A possible Philosophical explanation for radiation and inertia

[Linusthe2nd]

In his most recent blog Professor Edward Feser discusses a possible explanation for the phenomena of radiation, which has been used by some cosmologists and some scientists to deny the principle of causality of Philosophy, because they mistakenly think all causality is deterministic, that there must be an identifiable and accompanying, time related cause for every effect. There is indeed an efficient cause but that cause is its generating cause, even its creating cause. In that case the efficient cause does not accompany the motion/change and may be separated from its effect ( radiation, continuous motion, random motion, etc.) by days, months, years, eaons.

Professor Feser concludes by expaning that the indeterminate rate of radiation, as well as other phenomena such as Newton’s Law of Inertia may well be attributed to the spontaneous action of the very nature/substantial form of any substance and is not due to any external, and accompanying deterministic or efficient cause. Its efficient cause is its generating cause and this is not deterministic, not an accompanying, time related cause. This is a theme which is perfectly Aristotelian/Thomistic as is evident when Aristotle and Thomas discuss the natures of any substances. The very nature of any substance, which is determined by its substantial form, gives rise to any number of spontaneous characteristics and actions. For example, the human heart pumps blood throughout the body because this a natural and spontaneous action of human nature, but specifically of the human soul. But the efficient cause is the generating cause, the parents, and, ultimately the creating cause, God. * In the case of human nature we have actually two generating causes, the parents who supply the material stuff or the offspring, including the heart, and God who is the immediate, but remote in time, generating cause of the soul.

These concepts are themes brought foreward by Fr. James A. Weisheiple O.P. ( R.I.P. ) in his book, Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radioactive-decay.html#more
An interesting read, but long and deep.

I have discussed these in my thread " The First Way Explained " on this Forum.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No opinions? I’m surprised, this should be of interest to philosophers and scientists.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[John_Martin]

I did not see a question.

 

[Aloysium]

No opinions? I’m surprised, this should be of interest to philosophers and scientists.

Pax
Linus2nd

It would be clearly of interest to philosophers and scientists. So, why the surprise?
For replies, one must post about stuff that requires an opinion and little thought.
This sounds very cynical and insulting, but I am speaking about myself.

As you say:

An interesting read, but long and deep.

It hurts my brain!

 

[Aloysium]

For example:

. . . formal, material, efficient, and final causes. Where efficient causes are concerned, they distinguish between principal and instrumental causes, between series of causes which are essentially ordered and those which are accidentally ordered, and between those which operate simultaneously versus those which are ordered in time. They distinguish between total causes and partial causes, and between proximate and remote causes. They regard causality as primarily a feature of substances and only secondarily as a relation between events. They distinguish between causal powers and the operation of those powers, between active causal power and passive potencies. ** And so forth.**

Everything he says is difficult enough, if at all possible, to follow, but “and so forth”?

I can see why people want to do away with Aristotle, relegating him to the dust bin of history.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I did not see a question.

You can agree or disagree with the suggested possibility or you can disagree with any statement made. Title’s don’t necessarily have to be in question form. But perhaps that is a good idea because that is what they do on C.A. radio. The caller must ask a question. And I think that is a great idea, that should get rid of many of the ideologues that post here. But then it wouldn’t be as much fun .

Pax
LInus2nd

 

[Latias]

It would be clearly of interest to philosophers and scientists. So, why the surprise?
For replies, one must post about stuff that requires an opinion and little thought.
This sounds very cynical and insulting, but I am speaking about myself.

As you say:

It hurts my brain!

Most people like politics and being a Monday morning quarterback,because having an opinion requires little thought or immersion in a given topic. Even in competitive Pokemon, most people need to back up their opinions to say something substantial about a strategy or moveset, and this involves having, at least, a basic understanding of game mechanics and of the current metagame.

