way argument is not based upon "every instance of change being a physical movement change". Now, whether or not every instance of change is a physical movement based upon modern understanding, we know that neither Aristotle nor Aquinas were making that argument, because they simply didn't know that.
Either way, his point is that we observe change occurring.
@Legion of Logic
I believe one of your interlocutors seeks to limit the discussion of the entire argument to the realm of materialistic philosophy.
Strawdusty:
Because Aquinas is founding his argument on sense perception of the apparently real world his further observations are rightly interpreted as making sense if and only if they makes sense in our sensory perceptions of the real world we really observe.
You may have noticed this but I thought is was worth pointing out.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "All change is a physical location change. To change state a thing must physically move. To go from potential to actual is necessarily a physical positional change."
" Are you referring to subatomic motion? Aquinas would have had no knowledge of atoms,"
Doesn't matter for the validity of his argument today.
For his argument to be valid today it must be valid in light of modern knowledge. I really don't care if a room full of people in his little medieval cult all agreed with him and it all made sense to everybody based on the false notions of the day.
" beyond the mistaken Greek concept, so his argument would not be referring to atomic motion."
Then Aquinas fails already. If his concepts do not stand up over time then they were always mistaken.
" So what he would describe as a qualitative or quantitative change, he would not consider to be a physical movement change."
Then he was wrong and thus his argument is unsound because it is based on this false premise (among many other reasons).
April 18, 2017 12:32 PM
Bmiller,
Yes, that's been the standard all along.
Stardusty,
We can keep that in mind as we go, but the reason I keep pointing out what Aquinas thought is because inserting knowledge he did not have into the argument could theoretically show it to be a bad argument, sure (hasn't happened yet), but it could also twist the argument into being a strawman if we don't follow what Aquinas was trying to say based upon his own knowledge. And this HAS happened already.
So long as you are able to separate your modern conceptions from what the argument is actually saying, it won't be a problem.
Legion: "We can keep that in mind as we go, but the reason I keep pointing out what Aquinas thought is because inserting knowledge he did not have into the argument could theoretically show it to be a bad argument, sure (hasn't happened yet), but it could also twist the argument into being a strawman if we don't follow what Aquinas was trying to say based upon his own knowledge."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; do you mean that we should be evaluating Aquinas's argument based on his "own knowledge" rather than what we understand now?
This discussion is not an indictment of Aquinas's (per se) for thinking what he thought and knowing what he knew; it's a refutation of the argument that he made. An argument is bad when it is shown to be bad, and does not become good by changing the rules of argument. And the rules of argument are what they are -- they don't get to change based on the time period from which the argument sprung.
Agreed?
Stardusty: "For his argument to be valid today it must be valid in light of modern knowledge. I really don't care if a room full of people in his little medieval cult all agreed with him and it all made sense to everybody based on the false notions of the day."
This is central to these kinds of discussions. Anyone reading here can see that the standard for apologists is consensus; the standard for skeptics is consistency.
In other words, apologists feel they have won an argument when they feel enough of their fellow apologists agree with them. That is their standard. And that is why it is so discombobulating for them when faced with measured resistance from a number of critics -- preferably one in which the numbers are not on their side. That is why ridicule is anathema to religious ideas; take away the protective veneer offered by a shared sense of consensus, and the apologist realizes they have been defending the indefensible.
Skeptics feel they have won when an argument is exposed as being inconsistent (with the rules of argument -- invalid, not sound, fallacious, etc.).
And that is why you so often see this played out on the internets -- a single or minority of skeptics, easily and consistently defending a set of unassailable principles, failing to convert the inconvertible because the chorus around them is all the convincing they require.
Isolate a skeptic and he won't change his mind because he can adhere to an objective set of principles -- and objective sets of principles are unchangeable. Ridicule the inconsistent beliefs of the religious and strip away the sense of protection offered by consensus, and many of the religious will back away, because their reasons for believing are only supported by a group whose standards are the whims of that group -- and whims are always changeable.
Cal: "I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; do you mean that we should be evaluating Aquinas's argument based on his "own knowledge" rather than what we understand now?"
Yes. Not to avoid evaluating the argument from what we know now, but rather to delay that evaluation until everyone agrees what Aquinas is actually arguing for.
If we do not evaluate Aquinas' argument based upon what he knew and thus the point he is trying to make - if we inject modern knowledge into the argument, even if that knowledge is factually correct - then there is a huge risk of transforming the argument into something that he is not even trying to say - this thread is proof of that. And if we were to evaluate Aquinas' argument based upon what he is not even saying, then we are not actually evaluating Aquinas' argument.
That's why I'm asking for us to look at what Aquinas is actually saying, based upon what Aquinas knew, and once we know his premises and conclusion, THEN we critique it.
That's why we've been saying it's invalid to claim Aquinas is making an argument from physical motion, when Aquinas believed in three types of change, only one of which was physical motion. Even if Aquinas was wrong about being able to divide change into those three groups, we still know for a fact that Aquinas is not making an argument from physical motion. That's not what he believed, so he didn't make that argument. That's like accusing a witness of lying based upon him not knowing something - that's not a true evaluation of his testimony.
If you don't want to do things that way then I'll abandon the discussion, but I don't see that his actual argument has truly been critiqued.
You're doing well, Legion. Step by step.
Legion of Logic said...
" we still know for a fact that Aquinas is not making an argument from physical motion."
Both of his examples, fire and the staff, are of physical motion.
If he wanted to argue from a change of mind, or a change of color, or whatever, he could have done so.
Aquinas chose 2 examples, both of which necessarily move. A flame obviously moves, and further the wood itself visibly moves in the process of burning. A staff physically moves, and is moved only by a moving hand, not a stationary hand.
You are assuming Aquinas was too dull witted to come up with more generalized examples of things that change without apparent physical motion.
Further, Aquinas states that the wood is both moved and changed (altered), clearly expressing a point about motion differentiated from but related to change.
"in this way the wood is moved and altered"
So, if we substitute your definition of "move=change" then we get:
"in this way the wood is changed and altered"
Altered being a synonym for changed the statement becomes redundant. So again, your definition, when applied consistently, turns Aquinas to clumsy language at best and gibberish at worst.
Worse, is this from the OP:
"Because second movers do not move unless they are moved by a first mover, in the same way that a cane is not moved unless it is moved by a hand."
Obviously, Aquinas is referring to physical motion. A hand moves a cane by changing its physical location, not by changing its color or some other property not immediately recognizable to the ancients as physical motion.
Notice even more clearly, that Aquinas is arguing about a second mover, a first mover, and a moving cane, all in the same sentence! You would have to apply equivocation of the worst sort to switch from "move=change" to "move=move" in the same sentence!
So, I find your assertion that you know better what Aquinas meant to say that what Aquinas actually said to be extremely pretentious, or perhaps just so blinded by your preexisting religious prejudices that you literally are incapable of reading for comprehension the actual words in the actual text.
April 19, 2017 7:49 AM
Stardusty: "Both of his examples, fire and the staff, are of physical motion."
It still remains true that both of his examples are of change caused by actualized states, as opposed to potential states, which is his point for using those examples. So you're still wrong - it's not an argument about motion, it's an argument about actuality vs potentiality, with examples to illustrate.
Regardless, you are leaping all over the place, and I'm not playing that game in this exercise.
Back to the first line, he says that we observe "motion", and defines motion in (2)c as a potential state becoming actualized, which can include any of his three conceptions of change, including physical movement. Does anyone object that we observe potential states becoming actualized, which is what Aquinas clearly states in (2)c to be what he means by "motion"?
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Both of his examples, fire and the staff, are of physical motion."
" It still remains true that both of his examples are of change caused by actualized states, as opposed to potential states, which is his point for using those examples."
I respect Aquinas more than you. I think he was a very intelligent man of letters and reasoning, a prolific writer, who would have said "change" if he meant change, who would have been smart enough to use two different words to mean two different things, and who would have chosen his examples carefully to illustrate his point.
You apparently think he was too dull witted to say what he meant and mean what he said so you have unbridled pretentiousness to say he really meant something other than what he said.
Perhaps I have given Aquinas too much credit for assumed writing skills.
" So you're still wrong - it's not an argument about motion, "
Except that it is known as the argument from motion, he uses the word move over 20 times, sometimes explicitly juxtaposed with change, and his examples are explicitly examples of motion and the example of the staff would require equivocation within a single sentence to make the reference to first and second mover not about motion.
" Regardless, you are leaping all over the place, and I'm not playing that game in this exercise."
You don't mind jumping to 2c when it suits you.
" Back to the first line, he says that we observe "motion", and defines motion in (2)c "a
"Does anyone object that we observe potential states becoming actualized, "
Yes, it is archaic Aristotelian language that is a macroscopic approximation at best, and an invalid anthropomorphization in worse cases.
The First Way is an argument for god based on an attempted analysis of how cause and effect actually works. Among it's many failings is its failure to correctly describe how cause and effect actually work, and thus it has no value as a true argument for the origin of existence, much less of god.
The language itself is defective, so I object to that defective language. I acknowledge that people in medieval times used such defective language.
April 19, 2017 2:22 PM
Legion: "It still remains true that both of his examples are of change caused by actualized states, as opposed to potential states, which is his point for using those examples. So you're still wrong - it's not an argument about motion, it's an argument about actuality vs potentiality, with examples to illustrate. / Regardless, you are leaping all over the place, and I'm not playing that game in this exercise."
Um, it is apologists who jump all over the place here. Equivocation is jumping about. Pretending that an argument's evident confusing language, contradictions, lack of soundness, etc. are all understood in some uncited elsewhere is jumping about. Claiming that an argument is good if judged by different standards than those used in evaluating good arguments is jumping about. Claiming to have provided examples without ever citing those examples is jumping about. Etc.
So stop pretending that skeptics are the ones who aren't focusing on the actual words of the argument. On the contrary.
Legion: " Does anyone object that we observe potential states becoming actualized, which is what Aquinas clearly states in (2)c to be what he means by "motion"? "
Yes. How does one observe a potential state? If a potential state doesn't exist, how can it be observed?
Your language, not mine.
Wow. I had no idea that such a simple concept as the very first line of the argument could cause this much confusion among skeptics.
Stardusty: "Except that it is known as the argument from motion"
And he defines motion in (2)c - potential states becoming actualized. If you are using any other definition of "motion" than what Aquinas himself says he is describing, then you are not talking about the First Way. That's why I mentioned (2)c in analyzing the first line - I'm not making up the definition of motion, because Aquinas says what he means.
Stardusty: "Yes, it is archaic Aristotelian language that is a macroscopic approximation at best, and an invalid anthropomorphization in worse cases."
So Stardusty denies that potential states of things can become actualized. That's a truly remarkable admission that flies in the face of reality. No wonder he can't even begin to comprehend the First Way if such simple concepts that even children can grasp are beyond him. Cue retreat into the provisional postulate known as scientism.
Cal: "Um, it is apologists who jump all over the place here. Equivocation is jumping about. Pretending that an argument's evident confusing language, contradictions, lack of soundness, etc. are all understood in some uncited elsewhere is jumping about. Claiming that an argument is good if judged by different standards than those used in evaluating good arguments is jumping about. Claiming to have provided examples without ever citing those examples is jumping about. Etc."
No, jumping all over the place is not analyzing the premises in order, since one builds upon the previous. All of the things you listed are indeed problems, except for the inconvenient fact that I did none of them. The first line says we observe that some things are in motion, and motion is clearly defined in (2)c. There is no ambiguity there, you either agree with Aquinas or you deny reality like Stardusty did.
Cal: "So stop pretending that skeptics are the ones who aren't focusing on the actual words of the argument."
Stardusty is doing exactly that by ignoring the definition of motion in (2)c. Of course he denies that potential states of things can become actualized, so obviously he is not a very good judge of reality.
Cal: "Yes. How does one observe a potential state? If a potential state doesn't exist, how can it be observed?"
One uses reason. If you set water outside in the winter and you watch it freeze into ice, then you melt it and boil it and it becomes steam, then congratulations, you have just witnessed potential states of water becoming actualized.
Or do you also deny that things have potential states that can become actualized given the right conditions, despite the fact that we see this very thing countless times every day?
Legion: "So Stardusty denies that potential states of things can become actualized. That's a truly remarkable admission that flies in the face of reality."
Things move. Things that don't exist don't move. That is reality. What you describe is fanciful.
Legion: "No wonder he can't even begin to comprehend the First Way if such simple concepts that even children can grasp are beyond him."
The simple concept you describe is fanciful. A potential state is, by the terms of your definitions no thing, does not exist, and thus cannot move.
Only real things can move. If you disagree, then you are the one who thinks as a child.
Legion: "The first line says we observe that some things are in motion, and motion is clearly defined in (2)c."
You describe 2c as, "potential states becoming actualized."
The OP states 2c to be this: " In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act."
These are different statements. Neither is clear.
And that is because neither you nor the OP will respond to my question about how it is that a potential thing can exist.
If you won't answer that simple question, then your definitions remain hopelessly muddled.
Is that focused enough for you?
Me: "Yes. How does one observe a potential state? If a potential state doesn't exist, how can it be observed?"
Legion: "One uses reason. If you set water outside in the winter and you watch it freeze into ice, then you melt it and boil it and it becomes steam, then congratulations, you have just witnessed potential states of water becoming actualized."
Nope. You have observed real things changing. Everything you describe is an observation of a real (actual) thing, never a potential none-thing.
As we have been saying, your terminology remains a kind of gibberish.
Cal: "Things move. Things that don't exist don't move. That is reality. What you describe is fanciful."
So we have two skeptics who deny that ice is a potential state of water. Incredible.
Cal: "The simple concept you describe is fanciful. A potential state is, by the terms of your definitions no thing, does not exist, and thus cannot move."
What is this even trying to address?
Cal: "The OP states 2c to be this: " In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act."
Yes, which is exactly what I said. The version of the First Way I am familiar with says this: "For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality." If, according to the First Way, motion is the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality, then to move something is to actualize a potential state of that thing. There is zero contradiction there.
Cal: "And that is because neither you nor the OP will respond to my question about how it is that a potential thing can exist."
The definition of "potential" I offered addresses this. An intrinsic capacity within a thing that has not been realized, is not in effect, etc. Ice is a potential state of water. Glowing is a potential state of a light bulb that's off. Unless you deny that things have states that they could be in, but are not, then you can't deny that potential states exist. That's not fanciful, that's reality. (Cue provisional postulates)
Cal: "Nope. You have observed real things changing. Everything you describe is an observation of a real (actual) thing, never a potential none-thing."
You have indeed observed real things changing. You have also observed water becoming one of its potential states. A reasonable person who placed water in a cold environment and observed it freezing, then watched it melt back at room temperature, would conclude that ice is a potential state of water given the correct conditions. There is nothing controversial about that.
Stardusty: "Yes, it is archaic Aristotelian language that is a macroscopic approximation at best, and an invalid anthropomorphization in worse cases."
"So Stardusty denies that potential states of things can become actualized. That's a truly remarkable admission that flies in the face of reality. "
"Reality". Since you raise my supposed lack of grasp of it, allow me to address it, on the postulates of logic, math, and the basic reliability of the human senses.
The A-T language you employ fails to describe reality. You are applying a macro approximation, or perhaps anthropomorphization of water. Liquid water molecules are not floating around thinking "one day I could become ice". They simply have an average kinetic energy (temperature) and when that energy level drops, bonds form between the molecules at particular angles due to intermolecular forces.
"Reality".
But why? Because of the interatomic forces of hydrogen and oxygen that formed the water molecules. But why? Because of the subatomic forces between the electrons, neutrons, and protons. But why? Because of the nuclear forces between the quarks. But why? Because some of fundamental structure of the universe that is highly accurately, but not completely, described by quantum mechanics and the whole of modern physics.
But why? Nobody knows, but a whole lot of very bright people continue to work on these issues of fundamental structures of "reality".
"Reality". All we know so far tells us that cause and effect is a continuous or continual multibody process of vast complexity. This process is far too complex to analyze in detail so we make large scale approximations or macro analytical models. Fine, I'm gonna live my life and I can't calculate nuclear forces to do so.
But must there be a first mover, a first cause? To answer this question we must dispense with our macro approximations and anthropomorphizations, rather, consider the very smallest and most fundamental structure of the universe. That is where the answer to our question of the origin of existence resides, in the unanswered question of the fundamental structure of the universe.
A-T language is inherently defective and unable to get us to "reality".
Literally nothing you said contradicts the premise of the First Way which states that potential states of things become actualized. The only way to deny that premise is to deny reality. The anthropomorphic angle you are attempting to employ is bizarre and not applicable to the First Way.
See, the problem once again is your commitment to scientism. By all appearances, you believe that if a description is not scientific in nature, then it does not apply or is not useful. I can discuss virtually any subject without appealing to scientific description and still be accurate, because science is not synonymous with truth. Science is a particular description of reality that does not, and cannot, fully describe it.
If you can't even agree with the obvious truth of the first premise, which is by far the simplest premise and most difficult to deny, then you aren't even remotely qualified to ponder the first mover.
Legion of Logic said...
" Literally nothing you said contradicts the premise of the First Way which states that potential states of things become actualized."
We can consider the macro approximation language of A-T from our human perspective. It seems to us that a whole collection of molecules is an object in some particular state, and that this object we can imagine can be changed to some other state if we take some sort of action or it is subjected to some sort of process.
" See, the problem once again is your commitment to scientism. "
I have no commitment to "scientism" that I am aware of. I guess that depends how you define the word. I never refer to myself as a "scientismist", and I doubt very much that you can accurately characterize my views about science in general.
"By all appearances, you believe that if a description is not scientific in nature, then it does not apply or is not useful."
Different sorts of descriptions are useful for different sorts of things. To learn the origins of existence we must learn fundamental physics. To live day to day we make many sorts of approximations and macro classifications.
" I can discuss virtually any subject without appealing to scientific description and still be accurate, because science is not synonymous with truth. Science is a particular description of reality that does not, and cannot, fully describe it."
That depends how you define "truth".
" If you can't even agree with the obvious truth of the first premise, which is by far the simplest premise and most difficult to deny, then you aren't even remotely qualified to ponder the first mover."
A-T language has utility as a means for humans to model reality and function. It is very clumsy and dubious to use in a serious modern discussion of causality which is why physicists who discuss causality never use A-T language. You can frame a discussion of how things appear to work at our ordinary level of perception using A-T language if you wish, but if you do not keep in mind at all times that you are employing obsolete language of macro approximations that does not adequately describe the realities of fundamental physics you are not even remotely qualified to ponder the first mover.
April 20, 2017 1:02 PM
You do realize that your last paragraph illustrates my point - physicists, physics, "serious discussion"...if it isn't science, it isn't serious. If scientists don't use it as part of science, it isn't adequate. That is scientism.
The First Way is not a science argument. It is what Aquinas believes to be the logical conclusion of what we observe about potential states of things becoming actualized, and how only actualized states have causal power. Of course scientists don't talk about such notions as part of science - they aren't scientific. That doesn't mean they aren't true.
Unless you can demonstrate that potential and actualized states do not describe things that are real, you have no grounds to reject the first premise.
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" You do realize that your last paragraph illustrates my point - physicists, physics, "serious discussion"...if it isn't science, it isn't serious."
If it isn't a discussion of how things work at the very smallest scales then it isn't a discussion about reality that applies to the origin of existence.
Nobody knows if string theory is correct but the asserted strings are modeled as being at the Plank scale, much smaller than any ordinary particles we are familiar with. This immediately dictates not only the structure of our big bang (the largest structures we can observe) but also leads to certain conclusions about the speculated multiverse.
To know how things got to be the way we are we must study the very smallest, most fundamental, structures of existence, which in turn dictate the very largest structures, thus potentially falsifying certain models of the very smallest.
Science is the only tool we have for discovering these fundamental realities, both at the very smallest and the very largest scales.
" If scientists don't use it as part of science, it isn't adequate."
If you have another tool for study of fundamental reality at the Plank scale and at the big bang please share it with the rest of us.
April 20, 2017 7:24 PM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
" The First Way is not a science argument."
Of course it is. It is an argument from motion. Aristotle was wrong about motion. Science proved Aristotle wrong about motion.
" It is what Aquinas believes to be the logical conclusion "
Logic is wonderful, perhaps you would call me a logicist, but we cannot merely reason our way to the reality of how existence is structured. An iterative process of observation and reason is required.
Aquinas actually does this in a rudimentary form, you may not have realized. He employs the rudiments of science, observation and reason. His foundation is our sense perception, and he seeks to make logical conclusions that are in line with our sense perception, which is the core of what science does.
Aquinas was thus an early practitioner of a sort of rudimentary science. Unfortunately, he did not have access to technological aids to the senses such as telescopes and particle accelerators, and his logic is faulty, but I give him a lot of credit for the attempt to apply logic to observation, the core of the scientific method.
"of what we observe about potential states of things becoming actualized, and how only actualized states have causal power. Of course scientists don't talk about such notions as part of science - they aren't scientific."
Not any more. They are a process of applying logic to observation, but the observational methods have become obsolete and the logic was shown to be faulty, so modern scientists have moved on.
