tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5219364896063547978..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Naturalism in the newsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger189125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34076189650042465002013-06-20T15:10:31.577-07:002013-06-20T15:10:31.577-07:00For example, when a physicist hypothesizes that gr...<i>For example, when a physicist hypothesizes that gravity separated from the unified force at 10 ^ -43 seconds following the big bang, does your somewhat arbitrary definition make any sense at all in this particular context?</i><br /><br />The question answers itself, of course: <b>Gravity "separated from" the unified force</b> - which is already metaphorical language for what physicists actually mean - constitutes a description (under the Grand Unification theory) dependent on the conditions OF STUFF that existed at that time after the big bang, the conditions relating especially to temperature: <br /><br /><i>As the universe expands and cools, it crosses transition temperatures at which forces separate from each other. These are phase transitions much like condensation and freezing. The grand unification epoch begins when gravitation separates from the other forces of nature, which are collectively known as gauge forces. <br />(Wiki) </i><br /><br />And, of course, temperature perforce refers to the temperature OF something. There had to be material reality of such a nature as to exhibit temperature, and to exhibit mass-like relationships in order for gravity to "separate out". There was "something there" for gravity to bear upon when it separated out. <br /><br />Of course, the whole description for this Planck epoch is speculative: <br /><br /><i>All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period. Proposed scenarios differ radically. Some examples are the Hartle–Hawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these are mutually compatible, while others are not. (Wiki again) </i> <br /><br />You gotta wonder about someone who cannot argue without bringing in yet another hypothesis at every response. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27582509955305354292013-06-14T08:46:53.879-07:002013-06-14T08:46:53.879-07:00Edit, the first sentence should be this:
"Wh...Edit, the first sentence should be this:<br /><br />"What brute fact? The why can be explained in regards to the formal/final cause/etc of matter and the how can be explained by something like General Relativity or gravitons."FZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62116637961096238802013-06-14T08:45:41.319-07:002013-06-14T08:45:41.319-07:00What brute fact? The how can be explained in regar...What brute fact? The how can be explained in regards to the formal/final cause/etc of matter and the how can be explained by something like General Relativity or gravitons.<br /><br />"For example, when a physicist hypothesizes that gravity separated from the unified force at 10 ^ -43 seconds following the big bang, does your somewhat arbitrary definition make any sense at all in this particular context?"<br /><br />Or we could just say that initial conditions/changes in the extreme temperatures caused matter to behave differently than it does today. Decreases in the temperature caused one behavior of matter to be replaced by two, and so on.<br /><br />Again, you need to flesh out an argument:<br /><br />1) The four fundamental forces where once unified into one force.<br />2) ???<br />3) Therefore, gravity itself exists, apart from matter.<br /><br />Because 1 on it's own does not lead to 3.FZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62910550680086297362013-06-14T01:45:48.550-07:002013-06-14T01:45:48.550-07:00@Tony
Those who are attempting to do metaphysics...@Tony<br /><br /><b><i><br />Those who are attempting to do metaphysics around these here parts generally try to avoid equivocations, and should at least correct themselves when the equivocations are pointed out to them. After repeated clarifications that gravity to the extent that it exists is not the sort of thing that can "exist" without a universe or any matter because whatever we mean by the term we mean something whose reality is IN RELATION TO things that have mass.<br /> Whatever its "essence" is, it relies on a relation, all you do is ignore the clarifications and continue to pretend that your special, hidden, esoteric meaning of the word doesn't rely on "thingness" but also doesn't rely on relation to things doesn't involve equivocation. If you mean by the word gravity something different from what everyone else in the world of science and philosophy means, you're just playing word games. If you DO mean something whose "essence" relies on relation to things, your point was answered and defeated and washed out to sea ages ago.<br /></i></b><br /><br />No equivocation on my part. When I asked the question about "thingness" I was referring to material stuff. <br /><br />And, of course, I disagree with your assertion that "whatever we mean by the term we mean something whose reality is IN RELATION TO things that have mass", as that is exactly NOT what I mean by the term in the context of this discussion, as I have repeated... ad nauseum.<br /><br />For example, when a physicist hypothesizes that gravity separated from the unified force at 10 ^ -43 seconds following the big bang, does your somewhat arbitrary definition make any sense at all in this particular context?Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24415399625274997672013-06-13T12:18:31.424-07:002013-06-13T12:18:31.424-07:00And you continue to miss the point that gravity is...