tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8836671975846448911..comments2024-03-28T07:47:38.176-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Oerter on universals and causalityEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger208125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36006619012830021682019-03-08T06:31:38.621-08:002019-03-08T06:31:38.621-08:00To anyone looking for a scholastic realist view of...To anyone looking for a scholastic realist view of QM, I recommend the book The Quantum Enigma by Wolfgang SmithAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73233183334868292542015-11-27T15:34:12.869-08:002015-11-27T15:34:12.869-08:00This is probably just a sad example of a person tr...This is probably just a sad example of a person trying to beat a dead horse, but here are my little two cents. <br /><br />I think an important distinction to make is that between genuine and non-genuine similarities. The first are entailed by a universal while the latter are not. For example, a genuine similarity is that between a dog and a cat. Both a dog and a cat actually share the similarity of having fur, and of sensing their surroundings. Thus, they both participate in an actual universal of being 'furry' and having 'sensation'. But, one might believe that a cat is like a dog in that a dog is cute like a dog. This is a matter of personal impressions, since it is not necessarily of a dog's or a cat's actual nature to be 'cute'. Now, the impression that we call 'cute' is actually itself a universal, as it can be discussed intelligibly and viewed as a concept.Johnnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02658655851701088522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37206028660690742302014-08-22T16:40:19.672-07:002014-08-22T16:40:19.672-07:00This is an old thread but a timeless topic, so:
...This is an old thread but a timeless topic, so: <br /><br />Re: "...where the latter includes the divine intellect, in which they pre-exist as the archetypes according to which God creates."<br /><br />But isn't this precisely the Platonic position? The real universals (supraformal and transcendent) are the Archetypes in the Divine Intellect. Also, Augustine's "seminal ideas". It is ultimately the uncreated Logos which is in question.Fredericknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19829574374159613372012-07-21T22:04:50.649-07:002012-07-21T22:04:50.649-07:00I've been reading The Last Superstition and am...I've been reading The Last Superstition and am on the arguments for realism. I can't help thinking these are word games. If you are right, then isn't it the case that every single thing that can be expressed by a noun must exist in some ideal "Form?" So there is a perfect Form "iPhone," and a perfect Form "Butternut Squash," and on and on. And tomorrow someone will invent a ScoogieWazzit, and suddenly as perfect Form ScoogieWazzit will exist. Huh?Montjoienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28106580476065216452012-06-19T21:07:56.926-07:002012-06-19T21:07:56.926-07:00Why should I believe all this?Why should I believe all this?Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06727523613548443634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5422061674868195112012-06-19T21:06:34.662-07:002012-06-19T21:06:34.662-07:00You don't understand the notion of a propensit...You don't understand the notion of a propensity?Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06727523613548443634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80648527584865786062012-05-28T23:17:27.718-07:002012-05-28T23:17:27.718-07:00Thanks, Rupert. The short answer is no. In this ...Thanks, Rupert. The short answer is no. In this instance, if the motion of the electron is due to a "propensity" in the atom, then the electron's motion cannot be said to be uncaused. The electron's motion could not then be independent of the atom because, as you've stated, it's motion is due to something in the atom which causes the movement. As noted above, potency cannot raise itself to act because it does not currently exist, and what does not exist cannot be the agent of its act on pain of contradiction. If there is nothing in the atom which causes the movement, then the only alternative is something other than the atom.<br /><br />That said, the atom still needs the "help of [an] outside agent" because its existence is being actualized. Since self-actualization is impossible, the atom's ground is beyond itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8971943270175460152012-05-28T17:33:16.783-07:002012-05-28T17:33:16.783-07:00Can an Aristotelian metaphysician allow the possib...Can an Aristotelian metaphysician allow the possibility that the hydrogen atom simply has a propensity to behave in this way with a certain probability in a certain time interval, and that this propensity can manifest without the help of any outside agent? And if not, why not? What is metaphysically incoherent about that conception?Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06727523613548443634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5592785835341276472012-05-28T15:38:08.811-07:002012-05-28T15:38:08.811-07:00Forgive me, Rupert, but I'm not certain what y...Forgive me, Rupert, but I'm not certain what you mean. All beings capable of being moved have the potential to be other than what they are by definition. Would you please elaborate? Thanks, in advance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10937595787689593742012-05-28T00:30:25.016-07:002012-05-28T00:30:25.016-07:00So if we apply that to the specific example of a h...So if we apply that to the specific example of a hydrogen atom which has a propensity to have its electron jump from one energy level to another with a certain probability in a certain time interval, then what do we make of that? Is the issue that the propensity must be included in one's ontology?Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06727523613548443634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83930747600237035632012-05-27T23:30:19.638-07:002012-05-27T23:30:19.638-07:00We don't feel threatened by a nonexistent enem...We don't feel threatened by a nonexistent enemy. QM is simply irrelevant because it cannot be rationally cited as proof of uncaused events.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29620933390041837172012-05-27T19:11:48.253-07:002012-05-27T19:11:48.253-07:00@ Anonymous
> There is no point in mentioning ...@ Anonymous<br /><br />> <i>There is no point in mentioning QM if you did not believe that it supported your argument in some measure.</i> <<br /><br />I raised the issue because I wanted to see how some here would respond to the observations of "uncaused" events. If my analysis of Aquinas' "First Cause" argument was correct (which it most certainly was), then his argument implied physical indeterminism. And since we have scientific evidence for physical indeterminism, then I wanted to learn how Thomists were going to respond to that fact. And what I learned is that many here feel threatened by quantum indeterminism.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3665678424005287702012-05-27T15:53:14.647-07:002012-05-27T15:53:14.647-07:00The Prevaricator said,
Your attempt to distort m...The Prevaricator said,<br /><br /><i> Your attempt to distort my claim in order to spare yourself embarrassment will not work. Neither Feser nor you have refuted my claim. The standard interpretation of QM (a.k.a. Copenhagen) most definitely holds that nature is fundamentally indeterminate.</i><br /><br />Your attempt to change the subject away from your non-engagement will not work. Feser clearly refuted your claim, but you’re too stupid to understand it. All you did to address Dr. Feser’s argument was grope the Internet for a quotation that merely restated your bias. Such impeccable bovine waste from the Prince.<br /><br />You spew a commodity found in abundance where bulls congregate, and when that is pointed out, you foolishly try to argue that everybody’s olfactory glands are malfunctioning because you are perfume of truth, Mr. Narcissist.<br /><br />The Prevaricator can’t keep track of his own arguments. He lies:<br /><br /><i> I never made the argument that my argument depends on quantum indeterminism.</i><br /><br />But at 2:55 he writes:<br /><br /><i> The only claim I have made in regards to QM is that the standard interpretation holds that nature is fundamentally indeterminate, that events really do occur uncaused.</i><br /><br />There is no point in mentioning QM if you did not believe that it supported your argument in some measure. In fact, the record shows you did cite it consistently to prove that claim. Your Revised Standard Version is like saying, “Chocolate chip cookies taste better that Oreo cookies. I mean, after all, the Giants won the Super Bowl.” Who did or didn’t win the SB has no bearing on the claim, so it can be dispensed with. If it has bearing on the claim, then it is shown to be irrelevant and false, in principle. Unless you actually demonstrate you understand the objections and unless you can show why the objections are unsound (without groping the Internet for quotations that restate your claim), you are firing blanks.<br /><br />The Liar continues,<br /><br /><i> Your ad hominem attacks do not qualify as a counterargument. They simply reveal that you have no counterargument.</i>.<br /><br />It shows your inability to read because I’ve been quite clear. We are still waiting for your rebuttal. The fact you still, AFTER ALL THIS TIME, do not offer one, demonstrates who really doesn’t have an argument.<br /><br />Prevaricator closes:<br /><br /><i> Personal attacks are typically employed by those who are incapable of crafting an intelligible argument.</i><br /><br />Said the one who just leveled a personal attack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62648826791182036202012-05-27T15:35:58.687-07:002012-05-27T15:35:58.687-07:00@ Anonymous