" That doesn't mean they aren't true."
Depends how you define "true". It is true that we function using macro scale approximations, models, analogs of systems far too complex to analyze completely even if we could measure every parameter accurately (which is not possible even in principle).
It's not that I think macro scale approximations are somehow bad or stupid, in fact, they are the only way we can function. My purpose in being so apparently stubborn and persnickety on what seems to you to be such a fundamental and incontrovertible point is that we cannot emphasize too strongly that A-T language does not actually address the fundamental and is in fact controvertible.
But, I think you have done a fine job of summarizing the language and concepts employed at that time.
" Unless you can demonstrate that potential and actualized states do not describe things that are real,"
What is really real is that everything is in a continuous/continual mutual multibody causal relationship with everything else. In classical relativity causal effects propagate locally no faster than the speed of light described as a light cone. Some indications point to non-local (super luminal) propagation of causal effects, and contrary to ordinary logic certain experiments actually support the notion of an effect without a cause, so called intrinsic randomness.
But yes, we human beings don't ordinarily consider all of that. We tend to think of objects that can or cannot do certain things, and causes that make those objects do the things they can do, but not do the things they can't do. So, at the human scale A-T language seems fairly reasonable, which is why it found favor for some 2 millennia.
April 20, 2017 7:24 PM
"If it isn't a discussion of how things work at the very smallest scales then it isn't a discussion about reality that applies to the origin of existence."
1) This argument isn't about the origin of existence.
2) This argument isn't about how things work at the smallest scales. Motion/change works at the macro scale. Causality works at the macro scale.
SteveK said...
SP "If it isn't a discussion of how things work at the very smallest scales then it isn't a discussion about reality that applies to the origin of existence."
" 1) This argument isn't about the origin of existence."
The argument asserts "~I". Now, as I have already shown, Aquinas begs the question in that assertion, invalidating his argument, but let's just ignore for a moment that structural defect in the argument of Aquinas.
If "I" is the case then there simply is no need for a first mover. In that case the answer to the origin of existence is that motion continues infinitely into the past, and therefore existence must continue infinitely into the past, since it makes no sense to speak of infinitely occurring motion without an infinitely existing existence.
However, if "~I" is the case then existence is either finite or existence is infinite but motion is finite, neither case logically requires a god or is explained by god since on a god that god exists, so the same questions apply to it, explaining nothing.
But the argument asserts that "~I" is understood by all to be god, which is not a claim to existence of god, rather merely a claim to universal human understanding of a first mover. Still, the First Way is purported to be an argument for god, so on this asserted universal view god created our existence and set it in motion at a finite time in the past.
So, how you can say this is not an argument about the origin of existence I don't know, since it palpably is.
" 2) This argument isn't about how things work at the smallest scales."
Indeed, that is one of many reasons the argument fails as a modern argument from motion.
" Motion/change works at the macro scale."
Sorry, you just do not know much of anything about how the universe works. Nobody knows everything, of course, but all change is a function of fundamental motion, molecular motion, atomic motion, subatomic motion.
I realize LoL thinks I am belaboring certain points obstinately or unnecessarily. But your comment exposes the wrong headedness I anticipated and seek to prevent at the outset.
Motion/change is properly understood only as the aggregate behavior of a vast number of subatomic constituents.
" Causality works at the macro scale."
That's like saying an engine runs at the macro scale, or a computer works at the macro scale. What makes these macro assemblages work? The aggregate behavior of all the little parts.
If you want to learn how your car engine works the answer is not "you cause the engine to turn by turning the key and it starts to turn and keeps turning until you cause the engine to stop by turning the key the other way". While that macro causal analysis is what one needs for a human functional interaction it does not analyze how your car engine actually works. You have to learn a great deal about the subsystems and their components to truly learn what causes a car engine to work, and what causes it to stop working without a human wishing it to stop.
Causality works at the very smallest scales and we perceive ourselves interacting with the aggregate of those vast numbers of causal effects.
April 21, 2017 4:02 PM
>> "So, how you can say this is not an argument about the origin of existence I don't know, since it palpably is."
The First Way is an argument about the "here and now". It has NOTHING to do with the past. This point has been made several times. You are such an ignorant and dishonest person.
(the below is a distraction and has NOTHING to do with the argument)
>> "That's like saying an engine runs at the macro scale, or a computer works at the macro scale"
I say it because it's true. It's true that F=mA works at the macro scale. It works very well, in fact. I don't need to know what occurs at the subatomic level - or the Unmoved Mover level - to know that that the resulting "F" causes change.
A couple things.
One, this is by no means an argument regarding the origin of the universe. Aquinas did not believe it could be logically demonstrated that the universe had a beginning. The First Way ultimately deals with contingent causes - things with causal power, but whose causal power is derived from another cause acting upon them. It is a simultaneous causal series, like a train, rather than a subsequent series, like child/parent/grandparent. Whether the universe was eternal or had a beginning, the First Way leads to the same conclusion.
Two, while it is certainly possible to take the logic of the First Way and descend into the quantum world, it doesn't change the basic premises of the argument - something must be actualized in order to have causal power, and contingent causes cannot extend to infinity or else no causal power would exist. That holds true on the micro or macro scale. Much like our consisting mostly of empty space doesn't prevent me from stubbing my toe and swearing like a sailor, the spooky stuff going on at subatomic levels doesn't get around the problems of an infinity of contingent causes - it has to terminate somewhere.
SteveK said...
" The First Way is an argument about the "here and now". It has NOTHING to do with the past. "
WTF? The asserted first mover would be in the past, certainly further back than any human memory or history, else it would not be first, now would it?
Aquinas even explores (fallaciously) the assertion of an infinite regress of movers, thus an infinite past.
Yet you say the First Way "has NOTHING to do with the past. " Were you drunk at the time you wrote that? I mean, WTF?
"It's true that F=mA works at the macro scale. It works very well, in fact."
In fact, Newton was wrong. F!=mA. F~=mA at low velocities. In most cases the error can be neglected for practical functioning.
" I don't need to know what occurs at the subatomic level"
You don't even know that Aquinas was making an argument about a regress of events into the deep past, much less the past at all, so your level of knowledge is clearly negligible.
April 22, 2017 9:25 AM
Legion of Logic said...
" contingent causes cannot extend to infinity or else no causal power would exist."
I thought you did not want to jump around. You have already skipped ahead to where Aquinas begs the question about "~I" in 4.
" the spooky stuff going on at subatomic levels doesn't get around the problems of an infinity of contingent causes - it has to terminate somewhere."
Again, you are skipping ahead to the question begging Aquinas commits in 4.
April 22, 2017 10:47 AM
Stardusty,
You mentioned the first mover (the conclusion) in your post on April 20, 2017 at 11:10 AM. You mentioned the line to the theology students "and this everyone understands to be God" in your post on April 21, 2017 at 8:07 PM. It certainly did jump, though there is no question begging (as I shall demonstrate once we get there) at that point.
So I suppose the question remains, do you agree with what Aquinas says in the first line?
(1) - For it is certain and evident to the senses that something in this world moves.
He says that we observe "motion", and defines motion in (2)c as a potential state becoming actualized. Does anyone object that we observe potential states becoming actualized, which is what Aquinas states in (2)c to be what he means by "motion"?
>> "Aquinas even explores (fallaciously) the assertion of an infinite regress of movers, thus an infinite past.
Yet you say the First Way "has NOTHING to do with the past. " Were you drunk at the time you wrote that? I mean, WTF?"
Here we are, over 1000 comments, and still this IDIOT is unable to grasp the basics of the argument. How many times has causal series ordered per accidens vs. causal series ordered per se been discussed and clarified? Probably a dozen times. These so-called rational skeptics cannot reason their way out of a wet paper bag.
These are the people you are dealing with, Legion. God be with you.
Legion: "Does anyone object that we observe potential states becoming actualized, which is what Aquinas states in (2)c to be what he means by "motion"? "
Yes, I object. I object because the language is unclear -- it muddles things.
As explanation, you wrote:
Legion: "You have indeed observed real things changing. You have also observed water becoming one of its potential states. A reasonable person who placed water in a cold environment and observed it freezing, then watched it melt back at room temperature, would conclude that ice is a potential state of water given the correct conditions. There is nothing controversial about that."
If all you mean by potential is possible -- that whatever change occurs was possible because it occurred, then, well, this shouldn't be controversial.
But if you mean by potential that a state of ice exists independent of water, and that this potential pops into existence ex nihilo (as opposed to being a description of real things being arranged), then I think you are speaking in a kind of gibberish.
Do you have an answer yet for how it is that a potential thing exists? I think that if you try and work that out, you'll see the problem inherent in the language you are trying so hard to salvage, and learn more about why it is that the language was abandoned so very long ago.
"These are the people you are dealing with, Legion. God be with you."
I have no expectation of ever getting past the first line. At this point I'm simply fascinated.
Cal: "Do you have an answer yet for how it is that a potential thing exists?"
If it helps you to think of a potential state as a possibility, as you said, then that could work. Due to the inherent properties of water, it is possible for water to turn into steam or ice given the correct conditions, so those are potential states of water. It isn't possible for water to turn into a couch, so a couch is not a potential state of water.
Think of it like this. Any state a thing could be in (given its properties) but is not in, is a potential state. The state it is in is its actualized state. So ice is a potential state of liquid water, and liquid water is a potential state of ice.
Legion: "Think of it like this. Any state a thing could be in (given its properties) but is not in, is a potential state. The state it is in is its actualized state. So ice is a potential state of liquid water, and liquid water is a potential state of ice."
In the 2(c) you keep referring to (actual text here -- Aquinas (from, 2(c)): "In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act."), which is the "a thing" that is being brought to an actualized state -- the liquid water that becomes ice, or the potential ice that becomes actual (real)?
I think if you could just clarify that for me I'd like to move forward.
SteveK said...
>> "Aquinas even explores (fallaciously) the assertion of an infinite regress of movers, thus an infinite past.
Yet you say the First Way "has NOTHING to do with the past. " Were you drunk at the time you wrote that? I mean, WTF?"
" Here we are, over 1000 comments, and still this IDIOT is unable to grasp the basics of the argument. How many times has causal series ordered per accidens vs. causal series ordered per se been discussed and clarified? Probably a dozen times. These so-called rational skeptics cannot reason their way out of a wet paper bag."
Gee, that's a lot of name calling and Aristotelian ideas but what about your claim that "First Way has NOTHING to do with the past "?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt suggesting you were drunk at the time you wrote that, hoping it was some sort of temporary mental debilitation.
Obviously, a first mover would have done it's first moving in the past, else it would not be first. Are you still too drunk to understand this simple logic? Spending too much time at the pub? This is pretty simple.
The asserted first mover would have necessarily acted to impart the first motion in the past. You do know what the past is, right? That's the stuff that happened before right now, ok? Do you get that much at least?
April 23, 2017 4:11 PM
Stardusty: "The asserted first mover would have necessarily acted to impart the first motion in the past. You do know what the past is, right? That's the stuff that happened before right now, ok? Do you get that much at least?"
Trust me; he doesn't get that much.
"The asserted first mover would have necessarily acted to impart the first motion in the past."
This is not part of the First Way argument. That's my point, and since it's true you can stop mentioning it here.
Cal,
In the case of water freezing, it would be the inherent capacity for water to become ice that is being actualized. So I guess with your two choices, it would be the potential ice becoming actual. That's assuming I understand your question.
"The asserted first mover would have necessarily acted to impart the first motion in the past."
SteveK: "This is not part of the First Way argument. That's my point, and since it's true you can stop mentioning it here."
The past describes time, and motion involves time.
You are so slow that you don't even understand that much.
Sad.
Legion of Logic said...
" In the case of water freezing, it would be the inherent capacity for water to become ice that is being actualized. "
That is how people often think of things. It is a kind of folk science, which is what A-T language reflects.
"So I guess with your two choices, it would be the potential ice becoming actual. That's assuming I understand your question."
False dichotomy. Water molecules form or break bonds with each other according to intermolecular forces, presence of other substances in solution, temperature, and pressure.
That's how causality works. Everything is in a continuous/continual process of the propagation or mutual causal effects with everything else. A-T language no longer has analytical value.
But yes, if you want to agree upon certain archaic folk science terms for the purpose of a folk science discussion then OK, you have defined those terms pretty well.
April 26, 2017 2:07 PM
"The past describes time, and motion involves time."
OMG, you've found the fatal flaw in the argument! #sarcasm
That wet paper bag is a real challenge, I see. Sad.
SteveK said...
SP "The asserted first mover would have necessarily acted to impart the first motion in the past."
" This is not part of the First Way argument."
(4) But this cannot proceed to infinity
(5) Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at (or come to) a first mover which is not moved:"
Motion occurs over time, it is a process. An infinity of motion necessarily requires an infinity of time.
"To come to" is an arrival over time.
The time being reference is necessarily past time
" That's my point, and since it's true you can stop mentioning it here."
In your cloud of intoxication it seems true to you. If you ever sober up you should realize your idea is nonsense.
April 26, 2017 10:43 AM
Me: "In the 2(c) you keep referring to (actual text here -- Aquinas (from, 2(c)): "In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act."), which is the "a thing" that is being brought to an actualized state -- the liquid water that becomes ice, or the potential ice that becomes actual (real)?"
Legion: "In the case of water freezing, it would be the inherent capacity for water to become ice that is being actualized. So I guess with your two choices, it would be the potential ice becoming actual. That's assuming I understand your question."
Okay, thanks for answering.
So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist).
Stardusty: "That is how people often think of things. It is a kind of folk science, which is what A-T language reflects."
So you are saying that water does not have the inherent capacity to become ice? 'Kay. Folk science ftw.
Stardusty: "Water molecules form or break bonds with each other according to intermolecular forces, presence of other substances in solution, temperature, and pressure."
You're right. A potential is an inherent property of a thing that manifests, if you will, given the right conditions. Such as what happens when water freezes, which it won't do if not under the right conditions. Aquinas knew this to be true even not knowing anything about water molecules, so it is good that "folk science" is validated by science.
Stardusty: "That's how causality works. Everything is in a continuous/continual process of the propagation or mutual causal effects with everything else."
This is hardly damaging to the argument.
Stardusty: " A-T language no longer has analytical value."
Not in science. But then, science is not the only valid method of analysis.
Stardusty: "But yes, if you want to agree upon certain archaic folk science terms for the purpose of a folk science discussion then OK, you have defined those terms pretty well."
I'm assuming you meant this to be dismissive or scornful, but it's actually progress. You've realized that it's not a science argument and wasn't meant to be one. You're still a bit behind the curve with "folk science" since you're still using the science word, but that's progress nonetheless.
Cal: "So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist). "
Yes. There are nuances, but I think this could be a functional understanding.
Ready to move on?
SteveK said...
" OMG, you've found the fatal flaw in the argument! #sarcasm"
If by "the" argument you mean the First Way it suffers from begging the question, ad hoc assertion, factually false premise, false dichotomy, and non-sequitur.
More generally A-T language suffers from being just a folksy set of notions about causality that are now obsolete.
The OP suffers further from the glaring omission of G and E from his notation.
I summarized and restated these many deficiencies in "the" argument in this series of posts:
March 12, 2017 9:25 AM
March 12, 2017 9:27 AM
March 12, 2017 9:28 AM
March 12, 2017 10:10 AM
Your inane scattered quips do nothing to correct the many flaws of "the" argument detailed therein.
April 27, 2017 8:58 AM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: " A-T language no longer has analytical value."
" Not in science."
Hallelujah!
" But then, science is not the only valid method of analysis."
Aquinas is practicing a rudimentary sort of science, beginning with observation of the apparently real world and attempting to apply logic to observations to explain the origin of the observed system.
Aquinas failed, of course, and the language he employed was a factor in his failure, but I give him a lot of credit for the attempt since it was so very long ago.
Stardusty: "But yes, if you want to agree upon certain archaic folk science terms for the purpose of a folk science discussion then OK, you have defined those terms pretty well."
" I'm assuming you meant this to be dismissive or scornful, but it's actually progress. You've realized that it's not a science argument"
Wrong, it is a folk science argument that fails as it is replaced with modern science and analytical techniques.
April 28, 2017 1:52 PM
Stardusty: "Wrong, it is a folk science argument that fails as it is replaced with modern science and analytical techniques."
Wrong. It is not a science argument, nor is it a folk science argument, nor is it a proto-science argument. Observations and conclusions are made routinely without being scientific. Adherents to scientism often make this mistake - science uses observation and conclusion, ergo any use of observation and conclusions are rudimentary science of some sort. That's not the case at all. Science is a systemic and formal process that utilizes those things, but those things themselves aren't science. If it isn't scientific, it isn't science.
Also, the First Way is not an argument about the origin of the universe, since Aquinas did not believe that a non-eternal universe could be philosophically proven. It would be really weird for a guy who did not believe you could logically prove the universe had a beginning to then present a logical argument that the universe had a beginning, so obviously that isn't the intent of the First Way.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Wrong, it is a folk science argument that fails as it is replaced with modern science and analytical techniques."
" Wrong. It is not a science argument, nor is it a folk science argument, nor is it a proto-science argument. Observations and conclusions are made routinely without being scientific."
Not properly, or validly, or authoritatively, or accurately.
If an individual draws conclusions from observations then those conclusions are subject to scientific correction.
Aquinas might have failed to use a modern scientific method, but since he based his argument on logic applied to observation his argument is subject to scientific analysis.
April 29, 2017 1:03 PM
Legion: "Observations and conclusions are made routinely without being scientific."
Stardusty: "Not properly, or validly, or authoritatively, or accurately."
This is easily the most incredible statement I've seen in a long time, and again points to the flaw of scientism. If it isn't science, it isn't proper. If it isn't science, it isn't valid. If it isn't science, it isn't authoritative. If it isn't science, it isn't accurate.
Wow.
Stardusty: "If an individual draws conclusions from observations then those conclusions are subject to scientific correction."
Yes, but this is not synonymous with saying that all conclusions derived from observation are scientific, or that all non-scientific conclusions derived from observation are inaccurate. Neither of those things is true.
Stardusty: "Aquinas might have failed to use a modern scientific method, but since he based his argument on logic applied to observation his argument is subject to scientific analysis."
I have no problem with Aquinas' ideas being scrutinized by the findings of modern science, so long as it is indeed Aquinas' ideas that are being scrutinized.
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
Legion: "Observations and conclusions are made routinely without being scientific."
Stardusty: "Not properly, or validly, or authoritatively, or accurately."
" This is easily the most incredible statement I've seen in a long time,"
I am happy to have been of service to you in introducing you to some important thinking that is apparently foreign to you. You are welcome.
" If it isn't science, it isn't proper. If it isn't science, it isn't valid. If it isn't science, it isn't authoritative. If it isn't science, it isn't accurate."
What do you define as "it"? You seem to be over generalizing my specific statement. Science is, among other things, the methodical application of logic to observation. Sure, one can just sort of look at things and think about it and draw personal unscientific conclusions, but that is sloppy thinking and sloppy acting.
Stardusty: "Aquinas might have failed to use a modern scientific method, but since he based his argument on logic applied to observation his argument is subject to scientific analysis."
" I have no problem with Aquinas' ideas being scrutinized by the findings of modern science, so long as it is indeed Aquinas' ideas that are being scrutinized."
Aquinas observed motion, the physical change in position from one location to another location. Both his examples are of physical positional change (fire and a moving staff). He might have had the mistaken notion that some sorts of change do not require a physical motion, but physical motion is at least a sort of change that must conform to his arguments.
Motion is physics. For the arguments of Aquinas to be valid they must conform to modern physics. You can argue some imaginary additional realm that his arguments are also applicable to if you like, but his arguments must also hold true for the modern physics of motion to be valid today.
Aquinas thus fails as a modern argument for god. His errors include begging the question, ad hoc assertion, factually false premise, non sequitur implied conclusion, and false dichotomy fallacy.
By your own statement A-T language no longer has analytical value in science. The First Way is an argument for god from motion. Even if you suggest the First Way is more broadly applicable than physical positional change it must still be valid as an analysis of physical positional change, which is rightly a subject of science, making A-T language no longer of analytical value for a necessary subject of the First Way, physical positional change motion.
Irrespective of the obsolete language of Aquinas I can show you the many structural and factual defects of the First Way if you wish. In truth, I already have, many times, but you seem to think that I have somehow missed something in my analysis.
April 29, 2017 11:49 PM
Stardusty: "I am happy to have been of service to you in introducing you to some important thinking that is apparently foreign to you."
It is foreign to me because it is garbage. Science isn't synonymous with truth. Using logic to form conclusions based on observations isn't science. Otherwise I've seen my dog perform scientific experiments. My cat saw me turn a doorknob and open a door, and now it jumps for the doorknob because it figured out the knob is what opens the door. Quick, publish its findings in a scientific journal.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that science is not the sole arbiter of truth? It is certainly the best tool we have currently for determining how natural things function, but it is by no means the only tool we have for determining truth.
Stardusty: "Motion is physics. For the arguments of Aquinas to be valid they must conform to modern physics."
