tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2172187004585857730..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Taking Aquinas seriouslyEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger194125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86317497630911588892018-06-20T17:04:54.345-07:002018-06-20T17:04:54.345-07:00In following with the quality of contrarian commen...In following with the quality of contrarian comments in this thread, I found a painful "review" of "Aquinas" by someone I'm pretty sure has never read the book, nevermind passed intro philosophy (cue scientistic babble): https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/a-quite-long-review-of-edward-fesers-aquinas-a-beginners-guide/#commentsLongbowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03334697676222603816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43154279416978204882017-08-01T06:29:18.528-07:002017-08-01T06:29:18.528-07:00BillyAugust 1, 2017 at 5:54 AM
" I found tha...BillyAugust 1, 2017 at 5:54 AM<br /><br />" I found that in trying to correct every mistake you made in these three posts will involve far too much time for me."<br />--Nope, sorry, it was Feser who made a series of mistakes which I corrected. You have it back to front.<br /><br />"You have misunderstood both Aristotelian Thomism, "<br />--Sorry again, it is A-T that is inherently a series of misunderstandings, some of which I corrected above.<br /><br />"and scientific laws themselves."<br />--So called "laws" are descriptive, not prescriptive. Further understandings of the specific descriptions provided can be understood beginning with that principle.<br /><br />"All I will do is repeat my question, "<br />--That is a typical theistic diversionary tactic.<br />1.Can't rebut any arguments on the merits.<br />2.Simply declare "you got it all wrong"<br />3.Repeat a question already covered.<br /><br />That is the typical theistic smoke blowing sequence, which you are following.<br /><br />"and lets hope this gets some gears churning for you:"<br />4.Pretend like you possess some great knowledge you are about to educate me in by asking a question.<br /><br />" Why does the law of conservation (or inertia, or any scientific law at all) even apply to physical systems? Why is that the case?"<br />--Because angels push everything along from moment to moment, dontchyaknow?<br /><br />Thanks for at least writing something but all you have done is reinforce the fact that the linked article by Feser contains a number of erroneous arguments, I demonstrated various errors made by Feser in that article, and you are either unwilling or unable to make any germane remarks about my arguments.<br /><br />If you care to engage in an on topic rational discourse examining the specific assertions made by Feser in the linked article and my demonstrations of those errors he made please let me know.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27040433422198110222017-08-01T05:54:34.717-07:002017-08-01T05:54:34.717-07:00SP,
Sorry to take so long to reply. I found that ...SP,<br /><br />Sorry to take so long to reply. I found that in trying to correct every mistake you made in these three posts will involve far too much time for me.<br /><br />You have misunderstood both Aristotelian Thomism, and scientific laws themselves.<br /><br />Forgot Aristotle for now. All I will do is repeat my question, and lets hope this gets some gears churning for you: Why does the law of conservation (or inertia, or any scientific law at all) even apply to physical systems? Why is that the case?Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39376039521853143702017-07-31T07:21:15.542-07:002017-07-31T07:21:15.542-07:00@Strawdusty,
"Thomists do not assert that a...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b><br />"Thomists do not assert that any ""ontological first changer" is "continuously changing things so they can remain unchanged" wherever did you read that?""<br />--You just did.</b><br /><br /><b>You really do have reading comprehension problems <br /><br />--I read Feser here:</b><br /><br />You accused me of making that statement. Then you quote some article. Your response is incoherent.<br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74983607900105426002017-07-30T09:07:16.767-07:002017-07-30T09:07:16.767-07:00Hans Georg LundahlJuly 30, 2017 at 6:27 AM
"...Hans Georg LundahlJuly 30, 2017 at 6:27 AM<br /><br />"Yes, I am a geocentric."<br />--In earlier posts you have noted that the celestial objects move west, so presumably you think the Earth is standing still and the universe is revolving around the Earth.<br /><br />I have read of people who believe such things as a flat Earth or a geocentric universe. The simplest explanation is that despite your protestations yours is some sort of joke post series.<br /><br />"No, atheism is not the reasonable choice, since it involves disbelieving one's senses for no good reason."<br />--Using a telescope is using your senses. Accurately manufacturing celestial measuring instruments is using your senses. Performing physics experiments is using your senses.<br /><br />By your notions, then, Pluto is traveling faster than the speed of light, as did our spacecraft that visited Pluto.<br />300000*60*60*24 = 25920000000<br /><br />25920000000/2pi = 4119647796<br /><br />7500000000 Pluto 1.82 times the speed of light<br /><br />The above shows the speed of light in kilometers per second, calculated out to kilometers per day.