> And 1 has been shown by both Dr....@ Anonymous<br /><br />> And 1 has been shown by both Dr. Feser and myself to be both irrelevant and an invalid logical inference. <<br /><br />Your attempt to distort my claim in order to spare yourself embarrassment will not work. Neither Feser nor you have refuted my claim. The standard interpretation of QM (a.k.a. Copenhagen) most definitely holds that nature is fundamentally indeterminate.<br /><br />> With respect to 2, I have already told you I have no problem with any philosophical argument you offer, even if I disagree with your conclusions. They do not depend upon QM. <<br /><br />I never made the argument that my argument depends on quantum indeterminism. You're simply trying to distort the record in order to "save face" because we both know that you cannot refute my argument. Aquinas' "First Cause" argument implies physical indeterminism for reasons I have already explained. That the standard interpretation of QM holds that nature is fundamentally indeterminate is simply incidental.<br /><br />> As to 3, you deserve it. My ad hominem attacks have no bearing on my argument. They accurately describe how you’ve presented yourself here. You are beneath contempt and an arrogant doofus. <<br /><br />Personal attacks are typically employed by those who are incapable of crafting an intelligible argument.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9889676735165299192012-05-27T15:34:39.523-07:002012-05-27T15:34:39.523-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42765781607194551392012-05-27T15:14:16.510-07:002012-05-27T15:14:16.510-07:00And 1 has been shown by both Dr. Feser and myself ...And 1 has been shown by both Dr. Feser and myself to be both irrelevant and an invalid logical inference.<br /><br />With respect to 2, I have already told you I have no problem with any philosophical argument you offer, even if I disagree with your conclusions. They do not depend upon QM.<br /><br />As to 3, you deserve it. My <i>ad hominem</i> attacks have no bearing on my argument. They accurately describe how you’ve presented yourself here. You are beneath contempt and an arrogant doofus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26586772036519770932012-05-27T14:55:56.405-07:002012-05-27T14:55:56.405-07:00@Anonymous
> Like a broken record, Paisley the...@Anonymous<br /><br />> <i>Like a broken record, Paisley the Prevaricator, claims there have been no objections to his reliance on QM. He has been shown both why those claims are irrelevant and has been given substantive arguments from physicists and philosophers why his conclusions are unsound. He is mentally incapable of understanding what an invalid metaphysical claim is with respect to empirical data, and he has time and again shown an inability to understand the simplest arguments. He is so enamored with himself, he misreads very easily understood statements which causes (or is this an uncaused cause?) him to zig while the author is really sagging.</i> <<br /><br />Several points:<br /><br />1) The only claim I have made in regards to QM is that the standard interpretation holds that nature is fundamentally indeterminate, that events really do occur uncaused. That's a fact. And Robert Oerter (the only physicist who has participated in this debate) supports my claim. In fact, his argument against the "principle of causaility" is predicated on quantum indeterminism!<br /><br />2) My argument in regards to Aquinas' "First Cause" argument does not rely on quantum indeterminism. My argument is that Aquinas' "First Cause" argument implies physical indeterminism. No one here has furnished me with any kind of response that would undermine my argument.<br /><br />3) Your ad hominem attacks do not qualify as a counterargument. They simply reveal that you have no counterargument.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29940546650532498542012-05-27T14:16:49.054-07:002012-05-27T14:16:49.054-07:00Hi, Rupert. I think we’re almost there. You writ...Hi, Rupert. I think we’re almost there. You write,<br /><br /><i>… it still seems to me coherent to say that a propensity can manifest all by itself without the help of an outside agent. I don't really see how you've shown that this is not coherent.</i><br /><br />Although I think I have addressed that, let’s look at it from another angle. Using again our friend the rubber ball, we know that it has the potential (propensity) to be goo. Let us say there is some mechanism in the ball that can initiate a process that would eventually reduce the ball to goo. That does not change the principle that what is moved is moved by another. A rubber ball is not goo and goo is not a rubber ball. Hence the cause of the goo is not goo; the cause of the goo is a rubber ball. The ball is one thing and the goo is another. Let’s use you as an example. Rupert’s body has the potential to be ash, but it obviously isn’t ash at the moment. You can will your remains to be cremated or you can take a shortcut and throw yourself into a fire. In any instance of the reduction of a human body to ash, we must rationally affirm that the ash was caused, in part, by Rupert. The ash was not caused by ash. Even if your relatives will look at your urn and say, “That is Rupert,” what they are really saying is that the contents of the urn are your remains. So, if we let Rupert in act be represented by R1, and Rupert in ash be represented by R2, it is easy to see that R2 is caused, in part, by R1. R2 cannot cause R2 (or D2 – ha!) and neither can R1 cause R1; both propositions are incoherent. However, it is not incoherent to say R2 is caused by R1. Consequently, the causal principle remains.