Okay. I'm unaware of anything in physics that contradicts the First Way, since the First Way is not an early attempt at a physics argument.
Stardusty: "Aquinas thus fails as a modern argument for god."
This assertion has been refuted repeatedly, as will be demonstrated as Cal and I proceed.
Stardusty: "By your own statement A-T language no longer has analytical value in science."
Indeed. However, this is not a problem to the First Way. It isn't a science argument. You don't understand what his purpose is with the argument, so you are deferring back to your scientism and trying to make it a science argument, which is the First Strawman.
Stardusty: "Irrespective of the obsolete language of Aquinas I can show you the many structural and factual defects of the First Way if you wish."
You will have the opportunity to attempt this.
Cal: "So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist). "
Cal, if you are ready, I'll springboard off of this and proceed.
Legion: "This is easily the most incredible statement I've seen in a long time, and again points to the flaw of scientism. If it isn't science, it isn't proper. If it isn't science, it isn't valid. If it isn't science, it isn't authoritative. If it isn't science, it isn't accurate. / Wow."
You seem fairly under-developed in your thinking on this topic.
Yes, observations and conclusions are made all the time. If those observations and conclusion are correctable, they are correctable through a process that is scientific.
If those observations and conclusions aren't correctable, then they are in need of refinement so that they can be examined and tested, and if they are not, they fail to be productive -- which just means that they have nothing to add to the body of knowledge that is most accurately represented by a scientific approach to those things that can be made tractable.
That's not scientism; them's the facts.
Legion: "It is foreign to me because it is garbage. Science isn't synonymous with truth."
Then define truth. I have a suspicion you mean something like, "Important to me."
Legion: "Using logic to form conclusions based on observations isn't science. Otherwise I've seen my dog perform scientific experiments. My cat saw me turn a doorknob and open a door, and now it jumps for the doorknob because it figured out the knob is what opens the door. Quick, publish its findings in a scientific journal."
You don't understand science. Apologists, as a rule, don't understand science.
Science isn't working in a lab, or publishing. Those are things that some people do when engaged in science, but they are not science itself. Science is rigorous testing of those things that can be examined, in order to better explain the nature of all reality which can be experienced intersubjectively.
It's sad that you don't yet know that.
Legion: "Why is it so hard for you to accept that science is not the sole arbiter of truth? It is certainly the best tool we have currently for determining how natural things function, but it is by no means the only tool we have for determining truth."
Define truth, then. Is it similar to, "Important to me"?
Legion: "Okay. I'm unaware of anything in physics that contradicts the First Way, since the First Way is not an early attempt at a physics argument."
Physics is the study matter and energy and how those things interact. If the First Way isn't an argument about those things then it's a basically a meaningless argument -- in particular I can't think of a worse argument for a thing (a god) which is supposed to be the basis for all of everything described in physics.
After all this, do you really think that the First Way is supposed to be meaningless?
Stardusty: "Aquinas thus fails as a modern argument for god."
Legion: "This assertion has been refuted repeatedly, as will be demonstrated as Cal and I proceed."
mkay.
Stardusty: "By your own statement A-T language no longer has analytical value in science."
Legion: "Indeed. However, this is not a problem to the First Way. It isn't a science argument. You don't understand what his purpose is with the argument, so you are deferring back to your scientism and trying to make it a science argument, which is the First Strawman."
If The First Way is supposed to explain real things, but doesn't involve real things, then I don't think the First Way is the argument it's purported to be. Oh, that's right, that's what I've been saying all along. Only now it seems that you agree with me.
Me: "So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist). "
Legion: "Cal, if you are ready, I'll springboard off of this and proceed."
Please do.
Keep going, Legion. Don't let an argument over what science is, and is not, derail you. The truth will get exposed...eventually.
Cal: "If those observations and conclusions aren't correctable, then they are in need of refinement so that they can be examined and tested, and if they are not, they fail to be productive -- which just means that they have nothing to add to the body of knowledge that is most accurately represented by a scientific approach to those things that can be made tractable."
Being open to scientific inquiry is not the same as needing it. There are countless things I know to be true that I have no need of scientific input to know for sure.
One other thing, you are addressing the First Strawman, not the First Way. The purpose of the First Way is stated directly prior to the argument itself - "The existence of God can be proved in five ways." This is not a science argument, but rather an argument about why what we observe logically leads one toward a first mover, which Christians identify as God.
Also, truth = what is true.
Moving on to (2)a-c.
(2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another.
a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency to that towards which it is moved.
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act.
So then, (2) states that what is moved is moved by another. Using Cal's previous definition of motion, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist). So according to (2), when this process occurs, it is due to the influence of another thing. A ball doesn't start bouncing in of itself, wood doesn't ignite in of itself, etc.
(2)a is basically stating that a thing can only be moved (per Cal's definition) if it possess the potential to do so. A match can ignite wood, but a match will not ignite a block of steel. Wood has that potential, steel does not. So wood can undergo that particular motion, but steel cannot.
(2)b is the other side of the coin - a thing can only move something else to the extent that the thing is in some actualized state that is capable of producing the motion. When a piece of wood goes from not burning to burning, this is motion per Cal's definition. A match can cause this motion in the wood, but only if the match is in the actualized state of burning. If the match is not in the actualized state of burning, then it can't ignite the wood. Basically, the type of motion a thing can cause is dependent upon what state the thing is in.
(2)c has been covered. Cal's definition of motion is what I'm going with.
Objections?
Me: "Cal: "If those observations and conclusions aren't correctable, then they are in need of refinement so that they can be examined and tested, and if they are not, they fail to be productive -- which just means that they have nothing to add to the body of knowledge that is most accurately represented by a scientific approach to those things that can be made tractable."
Legion: "Being open to scientific inquiry is not the same as needing it. There are countless things I know to be true that I have no need of scientific input to know for sure."
You still haven't defined truth.
What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge.
Are you still confusing "true" with "important to me?"
Do you realize that what's important to you isn't necessarily important to others, and isn't necessarily experienceable by others?
Do you realize that science does a pretty good job of figuring out what we know about intersubjective reality?
Do you think that the First Way should only be important to you, and not correct about reality (which we know intersubjectively)?
It doesn't seem to me that you've thought about these topics very much.
Legion: "One other thing, you are addressing the First Strawman, not the First Way. The purpose of the First Way is stated directly prior to the argument itself - "The existence of God can be proved in five ways." This is not a science argument, but rather an argument about why what we observe logically leads one toward a first mover, which Christians identify as God."
If the First Way isn't about intersubjective reality, then it's not about knowledge.
Only a narcissist would think otherwise.
Legion: "So then, (2) states that what is moved is moved by another. Using Cal's previous definition of motion..."
WTF. My definition of motion is a change in position for something over time. You are the one who insists that defining motion otherwise (as you have above) will somehow avoid the problems we've pointed out in The First Way. Stick to the facts.
Legion: "... motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist). / So according to (2), when this process occurs, it is due to the influence of another thing. A ball doesn't start bouncing in of itself, wood doesn't ignite in of itself, etc."
Hmm. Are you saying that ball doesn't exist before it bounces? Or that the force that moved the ball before it bounces didn't exist? The fact is, before the force bounced the ball, and before the ball was moved by the force, they both existed. So I'm not sure what was brought into existence here. Can you be more specific about what, exactly, was brought into existence -- because it seems like all the parties involved at the start were involved at the end, and that what you are defining as being brought INTO EXISTENCE is more like being brought INTO REARRANGEMENT. They are not the same, and I think that it's pretty obvious which one is more accurate description of what occurs over time.
Legion: "Blah blah blah... Cal's definition of motion is what I'm going with."
You are the one defining the terms of this argument, per your insistence that these definitions will free the First Way from the problems that have been pointed out.
If, on review, you don't like the definitions you have offered so far, you should amend what you wrote prior and redefine them for us now, so that we have a precise understanding of the terms as they should be applied consistently throughout the argument. Because we are interested as you are in examining the real argument this time (not the strawman one!) -- and that should, of course, mean that we examining the terms of the argument as you define it (not us).
Cal: "What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge. Are you still confusing "true" with "important to me?"
It's a real head-scratcher where you came up with "truth = important to me", since nothing I have said can even be remotely construed to mean that. At this point, it appears you are either projecting or making stuff up.
Cal: "If the First Way isn't about intersubjective reality, then it's not about knowledge."
Scientism again. Sigh.
Cal: " WTF"
Okay.
You said, and I quote, "So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist)." You said this on April 27, 2017 at 3:08 PM. I then agreed that this definition would suffice, and we could then move on. You offered what motion was for the purposes of the argument, and I went with your phrasing.
Are you now retracting your post that I quoted? Do you no longer understand what Aquinas means by motion?
I see the flaw in that phrasing of the definition based upon your next post, so I will not use it anymore.
Think of the "thing" being brought into existence (not quite true but as an illustration) as the state of something. A ball sitting still is not bouncing, but a ball has the potential to bounce given the right conditions due to its inherent properties as a ball. Thus bouncing is a potential state of a ball.
When the right conditions are met, the ball undergoes motion (First Way definition, not physics) and bounces. The potential state of bouncing is actualized so that the ball is actually bouncing, rather than merely potentially bouncing. In a sense, the potential state is "brought into existence", though it exists as a possibility even when not in effect.
I know you understand the concept of an actual state, but the potential state still seems fuzzy. A potential state is a state that something could be in, given its inherent properties, but is not in. It's not that the state "doesn't exist", but rather the state is not realized. It is not in effect. A ball sitting still has the potential to bounce, even if it never bounces, but the potential exists nonetheless.
Me: "What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge. Are you still confusing "true" with "important to me?"
Legion: "It's a real head-scratcher where you came up with "truth = important to me", since nothing I have said can even be remotely construed to mean that. At this point, it appears you are either projecting or making stuff up."
You could clear all this up by defining what you mean by "true."
Why are you avoiding explaining what you mean by the word, "true."?
Do you suppose it's because when you do, it starts to reveal how your objections to examining something with what approaches scientific rigor evaporates into a kind of narcissism?
Like I said, this conversation reveals that you don't appear to have thought very hard about his topic.
Me: "If the First Way isn't about intersubjective reality, then it's not about knowledge."
Legion: "Scientism again. Sigh."
Um, no. That's actually a very common (philosophical) definition of knowledge.
It seems that you haven't thought about this very much.
It's both complicated, and not so complicated. You can read something like that here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
Legion: "You said, and I quote, "So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist)." / You said this on April 27, 2017 at 3:08 PM. I then agreed that this definition would suffice, and we could then move on. You offered what motion was for the purposes of the argument, and I went with your phrasing. / Are you now retracting your post that I quoted? Do you no longer understand what Aquinas means by motion?"
Get your head together. You have been complaining for some time now that our criticism fails to understand the terms used by Aquinas. You claimed to have defined the terms.
Legion: "The definitions have been provided."
And now, even at this late date, you still want to fob off some variety of definition for the argument you are supposed to be defending as "mine."
When I restate your definition, it is an opportunity for you to clarify, and offer more precision. Failure to define terms for your argument is not my failing. That one's on you.
Me: "In the 2(c) you keep referring to (actual text here -- Aquinas (from, 2(c)): "In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act."), which is the "a thing" that is being brought to an actualized state -- the liquid water that becomes ice, or the potential ice that becomes actual (real)?"
Legion: "In the case of water freezing, it would be the inherent capacity for water to become ice that is being actualized. So I guess with your two choices, it would be the potential ice becoming actual. That's assuming I understand your question."
Cal: "So, for the purposes of the argument, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist). "
Legion: "Yes. There are nuances, but I think this could be a functional understanding."
Me: "Hmm. Are you saying that ball doesn't exist before it bounces? Or that the force that moved the ball before it bounces didn't exist? The fact is, before the force bounced the ball, and before the ball was moved by the force, they both existed. So I'm not sure what was brought into existence here. Can you be more specific about what, exactly, was brought into existence -- because it seems like all the parties involved at the start were involved at the end, and that what you are defining as being brought INTO EXISTENCE is more like being brought INTO REARRANGEMENT. They are not the same, and I think that it's pretty obvious which one is more accurate description of what occurs over time."
Legion: "I see the flaw in that phrasing of the definition based upon your next post, so I will not use it anymore."
and then:
Legion: "It's not that the state "doesn't exist", but rather the state is not realized. It is not in effect. A ball sitting still has the potential to bounce, even if it never bounces, but the potential exists nonetheless."
So, you now retract the working definition that you agreed to prior -- that "motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist)."
So, a potential thing does exist, then?
Why is it so hard for you guys to state and stick to definitions when you're supposed to be the ones who truly understand the terms you're using?
Has it occurred to you yet that the argument is so hard to actually defend because the its so bad and its terms are so fuzzy?
Cal: "Do you suppose it's because when you do, it starts to reveal how your objections to examining something with what approaches scientific rigor evaporates into a kind of narcissism?"
If one of us is narcissistic, all evidence would indicate it isn't me. I'd be careful throwing an accusation around that could so easily backfire, friendly advice.
Cal: "Get your head together. You have been complaining for some time now that our criticism fails to understand the terms used by Aquinas. You claimed to have defined the terms."
I have defined them multiple times. I have provided examples as illustrations of what I am talking about. The terms and concepts are extremely easy to understand. I have no idea what your hangup is, because either I am far more intelligent than you (doubtful) or I simply am not understanding what your problem is.
Cal: "And now, even at this late date, you still want to fob off some variety of definition for the argument you are supposed to be defending as "mine."
The time for childish (and faulty) psychoanalysis is not in this discussion. When you restated the definition (and I'm not denying it's a rephrasing of my definition, I didn't literally mean it was YOUR definition that you came up with) and I said I could work with it, I assumed that meant you understood it. I was obviously incorrect in that assumption, but obviously I was not trying to say you pulled it from thin air. False accusation.
Cal: "So, you now retract the working definition that you agreed to prior -- that "motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist)."
Only because I mistakenly thought you had grasped what Aquinas was talking about. Since you very obviously did not, and I figured out what you were actually meaning by your next post, then I realized I couldn't work with that definition anymore. I'm not retracting any of my own definitions, I'm simply trying to figure out what your hangup is so I can phrase the definition in a way that overcomes it. For whatever reason, illustrations that appear to be easy enough for a child to understand (which I've proven with my 10 year old daughter) are not getting through to you, and barring you being disingenuous, I have no idea why.
Cal: "So, a potential thing does exist, then?"
Do you believe water can freeze under the right conditions? Of course you do. That means water possesses within its properties the inherent capacity to freeze given the right circumstances. Even if water never actually froze, it would still possess the capacity to do so given the right conditions. That capacity to freeze under the right circumstances is precisely what Aquinas means by a potential state.
As a possibility, yes, the potential state of freezing exists, even if there was literally no ice anywhere in the world. Ice itself would not exist in such a world, but the potential for water to freeze into ice would exist.
Cal: "Why is it so hard for you guys to state and stick to definitions when you're supposed to be the ones who truly understand the terms you're using?"
I remember one of my physics classmates who could never grasp Newton's third law of motion. She didn't believe that any movement at all would be possible if the law was true, because an "equal and opposite" reaction would nullify any attempted action. A pencil should keep getting heavier as someone tries to pick it up in order to keep it "equal and opposite", in her mind, so the law appeared to be obviously false to her.
Was the problem Newton's law, or was it the student not being able to grasp it, even though it's a simple concept?
I know for a fact there is no problem with the terminology. They are clear and simple concepts that are remarkably easy to grasp and comprehend. I know this because I didn't know hardly anything about the First Way until this discussion started. Long ago, when the first thread on this opened, that was when I first looked into it and understood it. Took me less than a day to figure out what the argument was saying, though it took a bit longer not to stray occasionally. Chris came along later and picked it up just as fast. So there is no reason to believe the problem is the terminology or concepts themselves.
However, I am no closer to figuring out what your hangup is than I was before, so I don't know which part of my definitions is causing the problem. I know the concepts themselves aren't problematic, so what's the deal?
Legion,
>> "As a possibility, yes, the potential state of freezing exists, even if there was literally no ice anywhere in the world. Ice itself would not exist in such a world, but the potential for water to freeze into ice would exist."
Given Cal's complaint, I expect you will now get accused of flip-flopping, saying potentials both do, and do not exist. Astute readers will understand that you are referring to different things. The first is the inherent potential, which actually exists. Water actually has the inherent potential to become ice. The second potential is the ice itself. That potential does not actually exist - yet.
Me: "Do you suppose it's because when you do, it starts to reveal how your objections to examining something with what approaches scientific rigor evaporates into a kind of narcissism?"
Legion: "If one of us is narcissistic, all evidence would indicate it isn't me. I'd be careful throwing an accusation around that could so easily backfire, friendly advice."
You still haven't answered the question concerning what you mean when you say you know all kinds of things to be true. I asked, What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge? You won't answer that.
I think you haven't thought about this question very much either, and that explains a lot of what you write when you naively pronounce that a scientific approach toward knowledge would somehow limit our understanding of an argument like the First Way. On the contrary; it reveals how vapid the argument really is.
Legion: "I have defined [the terms from the First Way] multiple times."
Often vaguely. And more recently, contradictorily. You deserve credit for trying (this is more than the other apologists here), but that doesn't mean that you haven't struggled to consistently define the terms you are trying to make work in an argument that makes that exceedingly difficult (impossible).
Legion: "I have provided examples as illustrations of what I am talking about."
True. The examples introduce problems, however. And those problems raise valid questions about the value of the terms. That is why I asked you about existence, versus re-arrangement. Not because you have not used the terms correctly per Aquinas's likely use of them, but because you should be able to see how Aquinas's terms fail to adequately describe the real states of real things. In the same way that Phlogiston fails to adequately describe the chemical reaction that occurs when something burns.
You seem to act as if an adequate understanding of what is meant by the term "Phlogiston" will somehow result in Phlogiston causing things to burn. This is a map and territory problem. You may want to consider that.
Legion: "Using Cal's previous definition of motion, motion is bringing a potential thing (which doesn't exist) to an actual thing (that does exist)."
Legion: "When you restated the definition (and I'm not denying it's a rephrasing of my definition, I didn't literally mean it was YOUR definition that you came up with) and I said I could work with it, I assumed that meant you understood it. I was obviously incorrect in that assumption, but obviously I was not trying to say you pulled it from thin air. False accusation."
Cal's definition = your [referring to Cal] definition.
It's not a false accusation. The definition is yours. I paraphrased your definition, following your offer to define your terms, so that you understood what I understood by your terms. These are your definitions. Don't pretend they are mine.
How do Aquinas's terms fail to adequately describe the real states of real things? Use water and ice as an example.
Cal: "What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge?"
What do you mean by "adding to our body of knowledge"? Whose body? If I figure out something other people already know, since it doesn't "add to" any body of knowledge but my own, is it therefore not knowledge? What percentage of people have to share the knowledge before it becomes intersubjective knowledge? If I see someone do something and no one else sees it, is it not true because it doesn't "add to our body of knowledge" and it isn't "intersubjective"?
What exactly are you trying to get at? Because it does not seem to be addressing anything important.
Cal: "a scientific approach toward knowledge would somehow limit our understanding of an argument like the First Way"
It is actually precisely the opposite. You believe a scientific analysis of the First Way would demolish it because you don't actually know what the argument is saying. Sticking to (1)-(2)c, since I'm not going to jump ahead, there is literally nothing in there that science contradicts. Not one thing.
Cal: "And more recently, contradictorily"
I already explained what the "contradiction" was about - I mistakenly thought you were on the same page as me when it came to understanding what Aquinas meant. Once I found out you weren't, I retracted use of that definition. There is no contradiction there.
Cal: "you should be able to see how Aquinas's terms fail to adequately describe the real states of real things."
They do adequately describe the real states of real things, because they fulfill the purpose of his argument - which is not a science argument. Ice is in fact a potential state of liquid water that will be actualized given the right conditions. Glowing is a potential state of an unbroken light bulb that is off. There is zero controversy around that. It is an adequate description of reality for the purposes that Aquinas is using.
Legion: "(and I'm not denying it's a rephrasing of my definition, I didn't literally mean it was YOUR definition that you came up with)"
Cal: " These are your definitions. Don't pretend they are mine."
Now you're just lying. I clearly stated I wasn't trying to say it was literally YOUR definition. Stop lying.
SteveK: "How do Aquinas's terms fail to adequately describe the real states of real things? Use water and ice as an example."
Because intersubjective knowledge.
Let's put it this way, Cal.
Given the right conditions, liquid water will freeze into ice. Yes or no?
Given the right conditions, liquid water will freeze into gold. Yes or no?
Legion of Logic said...
Moving on to (2)a-c.
"a thing can only move something else to the extent that the thing is in some actualized state that is capable of producing the motion. "
This is a meaningless tautology. All you are saying is "only stuff that can make X happen can make X happen."
" Objections?"
Let me count the ways...
May 01, 2017 5:51 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" Think of the "thing" being brought into existence (not quite true but as an illustration) as the state of something."
A state is a property of a thing, not a thing itself. Things change state.