…

From my understanding of Aristotelian/scholastic causation (which is not much) and modern philosophy, I think efficient and final causation are both controversial given that they are fundamental concepts in cosmological and biological metaphysics. Efficient causation (of the universe) is a necessary premise for the cosmological argument (the Kalam and Thomian) to demonstrate that the universe (a contingent entity) has a cause outside of itself. Of course, contemporary understanding of quantum mechanics has undermined crude determinism, and criticism of the cosmological argument will require one to utilize a (basic) modern understanding of quantum mechanics and its implication on causation. To understand the impact of Aristotelian metaphysics and modern science on the cosmological argument, the question is not whether efficient causation or the other concepts have some philosophical utility in enabling one to classify and organize the types of causation that seem to be involved in a phenomenon, but whether efficient causation is a useful concept in understanding all macro and microscopic events. (I used the term “events” because it is refers to something more external, rather than phenomenon with is more subjective and involves (name removed by moderator)ut from the senses)

I should add that I will not attempt to criticize scholastic metaphysics, precisely because, I do not know what, exactly, I am criticizing. Scholasticism plastic enough that it can adapt to modern philosophical trends and advances in scientific understanding and evade confutation (unlike logical positivism with its verification principle), or (inclusive disjunction) critics of scholasticism are only assailing a strawman of it because they have misunderstood its tenets.

As a fangirl of Hume, I have incorporated his philosophical contributions to my understanding of causation. Hume’s major insight was to apply skeptical principles and an empiricist epistemology to understand how one makes an inference of causation as opposed to making or justifying any claim of a causal relationship. Hume supplanted the ontic and metaphysical issues of causation with psychology and epistemology, since under the constraints of an empiricist framework, one cannot affirm without any qualms of doubt a putative casual relation, even for the most basic and mundane phenomena. An empiricist would be much more comfortable talking about causation as a concept or a relationship between ideas, not something that is actually involved in a phenomenon that is external to one’s mind and can be apprehended by human reason (as opposed it being interpolated by the human mind).​

I have more to write (an additional 1,000 words with more to write), but I will avail myself if the opportunity to go Confession with a Priest that I am comfortable with as I hadn’t gone in more than a month. If anyone has something substantive to say, please do so.

 

[StrawberryJam]

critics of scholasticism are only assailing a strawman of it because they have misunderstood its tenets.

Please let me know what the critics are saying and how they have misunderstood the tenets of scholasticism.

It seems that you feel the critics have it all wrong. You have really done a very good job of dumping your opinions all over this forum. Let us evaluate facts, not opinions.

 

[Latias]

critics of scholasticism are only assailing a strawman of it because they have misunderstood its tenets.

Please let me know what the critics are saying and how they have misunderstood the tenets of scholasticism.

It seems that you feel the critics have it all wrong. You have really done a very good job of dumping your opinions all over this forum. Let us evaluate facts, not opinions.

Well, for one, Feser, a scholastic, made an effort to rebut claims that scholasticism’s framework of causation is threatened by radioactive decay. It was part of the OP.

I never said that I thought critics have it wrong. Feser claims that in the link.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

critics of scholasticism are only assailing a strawman of it because they have misunderstood its tenets.

Please let me know what the critics are saying and how they have misunderstood the tenets of scholasticism.

It seems that you feel the critics have it all wrong. You have really done a very good job of dumping your opinions all over this forum. Let us evaluate facts, not opinions.

Did you read the link? It would be useful for you to read posts 163,176,177,178,179,180,and 181 from the thread " The First Way Explained " on this forum.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=826619&highlight=explaining+the+First+Way&page=13

This is a philosophy forum, a place to discuss ideas reasonably presented. They are not mere opinions, they are reasoned explanations of the " facts " and events we observe in the real world. In other words we are engaged in a philosophical discussion. And those must be evaluated according to the rules of reasonable discussion. This is not a hard science forum. We are not materialists or naturalists or determinists here, at least most of us aren’t, I am not. I admit I am an Aristotelian/Thomist.

Linus2nd