<i>And you continue to miss the point that gravity is not a thing, (you can't hold a piece of it, it is only appreciable through effect), but without it, without the essense of gravity (gravity itself), there could be no thing as there could be no move from potentially a thing, such as a star, to actually a thing, such as a star. <br /><br />Do you believe that essence requires "thingness"?<br /><br />Sure, one could say that it is a silly word game. Though this is kind of the nature of the metaphysical beast, as it were. </i> <br /><br />Those who are attempting to do metaphysics around these here parts generally try to avoid equivocations, and should at least correct themselves when the equivocations are pointed out to them. After repeated clarifications that gravity <i>to the extent that it exists</i> is not the sort of thing that can "exist" without a universe or any matter because whatever we mean by the term we mean something whose reality is <b>IN RELATION TO</b> things that have mass. Whatever its "essence" is, it relies on a <i>relation</i>, all you do is ignore the clarifications and continue to pretend that your special, hidden, esoteric meaning of the word doesn't rely on "thingness" but also doesn't rely on relation to things doesn't involve equivocation. If you mean by the word gravity something different from what everyone else in the world of science and philosophy means, you're just playing word games. If you DO mean something whose "essence" relies on relation to things, your point was answered and defeated and washed out to sea ages ago.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72646126318114070572013-06-13T08:29:15.909-07:002013-06-13T08:29:15.909-07:00@FZ
In the premise before that one, Aquinas state...@FZ<br /><br /><b><i>In the premise before that one, Aquinas states that something cannot be both potential and actual in the same aspect. For example, a mass cannot potentially have kinetic energy and actually have kinetic energy at the same time, it only one or the other. In this case, a mass cannot be potentially attracted and actually attracted at the same time. Therefore, it requires something other than itself, such as another, separate mass. Mass A attracts mass B and vice versa. Mass A can't "pull itself on its own," it needs mass B. Thus, "it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved” is fine in the case of gravitational attraction between masses.</i></b><br /><br />Cool. <br /><br />So what is the cause? Why do they move at all? <br /><br />Are you claiming a brute fact?<br /><br />(June 6, 2013 at 1:35 AM)Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23059204254542277152013-06-13T08:11:04.595-07:002013-06-13T08:11:04.595-07:00"Why would you expect there to be? Guth is no..."Why would you expect there to be? Guth is not doing metaphysics."<br /><br />True, but then why bring up inflationary theory at all?FZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84595184670059943202013-06-13T08:09:46.678-07:002013-06-13T08:09:46.678-07:00In the premise before that one, Aquinas states tha...In the premise before that one, Aquinas states that something cannot be both potential and actual in the same aspect. For example, a mass cannot potentially have kinetic energy and actually have kinetic energy at the same time, it only one or the other. In this case, a mass cannot be potentially attracted and actually attracted at the same time. Therefore, it requires something other than itself, such as another, separate mass. Mass A attracts mass B and vice versa. Mass A can't "pull itself on its own," it needs mass B. Thus, "it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved” is fine in the case of gravitational attraction between masses.FZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33939011750144367202013-06-13T07:52:10.779-07:002013-06-13T07:52:10.779-07:00@FZ
Nothing about "gravity itself" here...@FZ<br /><br /><b><i>Nothing about "gravity itself" here.</i></b><br /><br />Why would you expect there to be? Guth is not doing metaphysics.Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74935135594334793552013-06-13T07:47:25.703-07:002013-06-13T07:47:25.703-07:00@FZ
Also, we are not saying that gravity is a th...@FZ<br /><br /><b><i> Also, we are not saying that gravity is a thing. It you who is claiming this, saying that gravity has an "essence." We are saying that it is a behavior of matter. If you have a mass, you will observe gravitational attraction. If there is no mass, there is no gravity. You don't need gravity itself for stars to form, all you need is matter that attracts other matter.</i></b><br /><br />Of course, if this is true then,<br /> <br /><b> it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved</b> <br /><br />is false. <br /><br />Do you believe that essence requires "thingness"?<br />Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30089908274991881102013-06-13T07:22:12.072-07:002013-06-13T07:22:12.072-07:00Stars start out as gas/dust clouds in space. Matte...Stars start out as gas/dust clouds in space. Matter attracts other matter, and as the mass clumps, its gravitational pull increases. The mass eventually gets denser and hotter. We can simply say that the gravitational pull of the matter actualizes a dust/particle cloud's potency to become a star. It's simple matter moves other matter, no need to refer the essence of gravity apart from matter.<br /><br />http://www.howstuffworks.com/how-are-stars-formed.htm<br /><br />Also, what do you make of this?