<br /><br />Then I showed the radios of a circle of 1 light day circumference and showed that radius to be less than the distance to Pluto.<br /><br />So Pluto, to go around the Earth in 1 day, would have to travel at 1.82 time the speed of light. (Yes I realize the orbit of Pluto is highly eccentric, this is based on the average distance to Pluto).<br /><br />Pluto is traveling at 545414 kilometers per second, but light only goes 300000 kilometers per second.<br /><br />Since a distant galaxy may be a billion or even a trillion times as far away as Pluto is then those galaxies are moving westward at billions and even trillions of time the speed of light.<br /><br /><br />"I don't give five pence for your kind of enlightenment."<br />--I believe you, hence your bitterness.<br /><br />"Explain how the spacecraft trajectories need heliocentrism?"<br />--The relativistic effects on their radio signals would be detected as a frequency shift if that were the case. See above.<br /><br />"Is Tychonianism no option?"<br />--No.<br /><br />But how about something a bit more down to Earth, say, for example, the topic of this thread, Aquinas.<br /><br />Please see the paper written by Feser here:<br /> http://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf<br /><br /><br />And my negation of it herein below:<br />Stardusty Psyche July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM<br /><br />Billy July 21, 2017 at 1:03 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85131431134181058452017-07-30T06:27:01.292-07:002017-07-30T06:27:01.292-07:00"Are you seriously a proponent of geocentrism...<i>"Are you seriously a proponent of geocentrism? Also, you suggest that the alternative is atheism. In that case atheism is the reasonable choice."</i><br /><br />Yes, I am a geocentric.<br /><br />No, atheism is not the reasonable choice, since it involves disbelieving one's senses for no good reason.<br /><br /><i>"However, nearly all theists are heliocentrists."</i><br /><br />Which means they are missing out on one good proof for existence of God.<br /><br />Also, your observation is only true in modern Western world.<br /><br /><i>"When you gain enlightenment you will realize that bitterness, like anger and happiness, comes from within."</i><br /><br />I don't give five pence for your kind of enlightenment.<br /><br /><i>"If you have been going around espousing geocentrism for 15 years I would think you would be accustomed to not being taken seriously."</i><br /><br />That is one thing, but I have seen it delay quite a few good debates or even hindering them altogether. Have fun if you like, but your question was too serious to be funny to you while being too dreary worst routine for me.<br /><br /><i>"Oh, but please do explain to me how the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has got it all wrong with their heliocentric spacecraft trajectories."</i><br /><br />Explain how the spacecraft trajectories need heliocentrism?<br /><br />Is Tychonianism no option?<br /><br />Is continual optic adjustment of trajectoriess no option (i e optic guided and ground operated adjustment)?<br /><br />I think that argument is overdone.<br /><br /><i>"Right about what exactly? Some of your posts just seem to put some musings out there but not really turn them into arguments or especially complete assertions."</i><br /><br />Hints at an argument are also meant as arguments. Contradicting one of your premisses is also a kind of rebuttal.<br /><br />But perhaps you are too Buddhist to be used to argument?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58512136624918224822017-07-29T08:33:33.310-07:002017-07-29T08:33:33.310-07:00Hans Georg Lundahl July 29, 2017 at 2:02 AM
"...Hans Georg Lundahl July 29, 2017 at 2:02 AM<br /><br />"Are you sure you didn't write it just because you found no sound argument against it on a moment's notice, but still didn't want to give me credit for being right?"<br /><br />Right about what exactly? Some of your posts just seem to put some musings out there but not really turn them into arguments or especially complete assertions.<br /><br />"We have two options : we believe our eyes, we are geocentrics, we conclude from there God is moving ordering angelic movement of heaven/heavenly bodies around Earth each day.<br /><br />Or, we disbelieve in God, we conclude geocentrism can't work, and we conclude by also disbelieving our eyes and being heliocentric."<br /><br />Are you seriously a proponent of geocentrism? Also, you suggest that the alternative is atheism. In that case atheism is the reasonable choice.<br /><br />However, nearly all theists are heliocentrists. <br /><br />Looking through a telescope is believing our senses, as much as using reading glasses is still believing our senses.<br /><br />"15 years of that kind of sauce you just gave me has tended to make me somewhat bitter."<br />--When you gain enlightenment you will realize that bitterness, like anger and happiness, comes from within.<br /><br />If you have been going around espousing geocentrism for 15 years I would think you would be accustomed to not being taken seriously.<br /><br />Oh, but please do explain to me how the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has got it all wrong with their heliocentric spacecraft trajectories.