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80222424159600373952012-05-27T14:02:16.968-07:002012-05-27T14:02:16.968-07:00Last sentence, first paragraph, "...while the...Last sentence, first paragraph, "...while the author is really zagging."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52423880421616823352012-05-27T14:00:04.754-07:002012-05-27T14:00:04.754-07:00Like a broken record, Paisley the Prevaricator, cl...Like a broken record, Paisley the Prevaricator, claims there have been no objections to his reliance on QM. He has been shown both why those claims are irrelevant and has been given substantive arguments from physicists and philosophers why his conclusions are unsound. He is mentally incapable of understanding what an invalid metaphysical claim is with respect to empirical data, and he has time and again shown an inability to understand the simplest arguments. He is so enamored with himself, he misreads very easily understood statements which causes (or is this an uncaused cause?) him to zig while the author is really sagging.<br /><br />Everybody knows there have been no substantive objections to his fallacious QM argument? Well, well. It’s nice to know that everybody here has emailed Paisley and let him know they see things the way he does. Although most if not all of the contributors here have voiced their disagreement with him, he is such a mind reader he knows that their hearts are really with him. Will Paisley be like the Most High? Will he sit in the sides of the north? Stay tuned.<br /><br />Paisley, you are either an incompetent buffoon or an abject liar. Your only out is to plead ignorance because English isn’t your mother tongue. If you had the slightest measure of principle, you would investigate the counter claims with an open mind and ENGAGE those arguments. Instead you search (grope) the Internet for a quotation that merely restates your claim without recognizing the invalid inference in the process. You avoid arguments you cannot answer because you’re an ideologue. Although Rupert and I have voiced our disagreement with one another, he has the integrity to address me point-by-point. He has honor and principle. You have neither.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33605894451671061432012-05-27T12:14:30.780-07:002012-05-27T12:14:30.780-07:00@ Anonymous
> And I will accept that as your w...@ Anonymous<br /><br />> And I will accept that as your way of conceding the point. The posts demonstrate your deliberate avoidance of the objections along that line. Your appeal to QM is irrelevant and false in principle. As I stated elsewhere, unless you specifically engage those arguments, you have said nothing <<br /><br />What objections? You haven't articulated anything that remotely addresses my argument. You're just blowing hot air. Everyone here knows that.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45006488239809425982012-05-27T09:06:25.131-07:002012-05-27T09:06:25.131-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56638683001366266482012-05-27T08:23:16.271-07:002012-05-27T08:23:16.271-07:00And I will accept that as your way of conceding th...And I will accept that as your way of conceding the point. The posts demonstrate your deliberate avoidance of the objections along that line. Your appeal to QM is irrelevant and false in principle. As I stated elsewhere, unless you specifically engage those arguments, <b>you have said nothing</b>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61475062834970984902012-05-27T07:45:16.393-07:002012-05-27T07:45:16.393-07:00@ Anonymous
> Not only is Paisley's readin...@ Anonymous<br /><br />> <i>Not only is Paisley's reading comprehension challenged, but it appears his memory is equally challenged.</i> <<br /><br />I will accept this as your way of conceding the point. I didn't make any fallacious appeal to QM. We both know that.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73827530977024478642012-05-27T07:15:31.595-07:002012-05-27T07:15:31.595-07:00All right, I retract my claim that (1) can be reas...All right, I retract my claim that (1) can be reasonably doubted, but it still seems to me coherent to say that a propensity can manifest all by itself without the help of an outside agent. I don't really see how you've shown that this is not coherent.Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06727523613548443634noreply@blogger.com