<br /><br />"The basic idea behind inflation is that a repulsive form of gravity caused the universe to expand. General relativity from its inception predicted the possibility of repulsive gravity; in the context of general relativity you basically need a material with a negative pressure to create repulsive gravity. According to general relativity it's not just matter densities or energy densities that create gravitational fields; it's also pressures. A positive pressure creates a normal attractive gravitational field of the kind that we're accustomed to, but a negative pressure would create a repulsive kind of gravity. It also turns out that according to modern particle theories, materials with a negative pressure are easy to construct out of fields which exist according to these theories. By putting together these two ideas — the fact that particle physics gives us states with negative pressures, and that general relativity tells us that those states cause a gravitational repulsion — we reach the origin of the inflationary theory."<br /><br />Nothing about "gravity itself" here.<br /><br />Also, we are not saying that gravity is a thing. It you who is claiming this, saying that gravity has an "essence." We are saying that it is a behavior of matter. If you have a mass, you will observe gravitational attraction. If there is no mass, there is no gravity. You don't need gravity itself for stars to form, all you need is matter that attracts other matter.FZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84548099453502170842013-06-13T07:12:59.011-07:002013-06-13T07:12:59.011-07:00@Tony
Robert, one could say the same about matte...@Tony<br /><br /><b><i><br />Robert, one could say the same about matter, and form, and space, and time, and causality, and logic, and distinction, and...a whole host of other "things". Oh, yes, without the essence of time, time itself, there could be no move from potentially a Robert to actually a Robert. It's a silly word game you are playing, with no more concrete meaning than playing black jack.<br /></i></b><br /><br />Sure, one could say that it is a silly word game. Though this is kind of the nature of the metaphysical beast, as it were. Are you a strict materialist?Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60328488928903594332013-06-13T02:59:15.362-07:002013-06-13T02:59:15.362-07:00Robert, one could say the same about matter, and f...Robert, one could say the same about matter, and form, and space, and time, and causality, and logic, and distinction, and...a whole host of other "things". <i>Oh, yes, without the essence of time, <b>time itself</b>, there could be no move from potentially a Robert to actually a Robert.</i> It's a silly word game you are playing, with no more concrete meaning than playing black jack. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2541345371234418602013-06-13T00:33:34.965-07:002013-06-13T00:33:34.965-07:00@FZ
Which premise does rank contradict, and why?...@FZ<br /><br /><b><i><br />Which premise does rank contradict, and why?<br /></i></b><br /><br />If rank is correct, then the premise I bolded is false. Let's consider it again:<br /><br /><b><br />"But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself." <br /></b><br /><br />What moves a star from potentiality to actuality? If rank is correct, then the star, for example, moves itself from potentially a star to actually a star, therefore possible in the same respect and in the same way for a thing to be both mover and moved. <br /><br />If I am correct than gravity actualises the star and the premise is preserved. <br /><br /><b><i><br />And also note, you still haven't provided any coherent argument in order to support your claim, that gravity somehow exists independent of the matter that exerts it. Only some vague appeals to inflationary cosmology, which doesn't help your case. An inflating universe is full of matter. Matter that attracts other matter. There's no need to postulate "gravity itself."<br /></i></b><br /><br />And you continue to miss the point that gravity is not a thing, (you can't hold a piece of it, it is only appreciable through effect), but without it, without the essense of gravity (gravity itself), there could be no thing as there could be no move from potentially a thing, such as a star, to actually a thing, such as a star. <br /><br />(Here is an easy to follow discussion of inflation, if you are interested.)<br />http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-inflationary-universe-alan-guthRobertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52220690936662059552013-06-12T20:46:44.394-07:002013-06-12T20:46:44.394-07:00@rank sophist,
"What I said was that a cause...@rank sophist,<br /><br />"What I said was that a cause could appear to be after its effect without really being after its effect. The reason is simple logic."<br /><br />So the ball moves, apparently on its own (the earth being far away). There appears to be a contradiction. Since I know that there can be no contradiction in fact I conclude one of two possible things. (a) the difficulties in measurement caused by the finite speed of all signals only an illusion or (b) the apparent cause is not the real one.<br /><br />In either cases we are forced to admit that there is something real that we are having trouble seeing. In one case an absolute clock, and in the other case a "graviton" or something. I understand the argument that it must be one of the two. I do not understand why you have made the choice you have.<br /><br />"A substance is a concrete and particularized entity composed either of form and matter or of pure form. It cannot have the universal character of abstractions like "space", "time" or even "gravity"."