" A ball sitting still has the potential to bounce, even if it never bounces, but the potential exists nonetheless."
"Exist" is a very risky word to use in this context because it can easily be misunderstood as an existent thing, which it is not.
May 01, 2017 7:25 PM
Stardusty: "All you are saying is "only stuff that can make X happen can make X happen."
We'll see how meaningless it is later on.
Stardusty: "A state is a property of a thing, not a thing itself. Things change state."
Agreed, but I am trying to figure out an illustration that Cal will grasp about what a potential state is.
Stardusty: "Exist" is a very risky word to use in this context because it can easily be misunderstood as an existent thing, which it is not."
Well we are talking about a thing's intrinsic properties. Using water again, even if there was no ice anywhere due to there being no freezing temperatures anywhere, water would still have the inherent capacity to become ice if it was subjected to freezing temperature. That capacity exists within water, even if it never actually froze.
Legion of Logic said...
" Do you believe water can freeze under the right conditions? Of course you do. That means water possesses within its properties the inherent capacity to freeze given the right circumstances."
Perhaps this is what Cal meant by "a kind of narcissism". I don't think he meant to suggest you are some sort of selfish uncaring jerk who has no empathy for anybody and is continually making others suffer.
We human beings simply can have a short range perception of the universe.
No, just because I think of water that can freeze does not mean it possesses some property. My belief just means that is how my brain looks at things. Things might actually be very different.
Water molecules attract each other with intermolecular forces. Temperature is a measure of molecular kinetic energy. At lower kinetic energies water molecules bond with each other at certain angles. When we observe large collections of these molecules bonding we call our observation "freezing".
But the molecules act accosting to their constituent components, and down and down to some realm nobody knows at this time.
It is in that as yet undiscovered realm of the ultra small that the answers to the riddles of causation and existence reside, not in some medieval theological tract.
" However, I am no closer to figuring out what your hangup is than I was before,"
For myself, my hangup is you are looking in the wrong place. You are trying to reason your way through this problem with obsolete language and macro observations. You might just as well try to measure the width of a human hair with a yardstick.
Inevitably you will continue with your tautologies and begging the question and ad hoc assertions and demonstrably false premises because no human being has ever solved and published the solution to this problem. The problem remains unsolved by all.
But yes, from our human perspective we think of a bowl of water as a thing that could freeze because we know that if we put the bowl in the freezer in a few hours it will be full of solid water.
May 02, 2017 8:59 AM
May 02, 2017 8:59 AM
From our human perspective? Does water freeze or not?
It looks to me like the inevitable conclusion of your approach here is that nothing actually occurs when we observe it occurring, it just seems that way to us. Are you denying that what we observe on a macro scale is actually occurring? If that's the case, then it would follow that I could claim this conversation isn't actually occurring because neither of us sits in front of a computer and operates it to say the word we want.
Legion: "What exactly are you trying to get at? Because it does not seem to be addressing anything important."
Your (weak) defense of the argument.
You wrote:
Legion: "The First Way is not a science argument. It is what Aquinas believes to be the logical conclusion of what we observe about potential states of things becoming actualized, and how only actualized states have causal power. Of course scientists don't talk about such notions as part of science - they aren't scientific. That doesn't mean they aren't true."
If you are going to argue that the First Way is a good argument, I think that we should agree on what the standards are for a good argument.
In your quote above, you seem to be trying to disqualify the First Way from the requirements of a good argument.
If you think that the First Way should not be subject to those processes used in science -- intersubjectivity, precision of terms, valid, sound, objective, reliable, verifiable, etc., then I think you should declare what these new standards are by which the argument should be evaluated.
So far, you have failed to respond to this request. That is why I keep on asking.
Cal: "In your quote above, you seem to be trying to disqualify the First Way from the requirements of a good argument."
No, I am pointing out that it is not a science argument. I have no reason to believe that only science provides good arguments. Nor am I trying to avoid evaluating the argument with science. The problem is thus far, it is only the First Strawman that has been evaluated by science, which is why I am trying to go line by line now.
Cal: "intersubjectivity..."
I asked the following questions: "What do you mean by "adding to our body of knowledge"? Whose body? If I figure out something other people already know, since it doesn't "add to" any body of knowledge but my own, is it therefore not knowledge? What percentage of people have to share the knowledge before it becomes intersubjective knowledge? If I see someone do something and no one else sees it, is it not true because it doesn't "add to our body of knowledge" and it isn't "intersubjective"?
Cal: "precision of terms"
I have been trying repeatedly. I understand the terms easily, so I don't know what the hangup is. Which is why I ask the following questions:
Given the right conditions, liquid water will freeze into ice. Yes or no?
Given the right conditions, liquid water will freeze into gold. Yes or no?
Cal,
>> "If you are going to argue that the First Way is a good argument, I think that we should agree on what the standards are for a good argument."
Validity and soundness are the standards for any logical argument.
>> " I think you should declare what these new standards are by which the argument should be evaluated."
A common sense (or agreed upon) understanding of the words being used in the argument is the standard for evaluating whether an argument is valid and sound.
As Legion has correctly stated, an argument does NOT have to be couched in the science-laden language of physics and chemistry in order to be understood as valid and sound.
>> "It looks to me like the inevitable conclusion of your approach here is that nothing actually occurs when we observe it occurring, it just seems that way to us."
It just SEEMS like water in a bowl is a thing that could freeze and it just SEEMS like water actually has the inherent ability to freeze, but NONE of these statements are actually True(tm) because you failed to use the official, skeptic-approved, science-laden language.
Legion: "No, I am pointing out that it is not a science argument. I have no reason to believe that only science provides good arguments. Nor am I trying to avoid evaluating the argument with science. The problem is thus far, it is only the First Strawman that has been evaluated by science, which is why I am trying to go line by line now."
Then please indicate what parts of the First Way aren't to be evaluated using the principles of scientific inquiry.
Is it that First Way isn't logical? Is it that the First Way isn't intersubjectively testable (objective, reliable, verifiable) -- meaning that we can check for ourselves whether or not its premises are sound?
The First Way is about real things, in the real world. If it's not, I don't know what the First Way is about.
What principles of scientific inquiry are you saying that the First Way should not be evaluated by? Why is it unfair to evaluate the First Way by that principle?
Do you think that we should consider Phlogiston to be a good argument for why things burn because that argument should only be evaluated by what those who found it convincing knew at the time? Is that the standard you're using?
Legion: "I asked the following questions: "What do you mean by "adding to our body of knowledge"?"
A body of knowledge is commonly understood to be the sum of things known that are reliably verified through intersubjective testing. Physical laws, real objects, routines, data, etc. -- these are all the things that make up our body of knowledge. As opposed to introspective knowledge, which are those things that you can only know, and that others can't examine for themselves (like, you preference for chocloate, e.g.).
Legion: "Whose body?"
See above.
Do you even know what intersubjective means? This is very basic stuff. I don't have time to do remedial teaching. Look up some phrases if you aren't familiar with them, and if that doesn't jive with how I'm using them then ask me for clarification.
Legion: "If I figure out something other people already know, since it doesn't "add to" any body of knowledge but my own, is it therefore not knowledge?"
Verifiability is a key component of knowledge. So, no, the fact that you verify something that others know only increases our confidence in that knowledge. Again, basic stuff.
Legion: "What percentage of people have to share the knowledge before it becomes intersubjective knowledge?"
There's no hard and fast rule. But if intersubjective testing fails to reliably verify, then we have good reason to question what others claim. Basic basic.
Legion: "If I see someone do something and no one else sees it, is it not true because it doesn't "add to our body of knowledge" and it isn't "intersubjective"?"
If you are seeing something that no one else sees you might be hallucinating. If you are seeing something that is really there but for some reason no one else sees, then there are ways to test for that. Basic.
Legion: "Cal: "precision of terms" / I have been trying repeatedly. I understand the terms easily, so I don't know what the hangup is."
The hangup is how you can explain how something like ice exists without water. That's a hangup. That you claim to understand your terms easily despite this fact is an indication that you are fooling yourself when you say that you understand your terms and that they are precise.
Legion: "Given the right conditions, liquid water will freeze into ice. Yes or no?"
Yup.
Legion: "Given the right conditions, liquid water will freeze into gold. Yes or no?"
Nope.
>> "There's no hard and fast rule."
Yet at the same time Cal argues that there is one. Cal is arguing that Aquinas' argument fails - somehow - to add to the body of knowledge.
Legion: "Nor am I trying to avoid evaluating the argument with science."
Cal: "Then please indicate what parts of the First Way aren't to be evaluated using the principles of scientific inquiry."
Did you even read what I wrote? I literally just said I'm NOT trying to do that. But if you have no idea what the argument is saying, you can't very well analyze it with science, can you? That's what I am doing - once you understand what the argument is saying, THEN analyze it with science.
Cal: "What do you know to be true that adds to our body of knowledge?"
This quote was the basis for my flurry of questions about the body of knowledge and intersubjective knowledge. The point wasn't that I didn't know what those terms meant, but rather to demonstrate where your thinking is grounded. You seem to be disdainful of knowledge that isn't scientific in nature, up to and including the possibility of me hallucinating if I see something no one else is around to see that some scientist somewhere can't calculate probabilities of the event occurring. All of your answers were couched in scientific terminology. That is scientism. Both you and Stardusty are suffering from this malady, and I'm pretty sure it's the reason the First Way is so much of a struggle for you to understand. It's not a science argument, and science isn't the sole means of knowledge.
Cal: "The hangup is how you can explain how something like ice exists without water."
I can't explain that, since neither I nor Aquinas said that.
Cal: "That you claim to understand your terms easily despite this fact is an indication that you are fooling yourself when you say that you understand your terms and that they are precise."
No, it's an indication that they aren't difficult and that I understand them, but you don't. Hence I'm trying to figure out the problem, though I suspect scientism is a lot of it.
However, with your answers about water freezing in to ice (yup) and gold (nope)...congratulations, you now understand that ice is a potential state of water, but gold is not a potential state of water.
So then, why can water freeze into ice, but not gold? Because water possesses the inherent capacity to freeze into ice due to its physical properties, but water does not possess the inherent capacity to freeze into gold.
That is why ice is a potential state of water, but gold is not. Water possesses the inherent capacity to freeze into ice given the correct conditions, and this is synonymous with "Ice is a potential state of water". The potential state of ice exists in the exact same manner that an inherent capacity to freeze into ice exists, for they are the same thing. If you don't deny that the possibility for water to freeze into ice exists, then you can understand why I say a potential state exists.
Me: "Then please indicate what parts of the First Way aren't to be evaluated using the principles of scientific inquiry."
Legion: "Did you even read what I wrote? I literally just said I'm NOT trying to do that. But if you have no idea what the argument is saying, you can't very well analyze it with science, can you? That's what I am doing - once you understand what the argument is saying, THEN analyze it with science."
The principles of science include: testability (objective, reliable, verifiable) and logically consistent.
When you say that the First Way is not a scientific argument, and since you won't be explicit about what you mean, I must now conclude that that you think the First Way is a good argument WITHOUT BEING objective, reliable, verifiable, and logically consistent.
I can thus conclude that you are not evaluating the First Way based on what makes an argument good or bad, and that your assessment is meaningless.
>> "Verifiability is a key component of knowledge. So, no, the fact that you verify something that others know only increases our confidence in that knowledge."
A topic for another day but this seems obviously wrong. To verify requires that you have knowledge of the thing you are seeking to verify. You have knowledge first and then you look for it again to then verify. This means verifiability is NOT a requirement for knowledge. It raises our confidence, yes indeed, but it's not necessary for knowledge.
For another day...
Legion: "You seem to be disdainful of knowledge that isn't scientific in nature, up to and including the possibility of me hallucinating if I see something no one else is around to see that some scientist somewhere can't calculate probabilities of the event occurring."
You just seem confused.
The question of whether or not you are hallucinating is a scientific one. In other words, what other way would you suggest we determine you are or are not hallucinating if we don't approach the question scientifically?
Approaching the question scientifically means first being able to examine the question. It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge.
If you disagree, you should be able to explain how it is that we can determine whether or not you are likely hallucinating without using the processes above.
Over and over it seems that you want to privilege your assessments (I deem this a good argument therefore it is good! I deem this precise and understandable therefore it is! I deem this real because it is what I see even if no one else sees it! Etc. That's why I suggest that you appear to think like a narcissist -- finding your own observations and thoughts to be definitive and obvious, when those who are less self-involved and more empathetic are much more circumspect about rushing toward these conclusions.
Me: "The hangup is how you can explain how something like ice exists without water."
Legion: "I can't explain that, since neither I nor Aquinas said that."
Legion (earlier): "As a possibility, yes, the potential state of freezing exists, even if there was literally no ice anywhere in the world. Ice itself would not exist in such a world, but the potential for water to freeze into ice would exist."
Choke on your own words much?
Misread much?
Sigh. What ridiculous tangents.
Cal: "The principles of science include: testability (objective, reliable, verifiable) and logically consistent."
Aquinas isn't making a science argument. A potential state is a concept based upon a thing's inherent properties which could become actualized, given the proper conditions. It is not a mechanical description of how a thing functions or what it consists of. If liquid water freezes under certain conditions, then ice is a potential state of water. If something undergoes some change, then it had a potential state actualized. That is not something science can test, it is simply an accurate logical concept of how things are.
You don't seem to know the difference between a scientific argument, a non-scientific argument, a good argument, and a bad argument. Am I going to have to teach those things too, before we can get to the First Way?
Cal: " In other words, what other way would you suggest we determine you are or are not hallucinating if we don't approach the question scientifically?"
The question could be a scientific one, assuming it was a repeating or ongoing experience, if we got scientists involved who made predictions, set up an experiment, and tested their hypothesis based on observations from the experiment. Or, we could not contact the nearest scientist, and simply find out if other people could see the same thing, in which case it wouldn't be science. It would simply be observation and conclusion, but the conclusion would still be reliable for all practical purposes.
Science is not the sole arbiter of reality.
Cal: "Approaching the question scientifically means first being able to examine the question. It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge."
Okay. In order to refute (1) through (2)c using science, you would have to show that nothing undergoes any sort of change, or that when something does change, it is not because it was acted upon by something other than what is undergoing change, or that when something changes it is not due to inherent properties of the thing undergoing change.
Feel free to refute that with science.
Cal: "That's why I suggest that you appear to think like a narcissist -- finding your own observations and thoughts to be definitive and obvious, when those who are less self-involved and more empathetic are much more circumspect about rushing toward these conclusions."
So understanding Aquinas' simple argument makes me a narcissist, since you have yet to understand it? 'Kay. I think you need to go look up what a "narcissist" is. Understanding someone else's argument is not a defining characteristic of a narcissist, however using one's own ignorance in order to critique what one does not understand could very well be a sign of a narcissist. Perhaps you should reflect on that.
Cal: "Choke on your own words much?"
Nope. But feel free to explain how you derive Statement 1 from Statement 2.
Statement 1: "Ice exists without water."
Statement 2: ""As a possibility, yes, the potential state of freezing exists, even if there was literally no ice anywhere in the world. Ice itself would not exist in such a world, but the potential for water to freeze into ice would exist."
Take your time.
Legion of Logic said...
" From our human perspective?"
Yes.
"Does water freeze or not?"
From our human perspective. Sorry, despite what you might think, I really am not trying to be an obstinate pain in the ass. The distinctions I draw here are important to the study of causation, but given that the ancients practiced a sort of macro level proto-science, and given the utility of the notion in our daily lives, in those respects, yes, water freezes.
" It looks to me like the inevitable conclusion of your approach here is that nothing actually occurs when we observe it occurring, it just seems that way to us."
The brick seems solid to us. Is the brick solid? No, of course not. We all know the brick is mostly space. If I get hit on the head with a brick the knowledge of how much space is in its envelope will not take the pain away.
Our human level observations are very useful, but reality is much different when we learn the science of the very small.
" Are you denying that what we observe on a macro scale is actually occurring?"
In the aggregate our macro scale observations are valid and useful approximations.
" If that's the case, then it would follow that I could claim this conversation isn't actually occurring because neither of us sits in front of a computer and operates it to say the word we want."
There are a great many distortions, illusions, and inaccuracies in our perceptions of this conversation. A fully accurate description of this conversation, however, is much too complex for us to deal with usefully, even if we could arrive at such, which we in principle cannot.
For the purpose of making a kind of folksy, archaic, armchair protoscience argument A-T language can be employed in conversation. In the end it will be a dead end leading to the irrationality of the first mover juxtaposed with the irrationality of an infinite regress.
But go ahead and drive into that blind alley, most people do :-)
May 03, 2017 4:18 AM
Me: "The principles of science include: testability (objective, reliable, verifiable) and logically consistent."
Legion: "Aquinas isn't making a science argument. "
Okay. Per my prior comments and your avoiding my questions, I can only conclude that you mean that the argument you are defending eschews things like objectivity, reliability, verifiability, and logical consistency.
No one need take any argument seriously that does that. It can be dismissed out of hand.
Legion: "A potential state is a concept based upon a thing's inherent properties which could become actualized, given the proper conditions."
That is one of the things you are saying about potential. But you also appearing to be saying more about a potential -- that a potential state exists without reference to the thing of which it is a state.
Definition 1. Potential = a possible state of a thing
Definition 2. Potential = something that exists independently of the thing it describes
To be clear, I think 2 is incoherent. I don't have a problem with the 1st definition, however, so if you want to proceed with those two understandings then you should.
Legion: "It is not a mechanical description of how a thing functions or what it consists of."
What? You have been saying that ice is a potential state of water. If you think that the possible state of ice doesn't break down to a mechanical description (which can be as rudimentary as "hard" or "solid" or "crystalline", etc.) or that ice doesn't consist of water then this definition is even less coherent than I originally thought.
You should clarify this, absolutely:
- does ice describe ANY state of water?
- does ice consist of water?
Legion: "If liquid water freezes under certain conditions, then ice is a potential state of water."
Using the terms you described earlier (and the caveats repeated by Stardusty) I think this much is pretty straightforward.
Legion: "If something undergoes some change, then it had a potential state actualized."
I read this as identical to, "a thing that changed changed". (That the changed state is possible is either tautological, or predictive based on induction. I'm not really sure what this does for us, but I can work with either of those understandings.)
Legion: "That is not something science can test, it is simply an accurate logical concept of how things are."
And this is where you demonstrate that you completely fail to understand the simple concepts behind scientific thinking. Because you get this completely backward. Water changing state a) is something we can test, and b) and it is an accurate description (NOT a concept!) of how things really are.
Water becomes ice. Water boils. This is something that we get to examine and test for ourselves all the time (Albeit with more or less rigor.) But since you appear to have a hangup on science only occurring in a laboratory setting (as if), even this basic example is lab tested ALL THE TIME. In basic Chemistry classes generations of students have fired up bunsen burners under flasks of water and charted temperatures as they witness what happens when water transitions from a liquid to a gas. (Hint: the transition is less intuitive than you'd originally imagine.)
Legion: "Or, we could not contact the nearest scientist, and simply find out if other people could see the same thing, in which case it wouldn't be science. It would simply be observation and conclusion, but the conclusion would still be reliable for all practical purposes. Science is not the sole arbiter of reality."
????
You seem to be saying several different things above. The first is that only scientists can do science. This is, of course, wrong -- science is a process, with more or less rigor (depending on what's being studied), but there's no reason whatsoever that we can't apply the principles of science (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.) to test and confirm or disprove what we already know, or to just find out something for yourself. You may make mistakes, you may jump to conclusions, but applying rigor to your thinking, identifying and taking steps to eliminate biases, and making cautious (based on probabilities) thinking is both scientific and mundane; almost anyone can do it -- at least with regard to ordinary events.
Then you seem to agree with the above, that approaching things with a scientific mindset CAN lead to more reliable conclusions (including more cautious and circumspect conclusions which are, after all, more reliable than over-confident ones).
And then you re-state your dismissal of scientific thinking but offer no alteranative -- despite my repeated requests for you identify what you mean by your claims of having knowledge outside of the principles I have mentioned, and for you to (finally) define what you mean by "truth."
Me: "Approaching the question scientifically means first being able to examine the question. It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge."
Legion: "Okay. In order to refute (1) through (2)c using science, you would have to show that nothing undergoes any sort of change, or that when something does change, it is not because it was acted upon by something other than what is undergoing change, or that when something changes it is not due to inherent properties of the thing undergoing change. / Feel free to refute that with science."
I don't really know where to begin.
I make what should be a commonsense and obvious gesture to the ground rules of argument.
Instead of agreeing to what should go without saying, you now seem to want to jump ahead to a claim I'm not even making.
I seriously don't even know what you mean.
Cal Metzger said...
Legion: "If something undergoes some change, then it had a potential state actualized."
" I read this as identical to, "a thing that changed changed"."
Yes, that is the brilliance of Aquinas, he says "only stuff that can cause X causes X" We were promised to be shown the importance and value of these inane tautologies, and I suppose that is likely to be true if we consider zero a the most likely value.
