tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1251952271419111589..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Carroll on Scholastic MetaphysicsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger326125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5157440212033869222014-09-03T02:14:46.624-07:002014-09-03T02:14:46.624-07:00@Bob:
"It seems to me that you are denying t...@Bob:<br /><br />"It seems to me that you are denying that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant. Is this a correct understanding of your position?"<br /><br />No.<br /><br />In God's name, where have you got that idea from? Are you even paying any attention? I confess I have little patience for chicken-shit games, so get back to me when you start paying attention. And for Heaven's sake, my background is in Mathematics, even Mathematical Physics, so it is not like I do not know what I am talking about.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69874213204991103832014-09-03T00:54:07.807-07:002014-09-03T00:54:07.807-07:00@grodrigues,
Again, you wrote:
as far as anyone ...@grodrigues,<br /><br />Again, you wrote:<br /><br /><i>as far as anyone knows *all* matter/energy is corruptible</i><br /><br />I provided an example of a possible "corruption", eg. a proton decay (and yes I know that it has never been observed).<br /><br />It seems to me that you are denying that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant. Is this a correct understanding of your position? <br /><br /><br /> Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11786506898184981842014-09-02T09:27:54.873-07:002014-09-02T09:27:54.873-07:00@Bob:
"So, again, when a proton decays do it...@Bob:<br /><br />"So, again, when a proton decays do its constituent parts simply cease to exist or not?"<br /><br />Proton decay has never been observed.<br /><br />Since you are playing guessing games, I will *guess* that by "constituent parts" you mean quarks -- I know of no other suitable interpretation. Let us take an actual example, electron capture case of beta decay:<br /><br />p + e -> n + v<br /><br />At the quark level, we start with uud and end up with udd, so we have an unequivocal case of *change*, whether substantial or accidental. In the former, yes they cease to exist, in the latter they do not. It is impossible to know which, because, in Physics terms, the identity conditions for subatomic particles are ill-defined. And it is even dubious to talk of quarks as substances as they cannot be observed free due to9 quark confinement -- but I will grant you this one more concession. Here is the kicker: it is all quite irrelevant, as your suggestion was shot down the moment I wrote "*change*".grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50436381253165587332014-09-02T08:24:16.233-07:002014-09-02T08:24:16.233-07:00@grodrigues
I am not sure what is unclear about w...@grodrigues<br /><br />I am not sure what is unclear about what I am asking.<br /><br />A proton is constituted by quarks and "empty space" (which itself has mass and is in fact the majority of the mass of a proton).<br /><br />So, again, when a proton decays do its constituent parts simply cease to exist or not?Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83328748688752182462014-09-02T06:01:07.432-07:002014-09-02T06:01:07.432-07:00@Bob:
"Yea, you miss the point."
Simpl...@Bob:<br /><br />"Yea, you miss the point."<br /><br />Simply repeating the question, without clarifying what you mean, is indeed missing the point. Are you talking of Energy as a constituent like a quark is a constituent of a proton or not? If the the latter, discussion's over, if the former, explain yourself.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29724479236813612612014-09-02T05:41:43.226-07:002014-09-02T05:41:43.226-07:00@grodrigues
Yea, you miss the point.