<br /><br />I did not intend to refer to space and time in the abstract. In that sense "water" is not a substance either. I mean a particular interval of time or region of space. Space can take different forms. So a region of space is composed of a [blank] and a form. What can fill in the blank if not matter? Certainly not matter in the way that physics uses the term, but perhaps matter in the sense that Aristotle is using it.reighleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08870026248363217644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62582143943482345972013-06-12T17:49:04.457-07:002013-06-12T17:49:04.457-07:00Guys, Robert has been having us on all along.** I...Guys, Robert has been having us on all along.** If you go back, comment by comment, you see that he has never, not even a little, provided any <i>substantive argument</i> that supports his thesis. All he does is keep POSITING notions as if they were true and evident and supporting merely because he states them. He keeps adding new things to get distracted about (gravity "itself"! dark matter! Repulsion! Analogical awareness!) But of course he never bothers to actually <i>deal</i> with the points others are making, not really. Because he is having us on, people, hoping we don't notice things like: you can't defend a thesis with another <b>hypothesis</b> (dark matter is hypothesis, not fact). Nor that you can't defend a thesis by falling back on "the essence" of gravity when that essence unknown and for practical purposes unknowable - the gravity of which even the scientists who claim to study it don't know "what it is" properly, since they cannot make their theories resolve with it. He is making hay out of sheer elusiveness. He could have chosen anything similarly elusive: Time itself! Awareness itself! Whatness as such! Identity in essence! One-ness! Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69988818271456703902013-06-12T09:10:26.812-07:002013-06-12T09:10:26.812-07:00reighley,
It has to be the earth doesn't it, ...reighley,<br /><br /><i>It has to be the earth doesn't it, in an A-T framework? "Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another."</i><br /><br />Not necessarily. The cause of motion is teleology. An efficient cause is what "effects" that motion. The First Way is an argument from final rather than efficient causality.<br /><br />Now that I think about it, though, it would be the earth. The ball's impetus to move downward is part of its intrinsic teleology, but, since the ball is not a self-mover, it would require the earth to put this into effect.<br /><br /><i>It is how you are determining what "really is" vs. what is simply a a misplaced concretization that baffles me. Space and time "appear" to be substances, in so far as they "appear" to transmit motion and to take on forms.</i><br /><br />How could anyone possibly say that space and time are substances? You're free to reject Aristotle's theory of substance in favor of a mechanistic and law-based view, but to suggest that space and time are substances is to admit that you don't understand what a substance is. A substance is a concrete and particularized entity composed either of form and matter or of pure form. It cannot have the universal character of abstractions like "space", "time" or even "gravity". <br /><br /><i>Why should I not accept that things are as the appear?</i><br /><br />What I said was that a cause could appear to be after its effect without really being after its effect. The reason is simple logic. An effect without a cause is a logical contradiction, and thus it cannot exist. Any suggestion that a cause came after its effect must only be apparent rather than real, by necessity. Your attempt at a reductio was an appeal to a misunderstanding of substance and to empirical data, neither of which has the demonstrative power of the argument I made.<br /><br /><i>But not to reflect the light or to fall?</i><br /><br />I don't see why this would be necessary.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62027343709085394682013-06-12T08:40:15.599-07:002013-06-12T08:40:15.599-07:00@rank sophist,
"the cause of the falling is ...@rank sophist,<br /><br />"the cause of the falling is either the earth or the intrinsic nature of the ball."<br /><br />It has to be the earth doesn't it, in an A-T framework? "Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another."<br /><br />"That it appears to be subsequent does not entail that it really is subsequent."<br /><br />That's fair. The position is going to cause you all kinds of pain if you try to build a science around it, but that isn't at issue here. It is how you are determining what "really is" vs. what is simply a a misplaced concretization that baffles me. Space and time "appear" to be substances, in so far as they "appear" to transmit motion and to take on forms. This behavior might "appear" to involve a boson of some kind that will travel in a straight line and have a momentum just like Newton said that substances do. So there is an argument to say that, seeing the action, and unable to find any other efficient cause in our light cone, gravity "appears" to involve a substance. Why should I not accept that things are as the appear?<br /><br />"Something has to exist to cast light or to provide gravity."<br /><br />But not to reflect the light or to fall?reighleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44696111901831958322013-06-12T08:08:59.023-07:002013-06-12T08:08:59.023-07:00Also, the First Way concludes that there is pure a...Also, the First Way concludes that there is pure actuality. It does not say anything about what pure act is. Aquinas provides further arguments in that regard. On its own, the first way doesn't show that pure act is God or gravity.FZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69031162032442419562013-06-12T07:32:26.374-07:002013-06-12T07:32:26.374-07:00Robert, here's the First Way split into premis...Robert, here's the First Way split into premises:<br /><br />http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2004/11/aquinass-first-way.html<br /><br />Which premise does rank contradict, and why?<br /><br />And also note, you still haven't provided any coherent argument in order to support your claim, that gravity somehow exists independent of the matter that exerts it. Only some vague appeals to inflationary cosmology, which doesn't help your case. An inflating universe is full of matter. Matter that attracts other matter. There's no need to postulate "gravity itself."FZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39317670659824007592013-06-12T07:02:50.056-07:002013-06-12T07:02:50.056-07:00reighley,