In truth, I suspect Aquinas meant to make the meaningful statements he did in fact make in his examples, wherein he showed that only the same sort of thing as X causes X (a flame causes burning, a moving hand causes a staff to move). Those are meaningful observations, but lead to later self contradiction, so the apologist reduces Aquinas to tautological babble to prevent the clear later breakdown...but I am getting ahead of things it has been said.
May 04, 2017 3:08 PM
Cal: "I can only conclude that you mean that the argument you are defending eschews things like objectivity, reliability, verifiability, and logical consistency."
Nope. Here is what you can conclude. In a later post, you say this: "but there's no reason whatsoever that we can't apply the principles of science (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.) to test and confirm or disprove what we already know, or to just find out something for yourself."
Where you and I are talking past each other is twofold. First, since science uses observation and forming conclusions based on those observations, you subsume all instances of observation and forming conclusions based on them as "principles of science". I reject this. One can make observations and form conclusions on them without performing science. Science is a subset of observation/conclusion, not the other way around, as humans have been making ideas based off observation for far, far longer than science has been around. Science has specific requirements and has a specific purpose - the formation of naturalistic explanations for how things work, etc. That isn't the purpose of the First Way, which leads to the second failure of communication.
You keep comparing it to phlogiston theory, which is quite guilty of attempting to explain how things work and getting it wrong. Phlogiston makes an observation (things burn) and attempts to explain why that happens, so in a sense it is an early science-like endeavor. The First Way doesn't make an observation and attempt to explain why it happens - it makes observations and comes to a logical conclusion based on those observations. It is not an attempt at explaining how nature works mechanically, like phlogiston theory, ergo it is not science-like.
Finally, as I have said all along, I don't care if you hold up what the First Way says to what science says, so long as you are actually holding up what the First Way says, rather than the First Strawman. I find it ridiculous, since it's like using science to determine whether a thing is in fact a thing. The experiments there will be pretty amusing.
Cal: "Definition 1. Potential = a possible state of a thing"
I hesitate to agree after the last time I thought we were on the same page, but provisionally I will go with this. When I say a potential state exists, it is pretty much synonymous with saying that a possibility exists about how a thing could change based upon its characteristics. But I'll try Definition 1 and see what happens.
Cal: "What? You have been saying that ice is a potential state of water. If you think that the possible state of ice doesn't break down to a mechanical description (which can be as rudimentary as "hard" or "solid" or "crystalline", etc.) or that ice doesn't consist of water then this definition is even less coherent than I originally thought."
It doesn't matter if ice can be broken down to a mechanical description - that's not the purpose of the argument, any more than what sort of tree the wood in his example came from is relevant. Ice is a potential state of water - that's the takeaway. You're throwing scientific explanations of the physical properties of ice, and completely missing the point. The closest that could come to being relevant to the premise would be that indeed, because water has "x" properties, it freezes into ice, which is why ice is a potential state of water. But again, not relevant. The only thing we need to know to confirm the premise is that water can freeze into ice - any further exposition is unnecessary.
Cal: "Water changing state a) is something we can test, and b) and it is an accurate description (NOT a concept!) of how things really are."
Sigh. Yes, science can do those things. You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are true. I suppose that scientists could wonder if water can freeze into ice and then test it, but that's hardly necessary to the argument because ANY change in anything is a potential state being actualized, regardless of how it happens. Those aren't scientific concepts, but they are true nonetheless. Science is less than unnecessary in those premises, because there is nothing to test - it's simply true based on the concepts. There are no examples of things changing that aren't potential states being actualized, so what exactly is science supposed to test?
(You seem desperate for me to define truth. Since I can't imagine how this is even remotely relevant to the First Way, and since there is no conceivable answer I can give that will avoid yet another tangent, Wikipedia has an entry on truth that you can ponder. Feel free to inaccurately claim I haven't thought about it, though, or am trying to have something both ways, etc.)
Cal: "I make what should be a commonsense and obvious gesture to the ground rules of argument."
Let's see the result when applied to the First Way premises. I'll stick with the ice/water example.
"It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge."
Premise: Ice is a potential state of water. When water freezes, ice is the actualized state.
It's reliable, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's verifiable, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's objective, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's consistent, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. And all background knowledge supports it, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. Yay science and the First Way!
Perhaps I'm being too loose in my language. Yes, science can indeed analyze it, but it is shown to be extremely unnecessary, and ridiculous when applied. So it's not that science CAN'T analyze potential states being actualized, it's simply hilariously unneeded.
Stardusty: "Yes, that is the brilliance of Aquinas, he says "only stuff that can cause X causes X" We were promised to be shown the importance and value of these inane tautologies"
If certain people could grasp simple concepts that even children have been proven capable of understanding, then perhaps I could fulfill that promise. Also, your First Strawman of what Aquinas meant is still completely wrong, and again I would love to be able to progress far enough to demonstrate.
Legion: "Where you and I are talking past each other is twofold. First, since science uses observation and forming conclusions based on those observations, you subsume all instances of observation and forming conclusions based on them as "principles of science"."
No. Re-read what I wrote.
Among other things, I wrote: "Approaching the question scientifically means first being able to examine the question. It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge."
I didn't say what that all observation or conclusion are scientific. I wrote that we need to approach the question in ways that can be examined -- in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. I wrote that we should be consistent, and use background knowledge. If such an approach is fatal to the First Way, well, then, so much for the First Way.
Legion: "I reject this. One can make observations and form conclusions on them without performing science."
An observation alone is not science per se. Sure.
Legion: "Science is a subset of observation/conclusion, not the other way around, as humans have been making ideas based off observation for far, far longer than science has been around."
Sure. We make all kinds of casual observations, many of which are of little scientific value. And race to all kinds of conclusions, based on the fact that we don't have time or the inclination to be rigorous in every aspect of our activities. But that doesn't mean that we can't make more rigorous observations when we want to, and that we can test our conclusions more carefully when we apply processes and measures that reveal flaws in our thinking.
You seem to be wanting to make a case that we should evaluate the First Way based on casual observations, imprecise terms, and shoddy thinking. And that's because every time we point out instances of these things, instead of recognizing them, you jump to this transparent special pleading that tries to exempt the First Way from the kind or rigor that all good arguments can withstand.
That's obvious. The rest of this is just waiting for you to come to terms with the fact that you've wasted so much time trying to salvage an old and discarded argument that you should have been able to recognize as obviously flawed a looong time ago. Still, it seems like you're (slowly) learning things, so there's that.
Legion: "Science has specific requirements and has a specific purpose - the formation of naturalistic explanations for how things work, etc."
You were doing well at the beginning there, but they you had to go for that old saw about bad, silly old science somehow ruling out the incoherence and contradictions of superstitious thinking. No, superstitious thinking is just a non-explanation explanation, and scientific thinking doesn't so much require it's exclusion as recognize that superstitious thinking has nothing to offer. You could argue otherwise, but it's apparent by your refusal to explain how we can know things outside of the processes I've explicated, and what you mean by truth, that you would rather insist you realize you cannot.
Legion: "That isn't the purpose of the First Way, which leads to the second failure of communication."
I know what the purpose of the First Way is. Someday, you may recognize the same.
Legion: "You keep comparing it to phlogiston theory, which is quite guilty of attempting to explain how things work and getting it wrong. Phlogiston makes an observation (things burn) and attempts to explain why that happens, so in a sense it is an early science-like endeavor. The First Way doesn't make an observation and attempt to explain why it happens - it makes observations and comes to a logical conclusion based on those observations. It is not an attempt at explaining how nature works mechanically, like phlogiston theory, ergo it is not science-like."
Um hm.
So, the First Way doesn't try to explain why things move?
Instead, it "makes a logical conclusion" about why things move?
At this point it just seems like you're trying to avoid defending the argument by trying to create meaningless distinctions that serve no purpose.
It doesn't so much explain it, as it makes a logical conclusion about why!
LOL.
Legion: "It doesn't matter if ice can be broken down to a mechanical description... any further exposition is unnecessary."
Instead of not addressing my original question, why don't you answer it?
- does ice describe ANY state of water?
- does ice consist of water?
I think Legion is just flailing around now. There's really not much left worth responding to -- I can only hope that he is having a bad day, and needs some more time to collect himself.
Legion: "Sigh. Yes, science can do those things. You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are true. I suppose that scientists could wonder if water can freeze into ice and then test it, but that's hardly necessary to the argument because ANY change in anything is a potential state being actualized, regardless of how it happens. Those aren't scientific concepts, but they are true nonetheless. Science is less than unnecessary in those premises, because there is nothing to test - it's simply true based on the concepts. There are no examples of things changing that aren't potential states being actualized, so what exactly is science supposed to test? / (You seem desperate for me to define truth. Since I can't imagine how this is even remotely relevant to the First Way, and since there is no conceivable answer I can give that will avoid yet another tangent, Wikipedia has an entry on truth that you can ponder. Feel free to inaccurately claim I haven't thought about it, though, or am trying to have something both ways, etc.)"
Suffice to say that the above is one of the weakest and shabbiest comments I've read in awhile. I might come back later to go over it with some thoroughness, but at this point there's little enjoyment in picking over part of this carcass.
What a mess. But, I suppose, what a testament to what apologetics does to someone's mind.
Cal,
How about you let Legion continue explaining the argument rather than getting him sidetracked on discussions about science and what counts as knowledge.
Legion of Logic said...
Perhaps I'm being too loose in my language. Yes, science can indeed analyze it, but it is shown to be extremely unnecessary, and ridiculous when applied. So it's not that science CAN'T analyze potential states being actualized, it's simply hilariously unneeded.
May 05, 2017 6:45 AM
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
If certain people could grasp simple concepts that even children have been proven capable of understanding, then perhaps I could fulfill that promise.
May 05, 2017 6:47 AM
Yes, science can analyze it, making it a science argument, or a scientific argument, or an argument subject to scientific analysis, or an argument that is scientifically invalid if science shows it to be invalid.
I say the First Way is a science argument, not because I think Aquinas intended to argue from a modern scientific perspective, rather, that the argument is on a subject within the scientific realm. An argument from motion can be shown to be scientifically false.
Even a child understands? Yes, even a child understands that the Earth is still and the sun moves across the sky and sets. When we grow up we learn to investigate further to discard such notions as not really being as they seem to a child, or seemed to the ancients.
Water has the potential to freeze? Sure, just like the sun has the potential to set. Where do these potentials reside? In the macro approximations made by the human brain. Really, a body of water, like the sun, is composed of a vast number of sub atomic parts, all interacting in a mutual multibody process of causal influences on each other.
Hilariously unneeded? For the average individual to blithely function in life oblivious to what we now know about the underlying reality, yes.
For those of us who continually seek greater enlightenment and depth of understanding discarding the ancient macro language is essential.
Stardusty: "I say the First Way is a science argument, not because I think Aquinas intended to argue from a modern scientific perspective, rather, that the argument is on a subject within the scientific realm. An argument from motion can be shown to be scientifically false."
Exactly. All of this talk of the First Way properly residing outside of a realm where it can be examined and evaluated on the same grounds by which all other arguments are judged is just a shabby way of indicating that one can't actually defend a patently bad argument.
Imagine the surprise.
>> "I say the First Way is a science argument, not because I think Aquinas intended to argue from a modern scientific perspective, rather, that the argument is on a subject within the scientific realm. An argument from motion can be shown to be scientifically false."
1) Legion has already stated that the First Way does not contradict science.
2) First you'll need to understand the argument (you don't yet). Then you can show us how it's scientifically false (you haven't).
3) It's not a science argument any more than an argument that claims a man swinging a bat caused a baseball to land in center left field is a science argument. You can ATTEMPT to develop one from that if you'd like. Then you can show us where it fails (See #2)
Cal: "We make all kinds of casual observations, many of which are of little scientific value."
Unfortunately for you, the First Way is not a scientific argument, so having scientific value is a meaningless standard.
Cal: "But that doesn't mean that we can't make more rigorous observations when we want to"
And I showed that yes, you can do that to the premises we have done (up to (2)c)), and that doing so is pointless. Because *drum roll* the First Way is not a scientific argument.
Cal: "You seem to be wanting to make a case that we should evaluate the First Way based on casual observations, imprecise terms, and shoddy thinking."
You seem to not be able to comprehend anything I write. I haven't done anything remotely resembling your accusation here. I've simply (and accurately) pointed out that the First Way is not a scientific argument, it is not like phlogiston theory. At all.
Cal: "And that's because every time we point out instances of these things, instead of recognizing them, you jump to this transparent special pleading that tries to exempt the First Way from the kind or rigor that all good arguments can withstand."
The terms are easy to understand, so the problem isn't with the argument. And I demonstrated that the premises up to (2)c withstood your "rigor". So again, you are huffing about absolutely nothing.
Cal: "The rest of this is just waiting for you to come to terms with the fact that you've wasted so much time trying to salvage an old and discarded argument"
Neither of you have scratched the surface of refuting it, since you haven't even understood it yet. That's why I attempted the line-by-line approach, so you could understand it and THEN attempt to refute it. I suspect your scientism will continue to be a hurdle, which is why I've spent time demonstrating how the First Way is not intended to be a scientific argument, can withstand your "rigor", and is not a bad or useless argument simply because it isn't scientific.
Cal: "but it's apparent..."
Haha called it. Useless tangent.
Cal: "I know what the purpose of the First Way is"
You don't have the faintest clue what it is. You haven't even been able to grasp its simplest premises.
Cal: "So, the First Way doesn't try to explain why things move? Instead, it "makes a logical conclusion" about why things move?"
Abandon the scientism, and you'll learn to think again. Your "meaningless distinction" jab was embarrassing to yourself. Consider the following:
"Wood burns, and some other things burn, so there must be some substance within some things that allows them to burn." This is an attempt to explain why things burn, your phlogiston theory that you are so fascinated by.
"Wood burns, which means burning is a potential state of wood that can be actualized in a causal series." This is a logical conclusion about the fact that wood burns - it is not attempting to explain WHY wood burns. And rather than being the tautology you guys want it to be, Aquinas is pointing it out not to make some brilliant observation, but rather to have a thought planted to consider when he establishes the essentially ordered causal series.
Cal: "Instead of not addressing my original question, why don't you answer it?
- does ice describe ANY state of water?
- does ice consist of water?
I wonder how many times I have to address the same questions and be told I haven't addressed it? But since this is finally relevant to the argument, I will clearly answer now so you can't huff about me not answering.
Does ice describe a state of water? Yes, in both the scientific and Aristotelian sense. Ice is the solid state of water. Ice is also a potential state of water, since water can freeze into ice given the proper conditions.
Does ice consist of water? Ice is crystallized H20, so yes it consists of water.
Cal: "I think Legion is just flailing around now."
Is that what my attempt to teach you simple premises in non-scientific terminology looks like as you retreat into your comfortable ignorance?
Cal: "Suffice to say that the above is one of the weakest and shabbiest comments I've read in awhile."
Feel free to try and counter it, I'll just point out why you're wrong again. You simply don't have a clue about any of this material, nor do you want to know, frankly. Scientism is a brain rot.
Stardusty: "I say the First Way is a science argument, not because I think Aquinas intended to argue from a modern scientific perspective, rather, that the argument is on a subject within the scientific realm. An argument from motion can be shown to be scientifically false."
Demonstrate that anything within (1) to (2)c is false.
Stardusty: "When we grow up we learn to investigate further to discard such notions as not really being as they seem to a child, or seemed to the ancients."
Except you guys haven't scratched the surface of the First Way, so why discard it? The only reason to discard it would be for someone who understands it to point out its flaws. Someone who doesn't understand it, such as you and Cal, cannot refute it.
Stardusty: "Really, a body of water, like the sun, is composed of a vast number of sub atomic parts, all interacting in a mutual multibody process of causal influences on each other."
And at the end of the day, water freezes under the proper conditions, so ice is a potential state of water.
Stardusty: "For the average individual to blithely function in life oblivious to what we now know about the underlying reality, yes."
Do you have to pull out quantum mechanical formulas to demonstrate to someone how to get from one town to another? No? Do you have to appeal to subatomic particles to tell someone you love them? No? Then it appears that one can explain reality without appealing to quantum theory.
Stardusty: "For those of us who continually seek greater enlightenment and depth of understanding discarding the ancient macro language is essential."
That's wonderful, but it is irrelevant to the First Way in the same sense that the type of tree burning in his example is irrelevant.
Cal: "Exactly. All of this talk of the First Way properly residing outside of a realm where it can be examined and evaluated on the same grounds by which all other arguments are judged is just a shabby way of indicating that one can't actually defend a patently bad argument."
Except I did just that for you, and showed that it withstood your "rigor". So now you're lying again. You can't blame your constant lying on scientism, that's another problem.
SteveK: "How about you let Legion continue explaining the argument rather than getting him sidetracked on discussions about science and what counts as knowledge."
Unfortunately, the brain rot of scientism is preventing them from even understanding the basic premises. I mean really, how difficult is it to understand what a potential state is? Not nearly as difficult to a normal thinking person as it is to someone mired in scientism.
So, I won't ever get past (2)c until they understand that something can be non-scientific (and understand what I mean by that, as I have clearly done so multiple times now) and still be coherent. I'd be willing to take bets on the likelihood of getting past (2)c based on that requirement, but oh well.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "I say the First Way is a science argument, not because I think Aquinas intended to argue from a modern scientific perspective, rather, that the argument is on a subject within the scientific realm. An argument from motion can be shown to be scientifically false."
" Demonstrate that anything within (1) to (2)c is false."
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act.
This language is so simplistic as to be childish by modern standards, but I am glad you acknowledge that the First Way is a science argument in that it is subject to scientific analysis.
Stardusty: "When we grow up we learn to investigate further to discard such notions as not really being as they seem to a child, or seemed to the ancients."
" Except you guys haven't scratched the surface of the First Way, "
Funny. I have gone deeper than the OP and I have told him so in explicit criticisms and additional necessary notation I have posted here repeatedly.
Stardusty: "Really, a body of water, like the sun, is composed of a vast number of sub atomic parts, all interacting in a mutual multibody process of causal influences on each other."
" And at the end of the day, water freezes under the proper conditions, so ice is a potential state of water."
At the end of the day the sun sets so setting is a potential state of the sun. This is primitive thinking.
Stardusty: "For the average individual to blithely function in life oblivious to what we now know about the underlying reality, yes."
" Do you have to pull out quantum mechanical formulas to demonstrate to someone how to get from one town to another? No? Do you have to appeal to subatomic particles to tell someone you love them? No? Then it appears that one can explain reality without appealing to quantum theory."
False. One has not "explained reality" with those macro human approximations. One has only provided high level approximate models of reality.
Stardusty: "For those of us who continually seek greater enlightenment and depth of understanding discarding the ancient macro language is essential."
" That's wonderful, but it is irrelevant to the First Way in the same sense that the type of tree burning in his example is irrelevant."
The relevance becomes more apparent as Aquinas begs the question in denying an infinite regress, fails to address the irrationality of an unmoved mover, introduces his own infinite regress, asserts a false and ad hoc understanding, and invalidly implies that human understanding equals existence.
Oh, I'm sorry, am I scratching too deep too soon?
May 05, 2017 8:40 PM
SteveK said...
" 3) It's not a science argument any more than an argument that claims a man swinging a bat caused a baseball to land in center left field is a science argument."
Yes, baseball is physics, it is subject to scientific investigation and falsification.
May 05, 2017 8:04 PM
@Legion of Logic,
After 1100 comments it looks to me that Strawdusty thinks that water does not really have a capacity to freeze.
Although we observe this happening all the time at 0C using (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.), but this is apparently some sort of illusion (so much for the study of thermodynamics). If using 'SCIENCE' only leads to illusions then why make such a big fuss that only 'SCIENCE' leads to 'truth'? I guess we have progressed since 'medeval' times when we thought arguments should be coherent.
If the real objection is that 'reality is an illusion' then discussion of the First Way is useless since it assumes that reality is not an illusion.
I still have no idea what Cal thinks about water and ice. Does he think water ceases to exist when ice appears? Does water not have a capacity to turn to ice at 0C? I wish he would tell you his take on this process so you could compare and contrast. Maybe he has a superior argument that things don't have inherent capacities to change in predictable ways. Since he objects to this concept, he must have a different one, but I can't pick it out.
I agree with you that you won't get past 2c, but I think you're doing a service. For instance no one in the thread is doing 'SICENCE'(observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.) but all apparently consider the discussion a way to reach the truth....no test tubes or particle accelerators required.
>> "False. One has not "explained reality" with those macro human approximations. One has only provided high level approximate models of reality."
Anyone who says this is either lying or delusional and can be ignored. "It was a brick in motion that broke the glass" explains reality very well. Nothing false about such a statement.
SteveK said...
>> "False. One has not "explained reality" with those macro human approximations. One has only provided high level approximate models of reality."
" Anyone who says this is either lying or delusional and can be ignored. "It was a brick in motion that broke the glass" explains reality very well. Nothing false about such a statement."
Profound ignorance of the theist thus laid bare.
To say "the brick broke the glass" is a valid macro approximation of reality. This statement does not "explain reality", rather, it models reality at a simplified high level that is functionally useful.