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38805049183681078522017-07-29T02:02:46.289-07:002017-07-29T02:02:46.289-07:00"--Hans, are you sure this isn't a joke p...<i>"--Hans, are you sure this isn't a joke post, you know, just random stuff thrown out to try to get a rise out of people?"</i><br /><br />You are obviously trying to "get a rise" out of me by coming with a random accusation rather than dealing with the issues.<br /><br />We have two options : we believe our eyes, we are geocentrics, we conclude from there God is moving ordering angelic movement of heaven/heavenly bodies around Earth each day.<br /><br />Or, we disbelieve in God, we conclude geocentrism can't work, and we conclude by also disbelieving our eyes and being heliocentric.<br /><br />The second option, starting with a random disbelief and concluding in disbelief of sense data for no reason derived from sense data is not an option St Thomas would even have considered.<br /><br />Had he been here, he would have been rolling on the floor laughing, as for me, 15 years of that kind of sauce you just gave me has tended to make me somewhat bitter.<br /><br />Are you sure you didn't write it just because you found no sound argument against it on a moment's notice, but still didn't want to give me credit for being right?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38881763037908971362017-07-28T20:55:38.568-07:002017-07-28T20:55:38.568-07:00bmiller July 26, 2017 at 7:21 PM
@Strawdusty,
You...bmiller July 26, 2017 at 7:21 PM<br /><br />@Strawdusty,<br />You really do have reading comprehension problems <br /><br />--I read Feser here:<br />http://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf<br /><br />I understood and deconstructed his faulty arguments here:<br />Stardusty Psyche July 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM<br /><br />In response to:<br />Billy July 21, 2017 at 1:03 PM<br /><br />Billy quite apparently lacked either the ability or interest to demonstrate my "reading comprehension problems ".<br /><br />Nor has anybody else provided such demonstration.<br /><br />Thus, my critique of that piece by Feser stands.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69320265359547098362017-07-26T19:21:42.084-07:002017-07-26T19:21:42.084-07:00@Strawdusty,
You really do have reading comprehen...@Strawdusty,<br /><br />You really do have reading comprehension problems if you understood the first quote to mean the same as the second.<br /><br />I'm sorry that I can't help you in that area.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90078653151291114832017-07-26T07:38:12.190-07:002017-07-26T07:38:12.190-07:00bmillerJuly 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM
" whatever c...bmillerJuly 24, 2017 at 8:55 AM<br /><br />" whatever causes the material object to come to be and remain in existence. The Unmoved Mover."<br /><br />"Thomists do not assert that any ""ontological first changer" is "continuously changing things so they can remain unchanged" wherever did you read that?""<br />--You just did.<br /><br />"You did not provide any such quote from anyone, much less a Thomist. Please provide the quote."<br />--You provided it for me.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65926013384479431512017-07-26T07:33:50.500-07:002017-07-26T07:33:50.500-07:00Hans Georg LundahlJuly 25, 2017 at 5:25 AM
"...Hans Georg LundahlJuly 25, 2017 at 5:25 AM<br /><br />"Also, Riccioli who instead considers angels as directly moving stellar bodies westward and God as not mechanically involved, mentions involving God right here in "daily astronomy" "<br /><br />"This is sth much wider than a mere delay in depletion of a non-reactivated movement,"<br /><br />" "conservation of energy" is therefore a non-proven, or a standin for God "<br /><br />--Hans, are you sure this isn't a joke post, you know, just random stuff thrown out to try to get a rise out of people?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55560670230727352202017-07-25T05:25:14.327-07:002017-07-25T05:25:14.327-07:00// If one assigns the title of "cause" t...// If one assigns the title of "cause" to a baseball bat, and "effect" to the acceleration of the ball then there is the appearance of simultaneity of cause and effect. Here is a video showing that this energy transfer is a process over time.<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFlEIybC7rU<br /><br />As the ball increases its kinetic energy the bat decreases its kinetic energy. There is no single moment when all the energy is transferred. //<br /><br />That is what I meant by some delay.<br /><br />The simultaneity is not perfect, yet, obviously, the cause and effect are simultaneous - for that whole process of time.<br /><br />// --This is a joke post, right? Kind of your idea of saying things that are so absurd it is obvious that you could not possibly be serious, therefore you are being funny...right? //<br /><br />Wrong, it is not a joke post.<br /><br />While one could trace movers moved to unmoved and still moving along other lines, this is the line which the clearest (confer Summa part I, q 11, a 3 and some it refers back to) shows that the unmoved mover is one such, and not for instance several energy quanta.