Why did you...@grodrigues<br /><br />Yea, you miss the point.<br /><br />Why did you avoid answering my direct question as it exactly illuminates the point I am making.<br /><br />So again:<br /><br />Tell me what happens to the constituents of a proton when the proton decays - do these constituents simply cease to exist?<br /><br />Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38293948750816326722014-09-02T02:37:50.129-07:002014-09-02T02:37:50.129-07:00@Bob:
"I am sure that you well understood my...@Bob:<br /><br />"I am sure that you well understood my point."<br /><br />But that is precisely the point , I do not understand what you are trying to say.<br /><br />But since you are so hesitant to actually give an account, I am going to make a *guess*, an uncharitable one at that: and my guess is that you simply do not know what you are talking about. And the reason is pretty simple: Energy is an observable, a *property* of material bodies, like matter, spin, charge, etc. A conservation law is a mathematical relation between universals. But in saying that there is conservation of charge or charm or whatever, there is *no* implication that charge, charm, is a constituent principle of substances, a free floating material cause, like bricks are the material cause of houses or bronze is the material cause of Philosopher's statues. And yet, you *do* seem to want to talk about Energy as if it were such a thing. But slapping around equations as if it were oh so obvious what they imply, is not going to cut it, neither are any appeals to Physics going to help you.<br /><br />I repeat what I have already said before: appeals to Physics only make the point for the Aristotelean-Thomist, for they show that E *changes* which is all that is needed to shoot down your suggestion. And if want to block that, you *must* take E in E = mc^2 to be the *rest energy* and *then* fill up your account, instead of playing coy and make pretend as if Physics is on your side. And even after that, the Aristotelean-Thomist will come around and say that since Energy is a *constituent* principle, it enters in composition, but Pure Act does not admit of composition, and neither it composes nor is composed of.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2608930917664829512014-09-02T00:22:23.706-07:002014-09-02T00:22:23.706-07:00@Matt Sheean
This looks suspiciously like a conce...@Matt Sheean<br /><br /><i>This looks suspiciously like a concession to the position defended by Scott and dguller regarding accidentally and essentially ordered series. Are you now arguing that while it is true that a per se series must have a sustaining cause that the sustaining cause is simply the energy in the universe (that energy as described by the famous equation you cite is what is meant by the "unmoved mover")?</i><br /><br />No I am not arguing that, per se.<br /><br />I am arguing that what exists seems to exist necessarily, at least at the most basic level. That stuff (matter/energy) has never been shown to cease to exist and that a hypothesis based on matter/energy simply ceasing to exist has no real legs to stand on from the outset.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91382539722697421842014-09-02T00:14:19.089-07:002014-09-02T00:14:19.089-07:00@grodrigues
I am sure that you well understood my...@grodrigues<br /><br />I am sure that you well understood my point.<br /><br />So tell me what happens to the constituents of a proton when the proton decays - do these constituents simply cease to exist?<br /><br />(And I am sure that you know the constituents of a proton.) Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40556614368574564062014-09-02T00:11:09.390-07:002014-09-02T00:11:09.390-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77729026563906486462014-09-01T09:39:36.642-07:002014-09-01T09:39:36.642-07:00@Bob:
"E = MC^2"
I also know a couple ...@Bob:<br /><br />"E = MC^2"<br /><br />I also know a couple of formulas for Energy. Here are some:<br /><br />E = hv<br />dE = TdS - PdV<br />E = 1/2 mv^2<br />E = 1/2 kx^2<br />E = 1/2 LI^2<br />E = \int_{\gamma}mMG/r^2 dr<br />E\psi = \overhat{H}\psi<br /><br />Do you have a point?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40260611085179280112014-09-01T09:31:25.704-07:002014-09-01T09:31:25.704-07:00Bob,
This looks suspiciously like a concession to...Bob,<br /><br />This looks suspiciously like a concession to the position defended by Scott and dguller regarding accidentally and essentially ordered series. Are you now arguing that while it is true that a per se series must have a sustaining cause that the sustaining cause is simply the energy in the universe (that energy as described by the famous equation you cite is what is meant by the "unmoved mover")?Matt Sheeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06588390859627450858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75767737715335275502014-09-01T08:56:56.161-07:002014-09-01T08:56:56.161-07:00@grodrigues
Unless you give an account of what &q...@grodrigues<br /><br /><i>Unless you give an account of what "constituent energy" is, you got exactly nothing.</i><br /><br />E = MC^2Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72897456218685183772014-09-01T06:46:45.675-07:002014-09-01T06:46:45.675-07:00@Bob:
"I disagree, though a proton for insta...@Bob:<br /><br />"I disagree, though a proton for instance may decay, the constituent energy does not simply cease to exist."<br /><br />You can disagree whatever you want. Unless you give an account of what "constituent energy" is, you got exactly nothing. <br /><br />The way you talk, it seems to play a role suspiciously familiar to prime matter. Which means that not only you have exactly nothing, you have just made, albeit unwittingly, the point for the Aristotelian-Thomist.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2843728863992606712014-09-01T04:50:42.610-07:002014-09-01T04:50:42.610-07:00@grodriguez