To "explain reality" would require a very great deal of examination. For example, that same brick, in the same motion if thrown against lexan would not break a window of that material. Why? Because the reality of the mechanical structure of the glass as compared to the mechanical structure of the lexan are very different. The glass is a material composed of amorphous and weakly bonded silicon dioxide molecules, whereas the lexan is composed of polymer chains of polycarbonate molecules that form very strong bonds.
The lexan and the glass look about the same. Stand back and you probably could not tell the difference. Yet if two bricks were thrown at two seemingly identical windows one would break and the other would not. Simply stating "it was a brick in motion that broke one window and a brick in motion that bounced off the other window" would not "explain reality", merely provide a very crude macro description of reality.
You theists don't think very deeply, do you?
May 06, 2017 10:13 AM
bmiller said...
@Legion of Logic,
After 1100 comments it looks to me that Strawdusty thinks that water does not really have a capacity to freeze.
" Although we observe this happening all the time at 0C using (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.), but this is apparently some sort of illusion"
Yes, of course. Don't you know that? Don't you realize that what you see and taste and feel are just high level approximations of a much more complex underlying reality?
"(so much for the study of thermodynamics)."
You don't really know anything about thermodynamics, do you? Some hundreds of years ago scientists formulated some very good approximate models of thermodynamics.
But over the years these models were shown to break down under certain conditions, for example PV=nRT generally works well, except when it doesn't.
To account for these inaccuracies more detailed analysis of molecular forces and quantum mechanics are needed.
" If using 'SCIENCE' only leads to illusions then why make such a big fuss that only 'SCIENCE' leads to 'truth'? "
What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Science leads to increasingly accurate models.
" If the real objection is that 'reality is an illusion'"
Are you trying to be dense? Reality is whatever reality is. It is our perception of reality that is necessarily inaccurate, and to that extent illusory.
" I agree with you that you won't get past 2c,"
If you don't realize that terms like "potential to freeze" are human concepts of macro approximations that is your problem.
May 06, 2017 10:01 AM
Stardusty: "This language is so simplistic as to be childish by modern standards, but I am glad you acknowledge that the First Way is a science argument in that it is subject to scientific analysis."
This was your response to my request that you demonstrate anything from (1) to (2)c was false. So as a means of demonstrating a part or all of it was false, you state your opinion that it is childish by modern standards.
Needless to say, it remains unrefuted by you and science both.
Stardusty: "At the end of the day the sun sets so setting is a potential state of the sun. This is primitive thinking."
Yes, that is definitely primitive thinking. As far as water freezing goes, that is accurate thinking. You keep taking us on a Fantastic Voyage into the subatomic world as some sort of attempt to say that water doesn't freeze into ice, but thus far, water still freezes into ice regardless of what the quarks are up to.
Stardusty: "False. One has not "explained reality" with those macro human approximations."
It is beyond asinine to expect a comprehensive subatomic thesis when explaining how to get from Orlando to San Francisco. I guarantee I can leave out the motion of electrons on my map, and you'll get there. You have a serious cognitive blind spot with your obsession with quantum mechanics, since you are by all appearances struggling to accept that water freezes into ice.
Stardusty: "Oh, I'm sorry, am I scratching too deep too soon?"
It's rather childish that you're unable to go at my pace, since my pace is quite reasonable given the people I am dealing with. Regardless, your scratching has yet to leave a mark. Perhaps you should take off the scientism mittens and then you'll have a little more scritch in your scratch.
Stardusty: "You theists don't think very deeply, do you?"
StekeK offers an observation: "It was a brick in motion that broke the glass"
Stardusty: "Profound ignorance of the theist thus laid bare."
Stardusty's response is literally the dumbest thing that has been said in this entire thread. But we can be even more specific.
Stardusty: "To say "the brick broke the glass" is a valid macro approximation of reality."
No, to say "the brick broke the glass" is a valid description, period. Words are concepts. "Brick" describes the object striking the "glass", which describes the object being "broken", which describes a solid object coming apart when it shouldn't. There is literally nothing in the quantum world you can use to either refute that or to enhance understanding, since no one is benefited in any way by knowing how many protons are in the molecules of the glass. It is utterly irrelevant to the truth of the statement "the brick broke the glass".
All the lexan stuff was completely irrelevant, as well. The statement was "the brick broke the glass". If the brick had bounced off a lexan panel, then there would have been no observation of "the brick broke the glass". Why even bring up lexan?
I think I see what you are doing, though. You are losing badly in the battle of ideas, so you are nitpicking "explain reality" to mean it has to be a fully comprehensive explanation that accurately defines and describes every single aspect of every single thing ever, which obviously no one can do. However, the rest of us here accept certain provisional postulates that this ridiculously technical definition of "explaining reality" is not the only definition of "explaining reality", let alone the proper one to use. When all of us watch a brick go through a glass window and land on a frozen pond, you will be the only one claiming that bricks and glass and ice don't exist. The rest of us will be dealing with reality.
Stardusty: "potential to freeze" are human concepts of macro approximations"
Obviously. Science also deals in human concepts of macro approximations. Every human endeavor deals with human concepts of macro approximations.
The difference is, any change in any thing can be accurately described as a potential becoming actualized. By definition, if the change occurred, then it had the potential to do so, and since it occurred, then it was actualized. Those statements are simply true, and there is nothing in science that refutes them. And unlike science, it doesn't have to be a mechanical description of the inner workings of how things function - if something changed, a potential state was actualized. It's that simple, and it's all the premise needs in order to be true. Which, of course, it is.
An edit to above: Even when dealing with quantum mechanics, much of it is symbolic mathematical formulas which themselves are approximations, even if they aren't "macro". It is impossible for any human to fully and accurately describe any thing, but it is definitely possible for a human to go into far too much irrelevant detail when describing a thing for a particular purpose.
@Strawdusty,
<<<<<
After 1100 comments it looks to me that Strawdusty thinks that water does not really have a capacity to freeze.
" Although we observe this happening all the time at 0C using (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.), but this is apparently some sort of illusion"
Yes, of course. Don't you know that? Don't you realize that what you see and taste and feel are just high level approximations of a much more complex underlying reality?
>>>>>
OK, here you've confirmed that you think using scientific methods produce illusions. But on the other hand, you assert that scientific methods produce "increasingly accurate models". Sounds incoherent to me.
"If you don't realize that terms like "potential to freeze" are human concepts of macro approximations that is your problem."
Sorry. I happen to be human, as are most scientists (the jury is still out on Tesla) so therefore I use human concepts. What type of concepts to you use?
(Sorry Legion, I see you already had a similar response, but I already had mine pasted in the box.)
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "At the end of the day the sun sets so setting is a potential state of the sun. This is primitive thinking."
" Yes, that is definitely primitive thinking. As far as water freezing goes, that is accurate thinking. You keep taking us on a Fantastic Voyage into the subatomic world as some sort of attempt to say that water doesn't freeze into ice, but thus far, water still freezes into ice regardless of what the quarks are up to."
You have it back to front, not "regardless", rather "because of".
The First Way attempts to answer a fundamental riddle of first cause versus infinite regress of causes. The only way to answer a fundamental question is to understand fundamentals.
The question is not "can water freeze and melt in an infinite series?" or "can wood burn in an infinite series?".
The question is "can there be an infinite series of the most fundamental constituents of existence, or can there be a first cause of the most fundamental constituents of existence, or is there some other as yet undiscovered alternative for the origins of the most fundamental constituents of existence?".
First you must learn to shed your primitive thinking to ask the correct questions. I am trying to teach you this but you are a thus far incorrigible student.
Stardusty: "You theists don't think very deeply, do you?"
Stardusty: "To say "the brick broke the glass" is a valid macro approximation of reality."
" No, to say "the brick broke the glass" is a valid description, period. Words are concepts. "Brick" describes the object striking the "glass", which describes the object being "broken", which describes a solid object coming apart when it shouldn't."
Solid object? You do understand the glass is mostly empty space, right?
Shouldn't? That is a rather bizarre choice of words. Why "shouldn't" the glass break? You are somehow assigning intentionality, or right and wrong, or purpose or something...to glass. How very odd.
" I think I see what you are doing, though. You are losing badly in the battle of ideas, so you are nitpicking "explain reality" to mean it has to be a fully comprehensive explanation that accurately defines and describes every single aspect of every single thing ever, which obviously no one can do."
Right, which is why nobody has truly explained reality. But we get closer and closer as physics derives ever more accurate models.
" When all of us watch a brick go through a glass window and land on a frozen pond, you will be the only one claiming that bricks and glass and ice don't exist. The rest of us will be dealing with reality."
Actually, there are a significant number of us that frequently contemplate the illusory nature of our sense based macro scale models of reality. You are the sort that proudly beats your chest in ignorance of this more enlightened perspective.
May 06, 2017 11:33 AM
Legion of Logic said...
" An edit to above: Even when dealing with quantum mechanics, much of it is symbolic mathematical formulas which themselves are approximations,"
Indeed.
" even if they aren't "macro"."
They probably are. If strings or some other more fundamental structure is discovered then the most fundamental things we presently know will be known to actually be derivatives.
May 06, 2017 11:41 AM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "potential to freeze" are human concepts of macro approximations"
" Obviously. "
Hallelujah
" The difference is, any change in any thing can be accurately described as a potential becoming actualized. By definition, if the change occurred, then it had the potential to do so, and since it occurred, then it was actualized. "
By definition you have created a useless tautology "stuff only does what stuff can do."
In truth, nobody knows why or how things progress in orderly patterns as causal influences mutually propagate.
"Those statements are simply true, and there is nothing in science that refutes if something changed, a potential state was actualized. It's that simple, and it's all the premise needs in order to be true. Which, of course, it is."
If something happens then something that could happen happened because something that can't happen can't happen.
Wow, what an impressive insight into how the world works.
May 06, 2017 11:39 AM
bmiller said...
@Strawdusty,
<<<<<
After 1100 comments it looks to me that Strawdusty thinks that water does not really have a capacity to freeze.
" Although we observe this happening all the time at 0C using (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.), but this is apparently some sort of illusion"
Yes, of course. Don't you know that? Don't you realize that what you see and taste and feel are just high level approximations of a much more complex underlying reality?
>>>>>
" OK, here you've confirmed that you think using scientific methods produce illusions. But on the other hand, you assert that scientific methods produce "increasingly accurate models". Sounds incoherent to me."
Yes, I realize my word are incomprehensible to you. Your proximate error is in this statement "you think using scientific methods produce illusions".
May 06, 2017 12:24 PM
Me:" Although we observe this happening all the time at 0C using (observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.), but this is apparently some sort of illusion"
Strawdusty: "Yes, of course...."
Strawdusty:"Your proximate error is in this statement "you think using scientific methods produce illusions"."
Well I did use Cal's definition of scientific methodology and you confirmed that it was an illusion at 11:20 AM. Then at 4:50 PM it is now an error to think it is an illusion. So hard to keep track.
"Yes, I realize my word are incomprehensible to you."
Must be because you use non-human concepts unlike us humans.
Stardusty: "You have it back to front, not "regardless", rather "because of"."
All science except for quantum physics operates perfectly without reference to quarks. All non-scientific observation and conclusions operate perfectly without reference to quarks. That is because regardless of what is going on at the quantum level, what we see occurring on the macro level is in fact occurring. Regardless of the quarks.
Stardusty: "The First Way attempts to answer a fundamental riddle of first cause versus infinite regress of causes."
I more than suspect you are thinking of a different sort of causal series than Aquinas.
Stardusty: "Solid object? You do understand the glass is mostly empty space, right?"
You do realize that the states of matter are a valid principle in physics, right? A solid object has distinct properties, hence why it is called a solid rather than a liquid, gas, plasma, or one of the other oddball states.
Stardusty: "Shouldn't? That is a rather bizarre choice of words. Why "shouldn't" the glass break? You are somehow assigning intentionality, or right and wrong, or purpose or something...to glass. How very odd."
Or, perhaps I'm using language to describe concepts. What do you think the word "broken" means? Have you ever seen something break? How do you know it broke?
Stardusty: "Right, which is why nobody has truly explained reality."
Yes, but a comprehensive explanation (which is currently impossible, if not literally impossible in principle) is not what I or anyone else means when we say "explain reality". When someone says water froze into ice, that is true due to the definition of words. It doesn't enumerate everything going on physically at the subatomic level, but by definition it encapsulates everything going on because it is, in fact, water that froze into ice. So "froze into ice" does describe reality, even if it doesn't define every and subatomic nuance. It is a non-comprehensive explanation that is valid for the vast majority of situations.
Stardusty: "Actually, there are a significant number of us that frequently contemplate the illusory nature of our sense based macro scale models of reality. You are the sort that proudly beats your chest in ignorance of this more enlightened perspective."
I am well aware that things at the quantum level appear very different than things at our level of experience. I'm also aware that I can throw a brick through a glass window and that water freezes into ice. The properties of bricks, glass, and water at the subatomic level do not invalidate bricks through windows or water becoming ice. Unless I am making a claim like "a solid is a solid because there is no empty space between particles" then appealing to the quantum level is not going to be useful or game-changing in the vast majority of situations.
Stardusty: "They probably are. If strings or some other more fundamental structure is discovered then the most fundamental things we presently know will be known to actually be derivatives."
Sure. But there comes a point where if you completely abandon experience and observation at the macro level, you become forced to deny that water freezes into ice. You're almost into simulation territory there.
Stardusty: "By definition you have created a useless tautology "stuff only does what stuff can do."
As I've been saying, the reason Aquinas hits on potential and actual states is not to make a profound observation, but to set the stage for explaining an essentially ordered series later. It's not a useless tautology because it is not supposed to explain how things work, like Cal's phlogiston theory. The First Way doesn't have to appeal to how things work, it simply observes what things are doing and forms a conclusion based upon it.
Stardusty: "In truth, nobody knows why or how things progress in orderly patterns as causal influences mutually propagate."
The First Way is dependent on whether or not things change. If they do, it doesn't matter why or how, the First Way covers it.
Stardusty: "Wow, what an impressive insight into how the world works."
The important question is, can you refute it? Using science, can you demonstrate that when change occurs with something, it was not a potential state of that something being actualized?
Dusty believes in reductionism and physicalism. Both are well known *philosophical* understandings of reality. The tragic irony is he thinks he's being scientific. A symptom consistent with brain rot.
I've spent very little time on learning all the 'isms out there, but the reductionist article referenced eliminative materialism, and that definitely hit some familiar points.
Blogger bmiller said...
SP "Yes, I realize my word are incomprehensible to you."
" Must be because you use non-human concepts unlike us humans."
Close.
I use science to go beyond the immediate naked eye human concepts of reality.
Science doesn't "produce" illusions. Science exposes illusions of our sense experience.
Science did not "produce" the illusion of the sun setting. Science exposed that the stationary Earth and Sun moving to set is an illusion. Science did not "produce" the illusion of solid objects. Science exposed that seemingly solid objects are mostly empty space.
Scientists do indeed attempt to get as close to a non-human perspective as possible in that the method is intended to eliminate and correct for human biases and limitations as much as possible.
May 06, 2017 7:52 PM
I want to point out where Legion (et al.) went entirely back off the rails (again).
Usually there’s a low-level rejection from apologists where they a) try to appear rational, while b) rejecting those approaches to rational thinking that threaten their silly beliefs.
Legion: "Sigh. Yes, science can do those things. You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are true.”
What do you mean by “true”? You still won’t explain, despite my asking SO MANY TIMES. And we still don’t know.
Potential states are actualized, and that’s true, and science won’t deal with them because mean old science isn’t… true?
I suppose you mean that it’s tautologically true. But we’re talking about reality, in which case our terms describe real phenomena. So, it’s still on you to define your terms precisely enough so that they describe what we actually observe. If you won’t or can’t do this, then there’s no reason to pay further attention to your comments.
Legion: “I suppose that scientists could wonder if water can freeze into ice and then test it, but that's hardly necessary to the argument because ANY change in anything is a potential state being actualized, regardless of how it happens.”
Gibberish. The only way we can know of any external change is by observation. Observed change is entirely necessary to the argument. Observed change IS the argument. Change that is NOT observed is
Legion: “Those aren't scientific concepts, but they are true nonetheless.”
Sigh indeed. No, those are exactly scientific concepts. We observe things changing (in your phraseology, the potential becomes actual), and THAT is why we can start to follow the argument.
Legion: “Science is less than unnecessary in those premises, because there is nothing to test - it's simply true based on the concepts.”
If there is no change, there is no concept of change. To think otherwise is to be incoherent. (To think is to change; ergo, to entertain the concept of change — first then, then that — REQUIRES change.) This is not complicated or high level stuff.
Legion: “There are no examples of things changing that aren't potential states being actualized, so what exactly is science supposed to test?”
Anything that changes. Only just that.
Legion: “(You seem desperate for me to define truth. Since I can't imagine how this is even remotely relevant to the First Way… "
Hysterical. You are the one who keeps prattling on about things being “true” without defining what you mean by that word. (Here’s you - Legion: “You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are TRUE.”)
I keep on asking you define what you mean by true only because you keep on using that word and insisting that your pet argument works because it is, in your words, just “true.”
Hey, even though my argument equivocates, is unsound, contradicts itself, and begs the question, it’s just true!
I’ll fix it for you:
Legion: “You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are true.”
Fixed: “You know what science does deal in? Observed change — because observed change can examined and tested, in ways that are objective, reliable, and verifiable.”
bmiller: “I still have no idea what Cal thinks about water and ice. Does he think water ceases to exist when ice appears?”
No — as usual, you have it exactly wrong. Something magically ceasing to exist would be a consequence of Aquinas’s thinking. In fact, as a consequence of Aquinas’ thinking, things MUST disappear when change occurs. That is one of the reasons why Aristotles physics were abandoned so long ago — because in AT physics things go “poof” out of existence, when a more accurate description is that an unimaginably complex set of interacting things undergo motion that results in macro changes that we can observe.
Does the potential for water to become ice exist? The defender of this language says, “Yes!”
When the water becomes ice (in act!), does the potential for the water to become ice exist? Nope, not according to AT physics. That’s said to be impossible.
What’s the consequence of this fuzzy language? That something that once existed (potential) ceases to exist.
The only way to save this is to do away with the fuzziness, and embrace a more accurate and precise set of terms.
Oh, that’s right. The modern world did that looong ago. And here in the outback, like a bunch of Japanese soldiers stranded on an island for decades, don’t know that you lost that war so long ago.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "You have it back to front, not "regardless", rather "because of"."
" All science except for quantum physics operates perfectly without reference to quarks."
False. Your use of the word "perfectly" is incorrect. You should have said "to a usefully accurate approximation".
" All non-scientific observation and conclusions operate perfectly without reference to quarks. "
False. Your use of the word "perfectly" is incorrect. You should have said "to a usefully accurate approximation".
"That is because regardless of what is going on at the quantum level, what we see occurring on the macro level is in fact occurring."
False. What we see happening at the macro level is a usefully accurate approximation of reality.
" Regardless of the quarks."
False. Because of the fundamental constituents of reality, not irrespective of them.
You theists don't think very deeply, do you?
Stardusty: "Solid object? You do understand the glass is mostly empty space, right?"
" You do realize that the states of matter are a valid principle in physics, right?"
Yes, they are valid macro level approximations.
Stardusty: "Right, which is why nobody has truly explained reality."
" Yes, but a comprehensive explanation (which is currently impossible, if not literally impossible in principle) is not what I or anyone else means when we say "explain reality"."
False. I am part of "anyone else" with respect to you. So you are wrong by counter example.
Now, I suppose you might dismiss me as 1/7000000000 and therefore insignificant. However, history shows us that frequently even just 1 individual with a new perspective does in fact plant a seed that changes the perspective throughout educated humanity.
Actually, I am not that unique. A large number of people express these same perspectives. Alas, I cannot honestly lay claim to originating such ideas.
May 06, 2017 7:53 PM
Legion of Logic said...
" When someone says water froze into ice, that is true due to the definition of words."
If one postulates certain definitions then one can declare "true" or "false" within that closed definitional set, fair enough.
I imagine you think I am being obstinate or obstructionist of pedantic or just a pain in the ass or some such thing. I have a very serious reason for insisting on the illusory nature of our macro level sense perceptions and that truth is found at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence.
The reason is that humanity can only hope to solve this as yet unsolved riddle by learning more about these most fundamental constituents. There is no hope that we will solve this riddle at the level of logic applied to ordinary sense perception, as it has been tried uncounted times and all published attempts fail.
For example, one candidate is that somehow there can be an effect without a cause in ordinary stuff. That seems preposterous and completely counter to our ordinary sense experience but the Copenhagen interpretation holds that entities do not have definite properties until they are measured. Further, some say randomness can be intrinsic, meaning an effect without a cause is commonplace in ordinary wave structures. If true, this would eliminate the need for an original first cause, since there are a multitude of uncaused effects occurring continually.
For another example, light does not "experience" the passage of time, according to relativity. Time goes to zero for electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum, by this model. This is a clue as to how, perhaps, energy could have always existed, because an infinite regress of time is not needed if time equals zero.