<br /><br />Btw, if you doubt this is the most Classic example of several possibly others too St Thomas had in mind with Prima Via, confer the full Latin text (an English translation available online is unfortunately truncated here) of the sole proof of God in Summa contra Gentes, book I or II, chapter 13.<br /><br />Also, Riccioli who instead considers angels as directly moving stellar bodies westward and God as not mechanically involved, mentions involving God right here in "daily astronomy" (if I may coin the term) was indeed St Thomas' favourite proof for God's existence, while he prefers the one given by St Anselm and Pascal.<br /><br />I saw one using the concept of conservation of energy while scrolling past what I am answering to the combox.<br /><br />Funny concept. If you had said "conservation of force", it would have been demonstrably false.<br /><br />Nor is it demonstrably conservation of actual movement. See the pseudo-concept of "potential energy".<br /><br />This is sth much wider than a mere delay in depletion of a non-reactivated movement, which is compatible with Thomism + "short delay" mentioned above.<br /><br />But this wider concept of "conservation of energy" is therefore a non-proven, or a standin for God in Prima Via.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5621068624881241632017-07-24T08:55:18.210-07:002017-07-24T08:55:18.210-07:00@Strawdusty,
"I have asked you several times...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b>"I have asked you several times what you think "ontolgy" means "<br />--Asked and answered several times. See above.</b><br /><br />What you gave me was what you thought this quote meant with respect to ontology:<br /><br />Dr Feser's quote:<br /><b>"Edwards does realize that Aquinas is not arguing that the universe must have had a beginning – that the first cause he is arguing for is “first” not in a temporal sense, but in an ontological sense, a sustaining cause of the world here and now and at any moment at which the world exists at all."</b><br /><br />Here is your interpretation of that quote:<br /><b>--In this A-T context it refers to the call for a sustaining cause for motion and existence,</b><br /><br />I was hoping you would look up what ontology means and find that it means the study of being as such. Motion/change as such does not exist independently of material objects. Motion/change is an observation that material objects change but change cannot be perceived unless there are material objects in a form matter combination that actually exist. <br /><br />So the existence of a material object as a combination of form and matter is ontologically prior to motion and that motion could not exist at all without material objects. It seems that you reify the abstract notion of change into an existent thing of it's own, which of course it is not.<br /><br />The point Dr Feser was making was not necessarily that there must be "a sustaining cause for motion" as if motion was an existent thing of itself, but that in order to be motion, something must be in existence and be moving. A material thing moves due to it's form/nature whether that is due to what Thomists call natural motion such as gravity or how it interacts with other material objects violently such as in collisions. So ultimately the cause of motion is due to the form/matter nature of a material object and whatever causes the material object to come to be and remain in existence. The Unmoved Mover.<br /><br /><b>Thomists do not assert that any ""ontological first changer" is "continuously changing things so they can remain unchanged" wherever did you read that?"<br />--You are having a very difficult time with something as simple as the assertion of an ontological first mover, which I have explained again and again, yet you repeatedly ask to have explained to you.</b><br /><br />You did not provide any such quote from anyone, much less a Thomist. Please provide the quote.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40603722167199215292017-07-24T06:18:41.505-07:002017-07-24T06:18:41.505-07:00bmillerJuly 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM
"I have aske...bmillerJuly 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM<br /><br />"I have asked you several times what you think "ontolgy" means "<br />--Asked and answered several times. See above.<br /><br />"This is the first time I've seen you use the phrase "since it is not changing its mass/energy" as a qualifier. "<br />--Then you have not been reading and understanding.<br /><br /><br />"Which again gets back to what you think "ontology" means versus what Thomists think it means."<br />--Asked and answered several times. See above.<br /><br /> Thomist do not assert that any ""ontological first changer" is "continuously changing things so they can remain unchanged" wherever did you read that?"<br />--You are having a very difficult time with something as simple as the assertion of an ontological first mover, which I have explained again and again, yet you repeatedly ask to have explained to you. Until you get that basic notion, which I have explained multiple times above, there is no point in moving on to more complicated matters.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66392061395518326912017-07-23T21:44:15.547-07:002017-07-23T21:44:15.547-07:00@Strawdusty,'