We see that a thing "fall". W...reighley,<br /><br /><i>We see that a thing "fall". What is the efficient cause of this motion?</i><br /><br />There are a couple of possible answers to this question. In the case of a ball being thrown and then gradually falling to the ground, the cause of the falling is either the earth or the intrinsic nature of the ball. I'm a bit vague on this myself. The cause certainly is not "gravity", though, since this would make absolutely no sense from an A-T point of view.<br /><br /><i>I take the core of Einstein's argument to be that if light appears to every observer to travel at a constant speed (which seems to be the case) and if the efficient cause is permitted to be a great distance from its effect then it follows that efficient cause may be subsequent in time to its effect. What do you make of that dilemma?</i><br /><br />That it appears to be subsequent does not entail that it really is subsequent. All this demonstrates is that we may not understand an efficient cause until a significant amount of time after its effect. At least, that's my take: you'd have to ask someone more versed in the relevant science to give you a better answer.<br /><br /><i>We might make an analogy between gravitation and electro-magnetic forces. We observe that in the case of electromagnetism these forces give rise to the phenomenon of light. Do you take the position, analogous to your position on gravitation, that light would not exist if there was nothing to be illuminated? Even if there were something which in other circumstances we would say was luminous?</i><br /><br />Light would not exist unless it inhered in a substance, just as gravity would not exist unless it inhered in a substance. But light and gravity could both exist even if only one substance in the universe existed and possessed those attributes. Something has to exist to cast light or to provide gravity.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27427743741197936272013-06-12T04:45:03.289-07:002013-06-12T04:45:03.289-07:00@grodriguez
If the following is true, than my pos...@grodriguez<br /><br />If the following is true, than my position stands. (Of course, if the view held by rank sophist is correct, then the following is false.)<br /><br /><b><br />But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself.<br /></b>Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76415866250620261542013-06-12T03:47:11.635-07:002013-06-12T03:47:11.635-07:00@Robert:
"The first and more manifest way is...@Robert:<br /><br />"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion."<br /><br />Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50769697410838263952013-06-12T01:09:39.078-07:002013-06-12T01:09:39.078-07:00@grodriguez
Argument, please?
The first and mor...@grodriguez<br /><b><i><br />Argument, please?<br /></i></b><br /><br />The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.<br /><br />You know the rest. Like I said a while ago, in this same thread. If Aristotle had been sitting under an apple tree when he penned his Metaphysics, we might be calling him the father of gravity. Robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64388216845812186482013-06-11T20:32:34.965-07:002013-06-11T20:32:34.965-07:00@rank sophist,
"In truth there is only intri...@rank sophist,<br /><br />"In truth there is only intrinsic gravitation."<br /><br />I will admit that I am committing a reification, but I'm not clear on why it must be a fallacy. If you don't mind me taking your ontological temperature : I am trying to tease answers to the following questions out of your position.<br /><br />(1) We see that a thing "fall". What is the efficient cause of this motion?<br /><br />(2) I take the core of Einstein's argument to be that if light appears to every observer to travel at a constant speed (which seems to be the case) and if the efficient cause is permitted to be a great distance from its effect then it follows that efficient cause may be subsequent in time to its effect. What do you make of that dilemma? Are efficient causes always local? or do efficient causes sometimes propagate backward in time? or is Einstein wrong about either light or space? Other options include the possibility that our notion of "efficient cause" is not everywhere applicable, or that I am getting my physics wrong.<br /><br />(3) We might make an analogy between gravitation and electro-magnetic forces. We observe that in the case of electromagnetism these forces give rise to the phenomenon of light. Do you take the position, analogous to your position on gravitation, that light would not exist if there was nothing to be illuminated? Even if there were something which in other circumstances we would say was luminous?reighleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08870026248363217644noreply@blogger.com