Yes, you could say such an obviously ...@grodriguez<br /><br /><i>Yes, you could say such an obviously wrong thing (hint: as far as anyone knows *all* matter/energy is corruptible, you are probably just confused about what conservation of energy means).</i><br /><br />I disagree, though a proton for instance may decay, the constituent energy does not simply cease to exist.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1105705673514693262014-09-01T02:17:03.357-07:002014-09-01T02:17:03.357-07:00@Bob:
" I would say that as matter/energy ca...@Bob:<br /><br />" I would say that as matter/energy can neither be created, nor destroyed - that matter/energy, as far as anyone has ever been able to show, must exist "by virtue of its own nature"."<br /><br />Yes, you could say such an obviously wrong thing (hint: as far as anyone knows *all* matter/energy is corruptible, you are probably just confused about what conservation of energy means).grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29975355617647497662014-09-01T00:19:54.284-07:002014-09-01T00:19:54.284-07:00@Scott
I don't think I qualify, but the basic...@Scott<br /><br /><i>I don't think I qualify, but the basic case is surprisingly easy to make. It follows pretty much immediately from the (itself intuitively obvious) Scholastic principle that "everything that has being has it from itself or from another."<br /><br />If something has being "from itself," then it exists by virtue of its own nature. In that case it can't not exist. Otherwise, its nature isn't sufficient to account for its existence, and it therefore has no more power to maintain itself in existence than it does to bring itself into existence in the first place. In that case there must be something else that accounts for its continued existence. Q.E.D.</i><br /><br />Using such a principle, I would say that as matter/energy can neither be created, nor destroyed - that matter/energy, as far as anyone has ever been able to show, must exist "by virtue of its own nature".Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18075116865250742852014-08-30T07:56:23.640-07:002014-08-30T07:56:23.640-07:00@dguller:
"I’ll have to defer to people who ...@dguller:<br /><br />"I’ll have to defer to people who know more about this subject than myself to make the case, though."<br /><br />I don't think I qualify, but the basic case is surprisingly easy to make. It follows pretty much immediately from the (itself intuitively obvious) Scholastic principle that "everything that has being has it from itself or from another."<br /><br />If something has being "from itself," then it exists by virtue of its own nature. In that case it can't <i>not</i> exist. Otherwise, its nature isn't sufficient to account for its existence, and it therefore has no more power to maintain itself in existence than it does to bring itself into existence in the first place. In that case there must be something else that accounts for its continued existence. Q.E.D.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12139511966444614322014-08-28T07:49:59.230-07:002014-08-28T07:49:59.230-07:00@Bob:
Right, A does not cause B to remain in exis...@Bob:<br /><br /><i>Right, A does not cause B to remain in existence. B remains in existence all on it's own as nothing causes the existence of B to terminate once caused by A. <br /><br />The bolded bit above is, obviously, where we part company. I do not understand why anything is necessarily required to keep something already in existence - in existence.</i><br /><br />Because there is nothing about B itself that would explain why it remains in existence. Only that which necessarily exists is self-explanatory, and thus anything that only contingently exists requires something other than itself to explain its existence. <br /><br />Ultimately, this is a disagreement about existential conversation versus existential inertia. I know that Feser has a paper on the subject that purports to answer the objections to existential conservation, but I haven’t read it. So, if existential conservation is a stronger position than existential inertia, then it would seem that B would require something else to keep it in existence. I’ll have to defer to people who know more about this subject than myself to make the case, though.<br />dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73795402269816138372014-08-28T02:51:43.366-07:002014-08-28T02:51:43.366-07:00@Mr. Green:
"But I don’t think whether a ser...@Mr. Green:<br /><br />"But I don’t think whether a series “can” be infinite really matters much."<br /><br />Me either. I will not give a tighter logical defense for this claim; instead, I will offer some exegetical proof that Aristotle and Aquinas believed likewise. Caveat: since I am far from being an expert or even knowledgeable, and exegesis is a notorious mine field, take everything I say with a grain of salt.<br /><br />Lifted from Patterson Brown's "Infinite Causal Regression", Phil. Review, vol. 75, no. 4, pgs. 510-526 (1966). At the beginning of the first section, he lifts this quote on Causation from Aristotle's "Metaphysics", which I reproduce as in <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.2.ii.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>:<br /><br />"But evidently there is a first principle, and the causes of things are neither an infinite series nor infinitely various in kind. For neither can one thing proceed from another, as from matter, ad infinitum (e.g. flesh from earth, earth from air, air from fire, and so on without stopping), nor can the sources of movement form an endless series (man for instance being acted on by air, air by the sun, the sun by Strife, and so on without limit). Similarly the final causes cannot go on ad infinitum,-walking being for the sake of health, this for the sake of happiness, happiness for the sake of something else, and so one thing always for the sake of another. And the case of the essence is similar. For in the case of intermediates, which have a last term and a term prior to them, the prior must be the cause of the later terms. For if we had to say which of the three is the cause, we should say the first; surely not the last, for the final term is the cause of none; nor even the intermediate, for it is the cause only of one. (It makes no difference whether there is one intermediate or more, nor whether they are infinite or finite in number.) But of series which are infinite in this way, and of the infinite in general, all the parts down to that now present are alike intermediates; so that if there is no first there is no cause at all."