"If I may make a suggestio...@Strawdusty,'<br /><br /><b>"If I may make a suggestion. If you think "conservation of mass/energy" rules out questions of existence,"<br />--I don't know what that means, it certainly is nothing I ever said.<br /><br />Conservation of matter/energy makes an ontological cause unnecessary for matter/energy that is merely persisting in existing.</b><br /><br />I have asked you several times what you think "ontolgy" means and suggested you think it means something that Thomists don't. That is why you don't know what I mean and I can't understand what you mean. Ontological questions refer to questions of being/existence. I don't know what your definition is.<br /><br /><b>" the way you worded it still implies "an object in uniform change is not changing""<br />--Not an implication, rather, a direct statement. An object in uniform motion is not itself undergoing change merely by virtue of being in uniform motion, since it is not changing its mass/energy.</b><br /><br />This is the first time I've seen you use the phrase "since it is not changing its mass/energy" as a qualifier. So you have now added a qualifier. So wrt kinetic energy the object is not changing since velocity is constant. Agreed. But wrt to other objects in a different inertial reference frame the object is in motion, right? See how much time we have spent on this single item? Why not spend time discussing just this rather than a shotgun approach? <br /><br /><b>" or "change is not changing""<br />--No, that is what the asserted ontological first changer is doing, continuously changing things so they can remain unchanged. Contradictory indeed.</b><br /><br />Which again gets back to what you think "ontology" means versus what Thomists think it means. Thomist do not assert that any "ontological first changer" is "continuously changing things so they can remain unchanged" wherever did you read that?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5401397337569348712017-07-23T21:32:24.722-07:002017-07-23T21:32:24.722-07:00bmillerJuly 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
"You have ar...bmillerJuly 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM<br /><br />"You have argued that conservation laws imply no motion. "<br />--No, I never said that. Why do you continually make up odd things I never said and then attribute them to me? <br /><br />"I have presented the definition of conservation laws according to modern physics which includes motion as part of the definition. In the case of energy conservation, kinetic energy is just the energy of motion. "<br />--Yes, obviously, in uniform motion kinetic energy is conserved, which is why uniform motion is not a change for the object simply because it is in uniform motion. Uniform motion is by definition an existence over time with no change in kinetic energy for the object in uniform motion.<br /><br />Since there is no change there is no call for a changer. <br /><br />"But it seems to me that you want to make an argument like this:<br />1) Things that don't change do not require a changer.<br />2) Some things do not change.<br />3) Therefore there is no need of an ultimate Unchanged Changer."<br /><br />"You can correct that if I got it wrong,"<br />3) Therefore there is no necessity for an ontological cause for things that are merely persisting in existing or are in uniform motion.<br /><br /><br />1) The First Way does not address things that don't change. <br />--According to Feser it does. He says there is a need for an ontological cause, a sustaining cause, just to keep things in existence, and this is the causal series that Aquinas is referring to in the First Way.<br /><br /><br />"2) So in order to defeat the First Way, it must be demonstrated that nothing is moving or has ever moved."<br />--To defeat the First Way it must be shown that an ontological first mover is unnecessary (aside from the invalid logic, false premises, and incompleteness defects of the First Way).<br /><br />To show that an ontological first mover is unnecessary several conditions are addressed.<br />1. For objects merely persisting in existing there is no change and therefore no necessity for an ontological cause.<br />2. For objects in uniform motion there is no change therefore no necessity for an ontological cause.<br />3. For objects undergoing change all such changes are temporal and therefore call for a temporal regress of causes, and therefore there is no necessity for an ontological cause.<br /><br />In all instances there is no necessity for an ontological cause and therefore the First Way is negated.<br /> StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72030590374577135752017-07-23T20:24:18.727-07:002017-07-23T20:24:18.727-07:00bmillerJuly 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM
"If I may ma...bmillerJuly 23, 2017 at 3:06 PM<br /><br />"If I may make a suggestion. If you think "conservation of mass/energy" rules out questions of existence,"<br />--I don't know what that means, it certainly is nothing I ever said.<br /><br />Conservation of matter/energy makes an ontological cause unnecessary for matter/energy that is merely persisting in existing.<br /><br />" the way you worded it still implies "an object in uniform change is not changing""<br />--Not an implication, rather, a direct statement. An object in uniform motion is not itself undergoing change merely by virtue of being in uniform motion, since it is not changing its mass/energy.<br /><br />" or "change is not changing""<br />--No, that is what the asserted ontological first changer is doing, continuously changing things so they can remain unchanged. Contradictory indeed.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12352418635144849112017-07-23T15:06:54.677-07:002017-07-23T15:06:54.677-07:00Continued:
If I may make a suggestion. If you th...Continued:<br /><br />If I may make a suggestion. If you think "conservation of mass/energy" rules out questions of existence, let's stick to one example, and examine that in detail rather than 4 examples that don't have enough qualifications for me to understand the point you are trying to make. For instance, let's leave out inertia for the moment, since the way you worded it still implies "an object in uniform change is not changing" or "change is not changing".bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46163828524755704442017-07-23T15:06:25.972-07:002017-07-23T15:06:25.972-07:00@Strawdusty,
"When you speak of conservation...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b>"When you speak of conservation laws and invoke modern physics you necessarily invoke Noether's theorem"<br />--No, that is just a setup for your tautology.</b><br /><br />You have argued that conservation laws imply no motion. I have presented the definition of conservation laws according to modern physics which includes motion as part of the definition. In the case of energy conservation, kinetic energy is just the energy of motion. No tautology.<br /><br /><b>Conservation is real.<br /><br />Mathematical descriptions of it are abstractions.<br /><br />The very meaning of "conservation" is the continuation as things are, in this case, for any particular real object.</b><br /><br />I've provided you the accepted definition of what a conservation law is. It seems you are implying that conservation laws are wrong in stating that they apply only to a particular quantity X but instead apply to "the continuation as things are" without qualification. Please show me where you found this definition.<br /><br />An abstraction does not mean something is not "real", it only means that it is one aspect taken in isolation from others. In the case of conservation of energy, it is only the abstracted quantity of energy of a system that is conserved over time. But kinetic energy is the product of the mass and velocity squared of an existent object. Since velocity is the change of an object in space, there is certainly change involving an existent object. The quantity being preserved is the total energy of a system, not the existence of the form and matter of existent material objects.<br /><br /><b>"A material object can be considered in motion in one respect (wrt space)"<br />--No such thing as absolute space has yet been identified, so motion is not with respect to space. Motion is relative to other objects.</b><br /><br />I meant it in terms of dx/dt, however one defines the x axis. But in that respect there is change.<br /><br /><b>Uniform motion is not a change for the object in uniform motion, and thus calls for no changer.</b><br /><br />Once again, this statement is false if there are no qualifications. If an object is in uniform motion, then it is uniform motion with respect to something and is therefore changing position with respect to that other something. The train passenger on a moving train can look out his window and see trees passing by. If he wakes up on a train and is blindfolded, he probably cannot sense if the is moving or not wrt to things outside the train. On the other hand, if there is an acceleration, the train passenger will be able to sense a change in velocity. <br />Since you have provided no qualifications I have no way to tell what you mean.<br /><br />But it seems to me that you want to make an argument like this:<br />1) Things that don't change do not require a changer. <br />2) Some things do not change.<br />3) Therefore there is no need of an ultimate Unchanged Changer.<br /><br />You can correct that if I got it wrong, but if that is the argument against the First Way, then here are a couple of responses.<br /><br />1) The First Way does not address things that don't change. The first premise only requires the observation that something is changing and that could be only 1 thing. So the fact that some things do not change is irrelevant to the argument.<br />2) So in order to defeat the First Way, it must be demonstrated that nothing is moving or has ever moved.<br />3) But even if that could be demonstrated (per impossible since demonstration would be change) the question of "why are there things?", the ontological cause, could still be asked and still would still lead to God.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45735952249759977242017-07-23T12:03:49.192-07:002017-07-23T12:03:49.192-07:00bmillerJuly 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM
"When you s...bmillerJuly 22, 2017 at 11:20 PM<br /><br />"When you speak of conservation laws and invoke modern physics you necessarily invoke Noether's theorem"<br />--No, that is just a setup for your tautology.<br /><br />"Conservation is an abstraction so only an abstraction is conserved."<br /><br />Conservation is real.<br /><br />Mathematical descriptions of it are abstractions.<br /><br />The very meaning of "conservation" is the continuation as things are, in this case, for any particular real object.<br /><br />When an object persists in existing we can consider 2 sorts of things about that persistence.<br />1.Those things that stay the same, such as it's mass/energy.<br />2.Those things that are changing.<br /><br />To merely persist in existence only type 1. occurs, which is no change, and no change requires no changer.<br /><br />Properties that are changing, such as acceleration, vibration, shape are necessarily temporal processes. To analyze them requires a temporal regress, leading to a consideration of an infinite temporal regress.<br /><br />No change requires no changer, and thus no ontological changer.<br /><br />A temporal change requires a temporal regress of causation, and thus no ontological changer.<br /><br />To recap:<br />1. To merely persist in existence is no change, and thus calls for no changer of any sort, and therefore no ontological changer.<br />2. To persist while changing is a temporal process, which calls for a temporal causal regress, and thus no ontological changer.<br /><br />SP Uniform motion is not a change for the object in motion. No energy is gained or lost in uniform motion.<br /><br />"A material object can be considered in motion in one respect (wrt space)"<br />--No such thing as absolute space has yet been identified, so motion is not with respect to space. Motion is relative to other objects.<br /><br />" but at rest wrt to change in velocity."<br />--That is a very unusual way of putting it, but I suppose you can say that uniform motion is at rest with respect to acceleration. Acceleration is a change for the object accelerating and is necessarily a temporal process calling for a temporal causal regress. Uniform motion is not a change for the object in uniform motion, and thus calls for no changer.<br /><br />On the modern science of motion and conservation of matter/energy no ontological cause is called for in any case.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64515463102964841532017-07-23T09:23:35.034-07:002017-07-23T09:23:35.034-07:00It is relevant to illustrate the distinction betwe...<b>It is relevant to illustrate the distinction between an essentially ordered series and an accidentally ordered series.</b><br /><br />More to the point, physics does have a way even in principle to do make this type of calculation. bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31737575643925072932017-07-22T23:20:58.124-07:002017-07-22T23:20:58.124-07:00@Strawdusty,
Note: The statement is self containe...@Strawdusty,<br /><br /><b>Note: The statement is self contained about a specific aspect, to merely persist in existing.<br /><br />To merely persist in existing.<br /><br />What is required to merely persist in existing? Is an ontological cause, a sustaining cause, called for in merely persisting in existing?</b><br /><br />When you speak of conservation laws and invoke modern physics you necessarily invoke Noether's theorem which involves changes in motion and time. This is the most recent quotation:<br /><br /><i><br />"A conservation law states that some quantity X in the mathematical description of a system's evolution remains constant throughout its motion — it is an invariant."<br />July 16, 2017 at 5:19 PM<br /></i><br /><br />This does not imply that nothing changes, only that the abstraction X does not change. Certainly the law does not imply that motion ceases since it explicitly says that only the X of the system is "constant throughout its motion".<br /><br />For present purposes, the thing that does not change, X, is merely the mathematical description of the quantity energy present within the boundaries of a system. Even then, the energy can change states from kinetic to potential, from electrical to thermal and so on or even escape the boundaries of the system. But it simply has nothing to say one way or the other about the persistence of existence (or not) of any particular material object.<br /><br /><b><br />"The second is a restatement of the first. "<br />--No, because motion is not necessarily a change for the object in motion.</b><br /><br />It is moving wrt to it's position in space unless you are equivocating.<br /><br /><b><br />"We witness things coming to be and passing away, so we do see change."<br />--The statement regards to merely persist in existing. There is no motion in merely persisting to exist, so there is no call for a mover to sustain an object to merely persist in existing. Therefore there is no ontological necessity for a mover in merely persisting in existing.<br /></b><br /><br />Again, your position was that "On conservation of matter/energy" nothing changes. You have now implicitly admitted that "conservation of matter/energy" allows that material objects come to be and pass away. Thus there is change, and so the objection is invalidated.<br /><br /><b>On modern science of motion including inertia merely persisting in uniform motion is no change for the object in motion; therefore no change requires no changer.<br /><br />Uniform motion is not a change for the object in motion. No energy is gained or lost in uniform motion.</b><br /><br />Thank you for clarifying that this is an equivocation rather than a contradiction. A material object can be considered in motion in one respect (wrt space) but at rest wrt to change in velocity.<br /><br /><b>""But tell me the ratio of force each of your ancestors contribute to your golf swing?""