And no, I do not claim these ideas solve the problem, but they show my point, that the fundamental constituents of existence act in ways that are very different from our ordinary sense experiences, and that is where humanity has hope of someday solving this riddle, not by rehashing ancient and medieval hack reasoning, such as that of Aquinas.
May 06, 2017 7:53 PM
Stardusty: "You theists don't think very deeply, do you?"
I feel like so much of this thread is watching apologists write knee jerk reactions to thoughts they have never before taken the time to actually consider.
Cal: "What do you mean by “true”? You still won’t explain, despite my asking SO MANY TIMES. And we still don’t know."
A person sitting on a nuclear warhead when it detonates will die. True or false? If you answer "true", you will know what I mean by "true". If you answer "false", I would love to hear your explanation.
Cal: "So, it’s still on you to define your terms precisely enough so that they describe what we actually observe."
This has been done many times, through definition and example. I am fully confident the definitions are sufficient, so obviously the problem is with you, not me.
Cal: "Gibberish"
Your failure to understand simple concepts does not make them gibberish. Perhaps you should begin questioning why you are struggling so much to understand such simple concepts.
Cal: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation."
Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.
Cal: "Observed change is entirely necessary to the argument. Observed change IS the argument."
We do observe change. Change that isn't observed but occurs anyway is not fundamentally different.
Cal: "No, those are exactly scientific concepts."
So now you are saying that potential states and actualized states are terms used in experiments and found in scientific literature? Please point me to the study and journal that uses them.
Cal: "Anything that changes. Only just that."
Except it is entirely unnecessary. By definition, if a change in anything occurs, there was a potential state that was actualized. Science is utterly irrelevant to that premise, and does nothing to contradict it.
Legion of Logic said...
(2) But, all that is moved, is moved by another.
a. Nothing is, in fact, moved, unless it is in potency to that towards which it is moved.
b. But, a thing moves only insomuch as it is in act.
c. In fact, to move is nothing else than to bring a thing from potency to act.
Objections?
Yes, I object.
The notion of an effect without a cause is in question. It seems irrational, yet for a great many scientists it seems to be the case. This assertion of (2) is highly scientifically debatable.
Is motion change? If a thing is moved it is moved by another, the assertion goes. What of uniform linear motion? X is moving, therefore X is changing position. Is X changing itself or is X being changed by something else or is it not actually changing? If X is not actually changing but X is moving how can it be said that motion is change? If X is not actually changing yet it is in different positions at different times how can it be said that position is a property of X?
Aristotle thought the latter, that
speed = force * resistance
A-T thinking was that a force had to be continuously applied for motion to continue and that objects went to their natural stationary place.
So, section 2 up to c is highly dubious, although it makes great sense from the perspective of our ordinary perceptions. Beware our ordinary perceptions, they led to many false assessments in the days of A-T and continue to do so to this day for those who find thinking deeply to be tedious.
May 01, 2017 5:51 PM
Me: "What do you mean by “true”? You still won’t explain, despite my asking SO MANY TIMES. And we still don’t know."
Legion: "A person sitting on a nuclear warhead when it detonates will die. True or false? If you answer "true", you will know what I mean by "true". If you answer "false", I would love to hear your explanation."
So by true, you are now claiming that you mean "correct", in ways that have been checked, objectively reliably, and verifiably, and that we can reliably predict (test) for these events?
But this is different than what you said earlier -- that you could know things to be true that weren't examinable. Here, I'll remind you of what you had said in response to me earlier:
Me: "If those observations and conclusions aren't correctable, then they are in need of refinement so that they can be examined and tested, and if they are not, they fail to be productive -- which just means that they have nothing to add to the body of knowledge that is most accurately represented by a scientific approach to those things that can be made tractable."
Legion: "Being open to scientific inquiry is not the same as needing it. There are countless things I KNOW TO BE TRUE that I have no need of scientific input to know for sure."
So which is it -- that we know things to be true without being able to check on them (the existence of other person, the existence of nuclear warheads, the events that unfold during a nuclear explosion, etc.), or that you know countless things to be true that you have no need to ever examine or test (as opposed to your example, which involves all the things I pointed out we need in order to know)?
It helps if you think about these things for awhile before answering. This is really basic epistemology stuff -- there's a lot written on it, but it's not that complicated. Still, you should spend some time thinking about it before answering. Otherwise, I think you'll continue to struggle with the equivocations found in the First Way.
Stardusty: "False. Your use of the word "perfectly" is incorrect. You should have said "to a usefully accurate approximation".
I write how I speak. "I can hear perfectly well, thank you" does not literally mean that my hearing is perfect. I shall try to remember that I am dealing with Nitpicking Personified. :)
Stardusty: "You theists don't think very deeply, do you?"
We think as deeply as the situation calls for, which is why your struggle to deny that water freezes into ice has amused us so much. To take things to the level that you are attempting to go, we would essentially have to deny all experience. A thing's components do not necessarily share the characteristics of the whole, so to attempt to define everything at the subatomic level is to miss out on what is going on up above.
Stardusty: "False. I am part of "anyone else" with respect to you. So you are wrong by counter example."
If I was referring to you, I would have said "you". I said "anyone else", which refers to everyone else in the thread, and specifically the other theists. Again, I shall try and write more precisely.
Stardusty: "If one postulates certain definitions then one can declare "true" or "false" within that closed definitional set, fair enough."
And this is what I am doing when I say that any change is a potential state becoming actualized, by definition. It requires no further exposition than the definition being met.
Stardusty: "truth is found at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence."
Careful, Cal might start asking what you mean by "truth". As I referenced above, I don't believe the properties of a thing at the subatomic level can truly define the whole thing, since parts do not always have the properties of the whole. And in the case of an argument such as the First Way, I don't believe appealing to quantum mechanics is appropriate simply because the only requirement for the premises to be true is that the definitions are met.
Stardusty: "the Copenhagen interpretation holds that entities do not have definite properties until they are measured."
Contrast this with the macro level, in which we do not have to be limited by dependence on probabilities and our measurements do not affect the outcomes. We can predict exactly where a planet is going to be and can launch a satellite and slingshot it around other planets to arrive at the target planet's location. This is why physicists are attempting to find a unifying theory, because the standard model and quantum mechanics don't fully mesh currently. Both explain different aspects, but neither explains all aspects.
I don't deny that one can truly describe reality without regard to quantum mechanics, but at the level of the First Way's premises (things change), quantum mechanics simply aren't required. The definitions are too general to need it.
speed = force / resistance
Sorry, I sometimes have difficulty remembering and communicating wrong ideas.
These skeptics cannot grasp basic concepts that every normal human being understands because they are blinded by their commitment to physicalism/reductionism. The demand to get more precise is code language for you to state your terms in the language of the physical. Anything else but that is considered "woo" or "gibberish" or "hand waving" or "a model" - but not True(tm) reality.
In the next blog conversation - say, about morality, rationality, humanity, justice, etc - those requirements are jettisoned. Funny how that works.
@Strawdusty,
"Sorry, I sometimes have difficulty remembering and communicating wrong ideas.
Actually, you are very proficient :-)
@Cal,
The reason I asked you for your description of water changing to ice was so Legion could compare and contrast your version to his.
This was your positive response to the question:
"when a more accurate description is that an unimaginably complex set of interacting things undergo motion that results in macro changes that we can observe."
Does this process of "unimaginably complex set of interacting things" undergoing motion and resulting in macro changes have the potential to actually change the water to gold? Or does the process always actually result in ice?
You also wrote this:
"Does the potential for water to become ice exist? The defender of this language says, “Yes!”
When the water becomes ice (in act!), does the potential for the water to become ice exist? Nope, not according to AT physics. That’s said to be impossible."
Is you answer to the question "Does the potential for water to become ice exist?" "No!"? Because it looks as if you are criticizing Legion for saying "Yes!"
Regarding your further remark, when a particular quantity of water is completely frozen, does that particular chunk of ice now have still have the potential to become ice? Would you accept the concept that the nature of water is to be in either a liquid or frozen state depending on the surrounding conditions? That when conditions are above 0C ( in air, at sea level, etc) that a quantity of water will actually be in a liquid state with a potential to be in a solid state if the temperature drops? And when conditions are below 0C (in air, etc) that said quantity of water will be in a solid state (ice) with a potential to be in a liquid state if the temperature rises above 0C?
Thank you for your consideration.
The Copenhagen interpretation of reality states that until the waveform is collapsed there are various potential outcomes. Once something actually collapses the waveform the object has actual properties so potential states are actualized. This is in line with the potency/act distinction under discussion.
The stochastic process of quantum mechanical measurements likewise does not invalidate the potency/act distinction.
Newton established inertia as the continued cause of motion after the impressed force is removed. Not the object causing itself to move, and not "nothing". Before being called inertia, it was called impetus.
Woo Monger Lawrence Krauss claims the universe is caused by nothing. If some scientists use cause and effect to conclude that effects happen without a cause, it seems they've undermined their own credibility.
Me: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation."
Legion: “Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
Reading comprehension.
Try reading what I wrote again. Maybe move your lips or something when you do. Now give yourself time to realize that your reply is just another kind of non sequitur.
Pull. Yourself. Together. Seriously. You seem more unhinged than usual.
Me: "Observed change is entirely necessary to the argument. Observed change IS the argument."
Legion: “We do observe change. Change that isn't observed but occurs anyway is not fundamentally different.”
Congratulations. You’ve accepted a key principle of induction — the assumption that what is true for one thing remains true for similar instances across space and time. But this is also (famously) something that you cannot know — you need to accept it as provisional (and necessary), but with the admission that the knowledge is an assumption / axiomatic. This is what I mean by taking some time to actually study things about which you make sweeping statements — it’s just obvious that you haven’t thought about these things very deeply or become familiar with the basic stances at the heart of these positions.
Legion: “I suppose that scientists could wonder if water can freeze into ice and then test it, but that's hardly necessary to the argument because ANY change in anything is a potential state being actualized, regardless of how it happens. Those aren't scientific concepts, but they are true nonetheless.”
Me: "No, those are exactly scientific concepts."
Legion: So now you are saying that potential states and actualized states are terms used in experiments and found in scientific literature? Please point me to the study and journal that uses them.
Reading comprehension.
Concepts ≠ scientific terms. Like I’ve said, you probably need to calm down and stop worrying about saving face. Think of yourself, and what you can learn, as the audience here, and stop worrying about trying to redeem your earlier comments and positions.
Legion: “There are no examples of things changing that aren't potential states being actualized, so what exactly is science supposed to test?”
Me: “Anything that changes. Only just that.”
Legion: “Except it is entirely unnecessary. By definition, if a change in anything occurs, there was a potential state that was actualized. Science is utterly irrelevant to that premise, and does nothing to contradict it.”
Reading comprehension.
You asked what science is supposed to test — as if the terms you use are what science examines. I replied that science can test anything that changes. This is obvious. You see, science is NOT the study of terms — it’s the study of real things, by humans, who use tools (of which language is one) to communicate concepts, describe real objects and phenomena, etc. If people study reality with the discipline and precision that scientific processes offer, and they have found that terms like “potency” and and “actualized” are too fuzzy and imprecise for practical use, then they are under no obligation to humor you.
Your terms are not the territory. Reality is the territory. If your terms offer a poor description of the territory, then those who want to study the territory are under no obligation to continue using your map when they have the actual territory for which they can create their own, better map.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "False. Your use of the word "perfectly" is incorrect. You should have said "to a usefully accurate approximation".
" I write how I speak. "I can hear perfectly well, thank you" does not literally mean that my hearing is perfect."
Right, so your statement was not literately correct, in other words, it was literally incorrect.
"I shall try to remember that I am dealing with Nitpicking Personified. :)"
I appreciate conversational English, and A-T language is a sort of folksy conversational view of things. However, that does not make for a sound argument when attempting to solve one of the most vexing problems known to humankind.
Given the seriousness of the question I think nitpicking precise language is called for.
Stardusty: "You theists don't think very deeply, do you?"
" We think as deeply as the situation calls for, ."
You clearly do not grasp the necessity of solving the problems of origins at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence.
Have you ever noticed how cosmologists seem to bounce back and forth from things like string theory to inflation to the ultimate decay of all matter? That is because the answers to why the largest things we observe are the way they are is to be found at the very most fundamental level of existence.
Stardusty: "If one postulates certain definitions then one can declare "true" or "false" within that closed definitional set, fair enough."
And this is what I am doing when I say that any change is a potential state becoming actualized, by definition. It requires no further exposition than the definition being met.
Stardusty: "truth is found at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence."
" Careful, Cal might start asking what you mean by "truth"."
I would welcome that. The definition of "truth" is critical.
May 07, 2017 10:27 AM
SteveK said...
" These skeptics cannot grasp basic concepts that every normal human being understands because they are blinded by their commitment to physicalism/reductionism. The demand to get more precise is code language for you to state your terms in the language of the physical."
What else is there? Can you point me something that is not physical?
" Anything else but that is considered "woo" or "gibberish" or "hand waving" or "a model" - but not True(tm) reality."
Indeed.
" In the next blog conversation - say, about morality, rationality, humanity, justice, etc - those requirements are jettisoned. "
Not by me. The above are emotions, brain processes, internal dynamic brain structures. No need to jettison the physical to account for them.
May 07, 2017 10:33 AM
bmiller said...
" The stochastic process of quantum mechanical measurements likewise does not invalidate the potency/act distinction."
LoL asked for objections to 2, a, b, c. The notion of an effect without a cause conflicts with 2.
" Newton established inertia as the continued cause of motion after the impressed force is removed. Not the object causing itself to move, and not "nothing". Before being called inertia, it was called impetus."
So, is the object changing? If not, then position is not a property of the object. If not then motion is not a sort of change.
If so either it is changing itself or something else is changing it. Since the First Way asserts it cannot change itself then there must be something else changing the object. But the object is in linear uniform motion in a vacuum, so what else could there be that is changing the object?
The answer is that A-T had physics wrong and their language breaks down to self contradiction under analysis of what we now know about linear uniform motion.
speed = force / resistance
This is an error, and the language of A-T is build on this error and thus fails when applied to a situation A-T got wrong.
" Woo Monger Lawrence Krauss claims the universe is caused by nothing. "
At last we agree.
"If some scientists use cause and effect to conclude that effects happen without a cause, it seems they've undermined their own credibility."
One would think so, but that is not the case, as it is rather commonplace to assert intrinsic randomness.
May 07, 2017 12:07 PM
The probabilistic nature of quantum physical measurements are merely not deterministic. This does not violate causality or mean effects happen without causes.
Me:" Newton established inertia as the continued cause of motion after the impressed force is removed. Not the object causing itself to move, and not "nothing". Before being called inertia, it was called impetus."
Strawdusty:"So, is the object changing? If not, then position is not a property of the object. If not then motion is not a sort of change."
If you disagree with Newton's explanation then tell us why. His explanation is in line with the First Way.
"speed = force / resistance" is a non-sequitor and is not found in Aristotle's works anyway. It is simply not part of the First Way.
Me:"If some scientists use cause and effect to conclude that effects happen without a cause, it seems they've undermined their own credibility."
Strawdusty:"One would think so, but that is not the case, as it is rather commonplace to assert intrinsic randomness."
Yes, woo mongers like Krauss. See item 1 above.
But why bring up objections that you do think are groundless? If some effect happens without a cause, then how can one use the scientific method to know it? Here is Cal's description: "(observation, testing, disclosure of methods, probabilistic conclusions, etc.) feel free to give us your own description.
Cal,
Your entire last post to me was nothing but juvenile gibberish that had no basis in reality. Did you suddenly revert to an edgy teenage personality, or what? Having your profound ignorance demonstrated does not excuse you suddenly throwing in some self-defeating insult in every sentence. Hopefully your adult self will reemerge, and we can again attempt to help you overcome whatever ideological hurdles you've barricaded yourself into so you can see what these simple concepts mean. Let me know when you're ready to abandon the silly tantrums.
Legion: "Your entire last post to me was nothing but juvenile gibberish that had no basis in reality."
Hmm.
Why was pointing out your trouble in reading comprehension juvenile? From the start of my comment:
Me: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation."
Legion: “Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
Reading comprehension.
Try reading what I wrote again. Maybe move your lips or something when you do. Now give yourself time to realize that your reply is just another kind of non sequitur.
Why is juvenile to point out that what you wrote 1) shows no comprehension of what I wrote, and b) is a non sequitur?
Stardusty: "Right, so your statement was not literately correct, in other words, it was literally incorrect."
Under certain provisional postulates, perhaps.
Stardusty: "You clearly do not grasp the necessity of solving the problems of origins at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence."
The First Way is not an argument of origins, as Aquinas did not believe it was possible to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning (or not) through philosophical argument. What you are no doubt referencing is not the same sort of causal series that Aquinas is talking about.
Stardusty: "Have you ever noticed how cosmologists seem to bounce back and forth from things like string theory to inflation to the ultimate decay of all matter? That is because the answers to why the largest things we observe are the way they are is to be found at the very most fundamental level of existence."
There is talking past each other going on here, but let's say for a moment that I agreed with you. Using the water/ice example again, there is a clear physical difference between liquid water and ice - one is a solid, one is a liquid. They have a different physical structure on a molecular level. Whatever is going on at the subatomic level results in the clear physical difference we observe on our level.
The thing about the First Way is it only requires observed change for the initial premises to hold up. To go to a ridiculous extreme, we can say that everything is a "thing". Even things that don't exist, we can put an adjective like "imaginary" and then "thing" still includes them. So if we define each and every existent and imaginary object, energy, concept, and fantasy as a "thing", then by definition, whatever you come up with is a "thing". There is no getting around it - all are things.
In a vaguely similar manner, if something goes from "not x" to "x", then regardless of what "x" is, a potential state was actualized by definition. It doesn't matter what physically happened on a macro or micro level so long as that transition "not x" to "x" occurred. The First Way isn't concerned with explaining nature in that sense, and that's why I am saying that for purposes of analyzing the argument, appeals to quantum mechanics would only be appropriate if there was something in quantum mechanics that flat-out contradicted something in the argument.
I see you touched on some things regarding that subject with others. I'll hop in on that when I get back.
Cal: "Why was pointing out your trouble in reading comprehension juvenile?"
You haven't comprehended a single thing I've been saying all along, and blamed each of your reading comprehension failures on me for being obscure, whether intentional or not (even though the definitions and examples are clear). Then you turn around and whine at me about reading comprehension in the most condescending manner possible. That's juvenile, as well as hypocritical. I can stoop to that level of discourse, but I frankly see no point.
Something for you to think about, as I'm sure you undoubtedly will, yep. In the meantime, Stardusty is the one offering up actual ideas, so I'll be responding to him. Feel free to join in when adult Cal arrives.
bmiller said...
"speed = force / resistance" is a non-sequitor and is not found in Aristotle's works anyway. "
May 07, 2017 3:14 PM
The motion according to Aristotle
One of the fundamental propositions of Aristotelian philosophy is that there is no effect without a cause. Applied to moving bodies, this proposition dictates that there is no motion without a force. Speed, then is proportional to force and inversely proportional to resistance
force=(resistance)×(speed)
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node36.html
There are numerous sources indicating Aristotle proposed speed is proportional to force and inversely proportional to viscosity or resistance.
Because Aquinas employed Aristotelian physics his notions with respect to uniform linear motion, motion as change, the prohibition against X moving itself, the requirement that if X is moved it is moved by Y, and the notion of objects possessing properties such as position...all put together lead to self contradictions.
Yes, Aristotelian physics is in the first way, but you have to think deeply enough to analyze the consequences of the statements in the First Way in a variety of circumstances to realize how the underlying Aristotelian assumptions of Aquinas lead to inevitable self contradictions of Aquinas when modern understandings of motion, change, and causality are applied.
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "You clearly do not grasp the necessity of solving the problems of origins at the level of the most fundamental constituents of existence."
" The First Way is not an argument of origins,"
The origin of causation is one sort of origin. Was there a first cause or has there always been an infinite series of causation?
" as Aquinas did not believe it was possible to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning (or not) through philosophical argument."
Too bad he was not insightful enough to realize the origin of causation is just as insoluble through philosophical argument.
Stardusty: "Have you ever noticed how cosmologists seem to bounce back and forth from things like string theory to inflation to the ultimate decay of all matter? That is because the answers to why the largest things we observe are the way they are is to be found at the very most fundamental level of existence."
" The thing about the First Way is it only requires observed change for the initial premises to hold up."
That is were the question begging comes in. Aquinas places his conclusion in the premise ad hoc.
" To go to a ridiculous extreme, we can say that everything is a "thing". Even things that don't exist, we can put an adjective like "imaginary" and then "thing" still includes them."
An "imaginary thing" is not an existent thing, rather, it is a brain process, an abstraction, that has no realization outside the imagination of the imaginer.
" So if we define each and every existent and imaginary object, energy, concept, and fantasy as a "thing", then by definition, whatever you come up with is a "thing". There is no getting around it - all are things."