<br /><br />The parenthetical remark is all too clear, methinks.<br /><br />As for St. Thomas, commentaing this very passage in the <a href="http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Metaphysics2.htm#3" rel="nofollow">Commentary on The Metaphysics, Book II, Lesson 3, Commentary #303</a> we can read:<br /><br />"And lest someone should think that an intermediate is followed by only one thing, i.e., what is last (for this occurs only when there is a single thing between two extremes), in order to exclude this interpretation he adds that it makes no difference to the premise given above whether there is only one intermediate or several, because all intermediates are taken together as one insofar as they have in common the character of an intermediate. Nor again does it make any difference whether there are a finite or infinite number of intermediates, because so long as they have the nature of an intermediate they cannot be the first cause of motion. Further, since there must be a first cause of motion prior to every secondary cause of motion, then there must be a first cause prior to every intermediate cause, which is not an intermediate in any sense, as though it had a cause prior to itself. But if we were to hold that there is an infinite series of moving causes in the above way, then all causes would be intermediate ones. Thus we would have to say without qualification that all parts of any infinite thing, whether of a series of causes or of continuous quantities, are intermediate ones; for if there were a part that was not an intermediate one, it would have to be either a first or a last; and both of these are opposed to the nature of the infinite, which excludes every limit, whether it be a starting-point or a terminus."<br /><br />Once again, but with the previous caveat in mind, it seems all too clear.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63728761008725273492014-08-28T02:50:30.895-07:002014-08-28T02:50:30.895-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62650466531956826632014-08-28T02:43:03.078-07:002014-08-28T02:43:03.078-07:00@dguller
I think we are experiencing a significan...@dguller<br /><br />I think we are experiencing a significant clash of underlying assumptions, so I am going to break this down and will do my best to be as clear as possible.<br /><br /><i>The issue is that by definition, a per accidens causal series in which A causes B is such that B can continue to exist even if A is no longer present.</i> <br /><br />I get that.<br /><br /><br /><i>If B can continue to exist in the absence of A, then A cannot cause B to remain in existence. <b>Something else must do so.</b></i> <br /><br />Right, A does not cause B to remain in existence. B remains in existence all on it's own as nothing causes the existence of B to terminate once caused by A. <br /><br />The bolded bit above is, obviously, where we part company. I do not understand why anything is necessarily required to keep something already in existence - in existence.<br /><br /><i>So, when you postulate a per accidens series to account for why something remains in existence, then you are necessarily asking the impossible.</i><br /><br />I never postulated a per accidens series to account for any such thing, or at least never intended to do so since I do not think that anything is required to keep an existing thing in existence.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38302182936009500162014-08-28T02:31:20.812-07:002014-08-28T02:31:20.812-07:00@Scott
Are you trying to argue that in your propo...@Scott<br /><br /><i>Are you trying to argue that in your proposed example, B causes itself via a per se series of instrumental causes (C, A, and perhaps infinitely many other intermediate causes)?<br /><br />If so, then your example isn't a counterexample at all (even assuming it's coherent, which I don't think it is). B stands quite unambiguously at the head of that series, no matter how far it's extended.</i><br /><br /><br />Suppose, for example, that a composer began to write a piece of music but didn't finish it.<br /><br />A musician plays the unfinished piece of music.<br /><br />A seperate composer, hearing the music is inspired to write, which the musician continues to play, which inspires a separate composer to write, etc...<br /><br />I suppose you could say that the composers depend on the musician to continue writing, but what about the initial composer, long gone and forgotten, that started the chain of events?Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83563091766264784132014-08-28T00:53:24.757-07:002014-08-28T00:53:24.757-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01529469776603870975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86761737762324687132014-08-27T14:09:24.896-07:002014-08-27T14:09:24.896-07:00"It's still cost me thirty dollars. I won..."It's still cost me thirty dollars. I wonder why no one has said it is worth buying anyway, even without a TCA."<br /><br />I would like to highlight the fact that it Alan here, in response to my comment that everyone has been quite nice to him all things considered, seems to be blaming the commenters here for the loss of $30. <br /><br />Matt Sheeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06588390859627450858noreply@blogger.com