<br />--Is fertilization exothermic or endothermic? I really don't know, what difference does it make relevant to how the First Way is erroneous on the modern science of motion and conservation of matter/energy?</b><br /><br />You made the claim that ancestors were responsible for men presently moving sticks. I merely modernized things to you swinging a golf club. Here is your claim.<br /><br /><b><br />The great grandfather, the grand father, and the previous heartbeat were all instrumental in that particular man moving that particular stick some particular amount.<br /></b><br /><br />It is relevant to illustrate the distinction between an essentially ordere series and an accidentally ordered series.<br /><br /><b>Why do you keep asking for info I already gave in:<br />Stardusty Psyche July 16, 2017 at 8:45 AM</b><br /><br />Because you merely quoted Dr Feser now and before and did not describe what you think "ontolgy" means. I suspect that you think it means something different than what Dr Feser means. <br />Hint: it does not mean: "it refers to the call for a sustaining cause for motion and existence,".bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16474841352166876372017-07-22T15:46:57.423-07:002017-07-22T15:46:57.423-07:00bmillerJuly 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM
""But t...bmillerJuly 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM<br /><br />""But tell me the ratio of force each of your ancestors contribute to your golf swing?""<br />--Is fertilization exothermic or endothermic? I really don't know, what difference does it make relevant to how the First Way is erroneous on the modern science of motion and conservation of matter/energy?<br /><br /><br />""What do you think the term "ontology" means? It looks like you are using it incorrectly.""<br />--In this A-T context it refers to the call for a sustaining cause for motion and existence, which makes no sense on modern science of motion and conservation of matter/energy.<br /><br />Why do you keep asking for info I already gave in:<br />Stardusty Psyche July 16, 2017 at 8:45 AM<br /><br />bmillerJuly 15, 2017 at 7:04 PM<br /><br />"Edwards does realize that Aquinas is not arguing that the universe must have had a beginning – that the first cause he is arguing for is “first” not in a temporal sense, but in an ontological sense, a sustaining cause of the world here and now and at any moment at which the world exists at all."<br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html<br /><br />Why do you keep asking for info I already gave you?<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13643301189185468302017-07-22T14:51:55.695-07:002017-07-22T14:51:55.695-07:00bmillerJuly 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM
"There are s...bmillerJuly 22, 2017 at 1:59 PM<br /><br />"There are several reasons they are muddled:<br />The first one says there is no change and so no changer is necessary. Up until now your position has been that things continuous bounce around. So you are either contradicting yourself or equivocating."<br />--Here is the actual statement:<br />On conservation of matter/energy to merely persist in existing is no change; therefore no change requires no changer.<br />Note: The statement is self contained about a specific aspect, to merely persist in existing.<br /><br />To merely persist in existing.<br /><br />What is required to merely persist in existing? Is an ontological cause, a sustaining cause, called for in merely persisting in existing?<br /><br />On conservation of matter/energy, no. Because there is no change in merely persisting in existing, therefore no changer is called for.<br /><br />If you wish to broaden the discussion to things bouncing off each other, fine, that is a temporal process, the analysis of which calls for a temporal regress of causes, not an ontological cause or ontological regress of causes.<br /><br /><br />"The second is a restatement of the first. "<br />--No, because motion is not necessarily a change for the object in motion.<br />Here is the actual statement:<br />On conservation of matter/energy to merely persist in existing is no motion; therefore no motion requires no mover.<br /><br />"We witness things coming to be and passing away, so we do see change."<br />--The statement regards to merely persist in existing. There is no motion in merely persisting to exist, so there is no call for a mover to sustain an object to merely persist in existing. Therefore there is no ontological necessity for a mover in merely persisting in existing.<br /><br /><br />"The third contains another apparent contradiction or an equivocation which I pointed out before. It claims that motion is not change."<br />--Here is the actual statement:<br />On modern science of motion including inertia merely persisting in uniform motion is no change for the object in motion; therefore no change requires no changer.<br /><br />Uniform motion is not a change for the object in motion. No energy is gained or lost in uniform motion. Humans for millennia assumed they were not in motion when they sat still on the surface of the Earth. There is no perception of moving at thousands of miles per hour, as we are relative to celestial objects.<br /><br />An object in uniform motion is not itself undergoing change. Therefore there is no call for an ontological first changer, because no change does not need to be sustained by a changer.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com