To call an "existent thing" and a "non-existent thing" members of the same set of things is a mangling of language. We may as well define anything we wish to be anything we wish. I define a house as a rock, a dog as a blade of grass, and on and on until we have defined the English language into a soup of babble.
" so long as that transition "not x" to "x" occurred. The First Way isn't concerned with explaining nature in that sense, and that's why I am saying that for purposes of analyzing the argument, appeals to quantum mechanics would only be appropriate if there was something in quantum mechanics that flat-out contradicted something in the argument."
There is, in some interpretations of QM. That's my point.
Further, in some notions of time and energy the infinite regress stated to be impossible in the First Way becomes possible when time goes to zero. For ordinary objects the causality of the First Way can seem reasonable, but there is no requirement that the fundamental constituents of existence act the same way as the objects we observe.
May 07, 2017 4:19 PM
Legion: "You haven't comprehended a single thing I've been saying all along, and blamed each of your reading comprehension failures on me for being obscure, whether intentional or not (even though the definitions and examples are clear)."
Nope. I've pointed out numerous problems with the language of the argument, and before that with the argument itself. And I've drawn attention to the imprecise language you use, and pointed out how your imprecision is consistent with someone who hasn't thought very long about the subject we're discussing.
Legion: "Then you turn around and whine at me about reading comprehension in the most condescending manner possible."
You are the one whining here. I pointed out that your responses appear to suffer from an acute lack of reading comprehension.
Here it is again:
Me: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation."
Legion: “Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
Instead of admitting that the above reply from you is just, well, a complete non sequitur, you pretend.
Grow up.
Legion: "That's juvenile, as well as hypocritical. I can stoop to that level of discourse, but I frankly see no point."
Grow up.
Legion: "Something for you to think about, as I'm sure you undoubtedly will, yep. In the meantime, Stardusty is the one offering up actual ideas, so I'll be responding to him. Feel free to join in when adult Cal arrives."
Stardusty and I agree. Nice try.
Like I said, you're having a bad time of it recently. Take a deep breath. Try and do better.
force=(resistance)×(speed)
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node36.html
As I mentioned, this formulation is not in Aristotle's works. The author of this article you googled even says so:
"force=(resistance)×(speed)
(though none of these quantities were unambiguously defined). This notion is not at all unreasonable if one takes as one's defining case of motion, say, an ox pulling a cart: the cart only moves if the ox pulls, and when the ox stops pulling the cart stops."
F=ma is a 17th century definition, so it is unreasonable to force (heh) this definition on Aristotle.
Regardless, the First Way does not rely on Aristotelian physics. It merely states that:
Things don't change themselves so if they are changing something else is responsible for changing them. If there are a bunch of things involved in a change then there must be one that is not changing but causing the others to change.
Not Aristotelian physics, not classical physics, nor modern physics contradict this.
Cal,
Let me know when you are ready to act like an adult. I have been demonstrating your ignorance repeatedly, and you are delusional enough to think that I am the one having a rough time? Heh. I've rarely had such an easy time in a debate.
As far as that part goes that you keep quoting as if you scored some sort of point against me (which would still put me far ahead, so go you), why don't you act like an adult (which hasn't happened in several posts now) and tell me what you meant? Go ahead and prove that my response missed the mark, rather than behaving like a spoiled brat.
You can do better.
Stardusty: "Too bad he was not insightful enough to realize the origin of causation is just as insoluble through philosophical argument."
Those of us who agree with the First Way disagree with you. That's why we are here discussing it.
Legion: "As far as that part goes that you keep quoting as if you scored some sort of point against me (which would still put me far ahead, so go you), why don't you act like an adult (which hasn't happened in several posts now) and tell me what you meant?"
There are many. I just used the first instance. But here:
Me: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation."
Paraphrase: Unobserved change may occur but without the ability to perceive its effects we cannot know about it. If you have a way around this dilemma millennia of philosophers would be eager to hear. [This in the context of your insistence that you know something unobserved to be "true."]
Legion: “Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
Paraphrase: I, Legion, am totally missing the point. I seem to think that Cal is saying that only an observed object changes, but that is nowhere in what Cal has stated or implied. Instead, I will continue to maintain that I "know" some things about external reality that cannot be observed without explaining what I mean or how this is possible.
That's what I meant. Also, I meant everything else I said above. I think my language is fairly clear. I think you have not read for comprehension for several days now. I think if you patiently and carefully re-read my comments you would start to see where you went off the rails (at least more than usual).
I realize this is insulting to you. But sometimes patience and forbearance in a discussion only prolongs and enables ignorance. So I insult in order to wake you up from your torpor. I suspect you can handle it.
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "Too bad he was not insightful enough to realize the origin of causation is just as insoluble through philosophical argument."
" Those of us who agree with the First Way disagree with you. That's why we are here discussing it."
Yes, that is the great error of theists who believe they can logically prove the existence of god. They fail to see the flaws in their "proof"
The same can be said for the atheist who thinks god in general is disprovable with logic or that any particular hypothesis for the origin of existence or causation can be logically proved to be physically true.
However, it is possible to show that certain formulations of god are logically false, such as the Christian god, because the Christian god is asserted to possess mutually exclusive properties.
May 08, 2017 1:14 AM
Legion of Logic said...
" Cal,
Let me know when you are ready to act like an adult. "
Well, whatever assessments of writing behavior may be I don't see much actual topical argumentation.
I think you were a bit surprised that you got so much objection to seemingly obvious statements in just the first handful of lines, say, up to 2c. There is very good reason for that, and it has nothing to do with being contrary or obstinate or nitpicking. It has to do with practicing rigorous thinking.
Those of us who are skeptical and scientifically minded question everything, especially our most fundamental assumptions. Descartes did something similar, doubting himself all the way back to cogito ergo sum.
Even something as seemingly obvious as water forming ice is not what it seems. Science is largely about digging deeper and deeper and deeper, never satisfied with the mere acceptance of the "obvious".
However, it would be foolish to deny the functional utility of our commonplace observations. Unfortunately no human being has been able to use commonplace observations and logic to reason a way to answer the great riddles of our existence, how there came to be something rather than absolutely nothing at all, and how did the motion and causation we observe originate.
If humanity ever solves these great riddles it will not be by rehashing A-T arguments that come out of medieval times and have long ago been shown to fail. Looking at the world around us with our bare eyes and trying to reason our way to such solutions has proved itself a dead end. You can't get there that way.
We already know through modern physics that very small entities have as yet inexplicable actions very different from what we ordinarily observe. If the answers are ever discovered it will be in the realm of the very small by discovering behaviors that do not make sense to us but are in fact the case.
You say " Those of us who agree with the First Way disagree with you. That's why we are here discussing it." Yes, so go ahead. What you have to gain is the experience of reaching that dead end, which will be a great education to you if you are prepared mentally to comprehend it. You will thus realize that to find the answers we must strip away all our illusions of reality to discover how the very most fundamental constituents of existence operate.
May 08, 2017 1:09 AM
@Cal,
Have you considered my last post to you? Have you decided not to respond?
It's your choice, but don't you think responding will give Legion something to work with to clear up any misunderstandings?
@Strawdusty,
"I think you were a bit surprised that you got so much objection to seemingly obvious statements in just the first handful of lines, say, up to 2c. There is very good reason for that, and it has nothing to do with being contrary or obstinate or nitpicking. It has to do with practicing rigorous thinking."
Hey, if you and Cal want to argue that water doesn't have the potential to freeze no matter how many experiments we carry out, then fine, you can't trust experiments.
It's then an entirely different discussion than what does science say about this or that facet of reality.
>> "Can you point me something that is not physical?"
purpose, meaning, beauty, value
Cal: "Paraphrase: I, Legion, am totally missing the point. I seem to think that Cal is saying that only an observed object changes, but that is nowhere in what Cal has stated or implied. Instead, I will continue to maintain that I "know" some things about external reality that cannot be observed without explaining what I mean or how this is possible."
THAT is what you thought I was saying by "“Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it”? And you harp on me for reading comprehension?
Analysis of first part: "I seem to think that Cal is saying that only an observed object changes, but that is nowhere in what Cal has stated or implied.
I said "I suppose that scientists could wonder if water can freeze into ice and then test it, but that's hardly necessary to the argument because ANY change in anything is a potential state being actualized, regardless of how it happens.”
(Translation: By definition, when a change occurs, there was a potential state that was actualized. Scientists could theoretically test different things to see what potential states of it they could find, but the argument doesn't need such testing in order to still function. Science is entirely unnecessary to determining whether a potential state was actualized if change occurs.)
Cal: "Gibberish. The only way we can know of any external change is by observation. Observed change is entirely necessary to the argument. Observed change IS the argument. Change that is NOT observed is"
Now, I don't know what the last sentence was going to say, but I inferred that you left off a "not the argument" type thought regarding unobserved change. So based on that inference, I took you to mean that if we aren't observing a particular change, then that change is somehow invalid, and I disagreed in much the same way I would disagree that if a tree falls down in the woods and no one hears it that it didn't make a sound. Which is why I said:
Legion: “Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
(Translation: Whether or not we observe a change, the change still happens and it is still a potential state being actualized. The argument states that we observe change occurring, which demonstrates that change does occur. It does not mean that observed changes are somehow fundamentally different than unobserved changes when it comes to the premises of the First Way.)
Analysis of the second part: "Instead, I will continue to maintain that I "know" some things about external reality that cannot be observed without explaining what I mean or how this is possible."
Legion: "If liquid water freezes under certain conditions, then ice is a potential state of water. If something undergoes some change, then it had a potential state actualized. That is not something science can test, it is simply an accurate logical concept of how things are."
(Translation: There is nothing science can do to disprove that when a change occurs, a potential state was actualized. By definition, a change entails just that.")
Excerpts from the resulting discussion:
Cal: "Water changing state a) is something we can test, and b) and it is an accurate description (NOT a concept!) of how things really are."
Legion: "Yes, science can do those things. You know what science doesn't deal in? Potential states being actualized, because they aren't scientific concepts even though they are true...Science is less than unnecessary in those premises, because there is nothing to test - it's simply true based on the concepts. There are no examples of things changing that aren't potential states being actualized, so what exactly is science supposed to test?"
(Translation: By definition, a change is a potential state becoming actualized. If change occurs, there is nothing for science to prove or disprove regarding whether the change was a potential state being actualized.)
Cal: "I make what should be a commonsense and obvious gesture to the ground rules of argument." (Referring to ""It means observing in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. It means being consistent, and using background knowledge.")
Legion: "Let's see the result when applied to the First Way premises. I'll stick with the ice/water example.
Premise: Ice is a potential state of water. When water freezes, ice is the actualized state.
It's reliable, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's verifiable, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's objective, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. It's consistent, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. And all background knowledge supports it, since water freezes into ice given the proper conditions. Yay science and the First Way!
Perhaps I'm being too loose in my language. Yes, science can indeed analyze it, but it is shown to be extremely unnecessary, and ridiculous when applied. So it's not that science CAN'T analyze potential states being actualized, it's simply hilariously unneeded."
Cal: "But that doesn't mean that we can't make more rigorous observations when we want to"
Legion: "And I showed that yes, you can do that to the premises we have done (up to (2)c)), and that doing so is pointless. Because *drum roll* the First Way is not a scientific argument."
(Translation: By definition, a change is a potential state becoming actualized. If change occurs, there is nothing for science to prove or disprove regarding whether the change was a potential state being actualized.)
So, having seen the actual conversation, let's review.
"I seem to think that Cal is saying that only an observed object changes, but that is nowhere in what Cal has stated or implied."
False. I explained what I meant, based upon everything else I have been saying all along.
"I will continue to maintain that I "know" some things about external reality that cannot be observed without explaining what I mean or how this is possible."
False. I never said I know unobserved things without explaining. I did say why science was pointless when it comes to analyzing whether a change is a potential state being actualized, because by definition, it is.
Now to you explaining what you meant: "Unobserved change may occur but without the ability to perceive its effects we cannot know about it. If you have a way around this dilemma millennia of philosophers would be eager to hear. [This in the context of your insistence that you know something unobserved to be "true."]
We do not need to know about a change to know that if a change occurred, it was a potential state being actualized. I can know that based on the definitions of the terms.
Me: "The only way we can know of any external change is by observation."
Legion: "Change doesn't wait for an observer to occur. We don't have to know about it.”
You appear to disagree (doesn’t, and don’t) with my statement. Your words say that changes doesn’t wait for an observer. (Duh.) The only way that this could be a disagreement is if I said somewhere, anywhere, that change wait for an observer before it occurs. I did not. Hence, you struggle with reading comprehension. Or misrepresentation, which is even more sinister. Take your pick.
Or maybe you just meant that you agree with me. Which makes all your prior comments, and your use of the negatives, don't and doesn't, incredibly misleading.
Legion: "There are countless things I know to be true that I have no need of scientific input to know for sure."
Stardusty: "Yes, that is the brilliance of Aquinas, he says "only stuff that can cause X causes X" We were promised to be shown the importance and value of these inane tautologies"
Legion: “If certain people could grasp simple concepts that even children have been proven capable of understanding, then perhaps I could fulfill that promise. Also, your First Strawman of what Aquinas meant is still completely wrong, and again I would love to be able to progress far enough to demonstrate.”
Legion: "We do not need to know about a change to know that if a change occurred, it was a potential state being actualized. I can know that based on the definitions of the terms."
So, after all this, and your incessant, unsupported protesting about the First Way definitely NOT being tautological, you reveal that in fact what you are defending, that what you claim to know, is indeed just a tautology (“based on the definitions of the terms.”).
Sad.
Cal: "You appear to disagree (doesn’t, and don’t) with my statement. Your words say that changes doesn’t wait for an observer. (Duh.) The only way that this could be a disagreement is if I said somewhere, anywhere, that change wait for an observer before it occurs. I did not. Hence, you struggle with reading comprehension. Or misrepresentation, which is even more sinister. Take your pick."
I explained what I meant. Go back and read it. If you come to any conclusion that is not what I said my meaning was, you are wrong. Get back to me when you know what I meant, since I explained what I meant very clearly.
Cal: "So, after all this, and your incessant, unsupported protesting about the First Way definitely NOT being tautological, you reveal that in fact what you are defending, that what you claim to know, is indeed just a tautology (“based on the definitions of the terms.”)."
If you either refuse to read what I write, or are incapable of understanding it when you do read it, I don't see much hope for you ever grasping the First Way. Total ignorance hasn't stopped you from believing that you have somehow refuted it thus far (you haven't), so I doubt you are bothered by pretending to know what you don't know.
Here's the deal, Cal.
Obviously I would not be on this thread if I wasn't being entertained, and that's pretty much all you are providing me with at this point. But the purpose of starting this latest exercise was because you did not have the faintest clue what the First Way was actually saying, and by all appearances did not understand a single one of its premises, but still felt you were in a position to declare it to be a bad argument, even though every exchange did little more than prove your ignorance. Someone who doesn't have a clue what someone else is saying is in no position to critique, thus you are in no position to critique the First Way.
The only way for someone who agrees with an idea to find out if the idea is in fact bad, is to hold it up to criticism. If it withstands the criticism, there is no need to abandon the idea, but if a deficiency is demonstrated, then the idea should be modified or discarded. So the whole point of this was to go with you, line by line, and show you each premise one at a time, so that we could build upon each previous premise and thus you could see what Aquinas was actually saying. And that would be your opportunity to demonstrate the flaws.
If you want to do nothing else but exchange insults, that might be beneficial in some unknown manner, but we haven't actually discussed one of the premises of the argument in quite some time now. Just tell me if you want to remain ignorant so you can continue attacking the argument, and I'll leave you alone since we aren't getting anywhere. If you are even remotely curious as to what the argument is actually saying, let me know that as well.
SteveK said...
>> "Can you point me something that is not physical?"
" purpose, meaning, beauty, value"
All processes of the brain, and thus physical.
May 08, 2017 10:51 AM
Processes lack physical existence.
>> "All processes of the brain, and thus physical."
Fascinating. So they're all objective things because they're all physical things. They all have mass and all are made from gray matter, blood cells, oxygen, plasma, water etc. Amazing.
(The stuff you learn from kooks. It never ceases to entertain)
The language of the First Way makes a bit of sense on Aristotelian physics, but fails under Newtonian physics.
The physics of Aristotle is essential to the First Way, a fact connected to the term "A-T"
The First Way asserts that for object X:
X cannot move itself.
For X to be moved something else must move it.
Motion is change.
For Aristotle, so called violent motion or unnatural motion or forced motion requires force. The natural place of a solid object, say a flat rock on dirt, is stationary. Push the rock and it will move. Stop pushing the rock and it will stop. Acceleration effects are discounted.
So, the language of the First Way basically works for ordinary, high friction objects if one discounts acceleration.
X (say a flat rock on dirt) does not move itself
For the rock to be moved something else must move it.
While in motion the rock is changed.
The thing being changed is a property of X, position.
The change in position of X is caused by whatever other thing is moving the rock.
If one stops pushing on the rock, the change stops.
...so that all basically works in accordance with our ordinary sense perceptions.
But Aquinas fails under Newtonian mechanics. The language, of course, stays the same, but the physics model has changed, destroying the validity of the language of Aquinas.
Consider linear uniform motion in Newtonian mechanics.
X remains stationary unless acted upon (so far no big problem)
If we push X it moves (kind of ok still)
As X moves its position changes, presumably because we are pushing X (still sort of OK)
If we stop pushing X the object does not stop! (Aquinas fails)
X continues to change position, said to be a property of X, yet nothing outside of X is changing X, so X must be changing itself!
The language of Aquinas depends on, and assumes, Aristotelian physics. But Aristotle was wrong, therefore the the ideas expressed by Aquinas are wrong from the earliest stages of the First Way.
bmiller said...
" Processes lack physical existence."
Combustion is a process of rapid oxidation. If you do not think this process is physical then put your hand in the flame of your gas stove.
(no, don't do that really, you will get horribly physically injured, I don't want that, I am just making a point)
May 08, 2017 8:53 PM
Stardusty: "If we stop pushing X the object does not stop! (Aquinas fails)
X continues to change position, said to be a property of X, yet nothing outside of X is changing X, so X must be changing itself!"
Except if we use the same example of a rock on dirt, the rock does stop because of gravity, friction, etc. It is acted upon by other things and its motion is stopped, so that is in full accordance with the First Way. Aristotle and Aquinas were certainly not correct in all of their beliefs, but this particular objection doesn't hold.
SteveK said...
>> "All processes of the brain, and thus physical."
" Fascinating. So they're all objective things because they're all physical things."
Depends what you mean by "objective". If you just mean "of an object", then yes, like the above example of ice forming. Ice forming is an "objective" process in this sense, if you mean to say "of objects".
Or do you suppose there is some ice forming ghost floating around nudging all the water molecules together?
" They all have mass"
They are all a process of mass and energy and thus a physical process, no ghosts or spirits or gods or whatever required, just mass/energy doing what mass/energy does.
" and all are made from gray matter, blood cells, oxygen, plasma, water etc. Amazing."
Indeed, the human body is rather amazing. Your circulatory system, for example, is just one highly complex physical process, or do you suppose an angel squeezes your heart with every beat?
May 08, 2017 8:56 PM
Legion of Logic said...
Stardusty: "If we stop pushing X the object does not stop! (Aquinas fails)
X continues to change position, said to be a property of X, yet nothing outside of X is changing X, so X must be changing itself!"
" Except if we use the same example of a rock on dirt, the rock does stop because of gravity, friction, etc."
Indeed, and I pointed that out above, perhaps you missed it or are reiterating it for clarity. Yes, the rock does stop.
" It is acted upon by other things and its motion is stopped, so that is in full accordance with the First Way."
Superficially under ordinary pre-mechanized, pre-Galileo terrestrial conditions, it seems to, yes. That is why Aristotle was accepted for nearly 2000 years, it seemed to make sense in common experience.
" Aristotle and Aquinas were certainly not correct in all of their beliefs, but this particular objection doesn't hold."
For Aquinas to be correct Aquinas must be correct now. Thus Aquinas fails now.
With the rock on the dirt the thing that is changing is position. Whatever is pushing X is changing X, according to Aquinas. If I keep pushing the rock I keep changing the rock by changing the position of the rock. For Aquinas, the position of the rock does not change itself, Something else must change the rock by something else changing its postition.
But what of linear uniform motion? For Aquinas to be correct about X Aquinas must be correct about all Xs. A counter example of X disproves Aquinas.
If I push on a heavy ball instead of a flat rock I am said by Aquinas to be the cause of the change of the ball. It is the position of the ball that is changing. As long as the position of the ball is changing the ball is changing and according to Aquinas nothing changes itself.
Yet, when I stop pushing the ball the ball continues to change! Since nothing else is changing the free rolling ball so the ball must be changing itself! Thus, a simple ball violates a core principle of Aquinas.
Aristotle was well aware of this objection. He asserted that the air continues to push the ball. If that were true then Aquinas would be saved, but it is false so Aquinas fails.
A-T language is just that, Aristotelian. The language of Aquinas fails before we even get half way through the First Way.
May 09, 2017 4:23 AM
Post a Comment