Aquinas and Modern Physics

[lelinator]

But the 3D world exists in reality; the spacetime world does not.

But note: this does not mean that spacetime is real. It is a concept and, therefore, it is only in our minds .

How can you possibly contend that one is any more real than the other? They’re both mental conceptualizations of a supposedly external reality, whether you refer to it as "the 3D world" or “spacetime”, they’re exactly the same thing.

 

[Dovekin]

What I said was “Whatever is moved is moved by another.” That means, whatever is moved, is never moved by itself, but by something other than itself.

I know what you said. It relies on grammar, putting whatever into a passive mood so you can claim something else must be the activator. I was just warning that if you use this formula, you should not mistake it for “whatever moves is moved by something.” I am glad we agree that these are different.

As to the other issues, I am not convinced. Is music real? How can it be in your 3D world? Real time is always a mental construct; it is no less real for that.

 

[AlNg]

Electricity is the movement or flow of electrons.

So electrons are real after all.

 

[lelinator]

Thank you, so much, for these posts. It is almost impossible to explain these things in a way that is understandable by the neophyte (like myself) and you’re doing a great job.

I must humbly disagree, after numerous posts attempting to outline rom’s position I saw absolutely nothing that would constitute a cogent argument.

But maybe I’m just too dumb. Perhaps rom could dumb it down for me.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Yeah I really don’t get what he’s saying at all. It just comes across as mass science denialism to propose alternatives without any supporting evidence.

 

[rom]

So electrons are real after all.

Well of course they are real. Look at my Post #12 above. Better still, I will just quote myself:

In the same manner, an electron is not necessarily a particle just because you modeled it as a particle. This does not mean that the electron is not real. It is your model of the electron that is not real.

I never said that the electron itself is not real. It is what the physicists have been studying for centuries.

 

[lelinator]

I never said that the electron itself is not real. It is what the physicists have been studying for centuries.

So you’re perfectly willing to accept the fact that the electron is real. In the same manner you should also be able to accept that spacetime is real. It’s just another way of referring to the 3D world. They’re exactly the same thing.

 

[rom]

TEMPORAL CAUSAL SERIES AND A HIERARCHICAL CAUSAL SERIES
Response to Post #7 by Veritas6:

Let me clarify the difference between a merely temporal causal series and a hierarchical causal series for you.

Temporal Causal Series: Imagine a cause, A, that pushes a small box on a plane surface. The box then moves, but before it comes to rest another cause, B, pushes it again in the same direction. So the box kept moving, but before it comes to rest again, another cause, C, pushes it again in the same direction, and so on. This can go on indefinitely in both directions. In other words, this series does not need a first mover (in the series), nor a last mover (in the series), and the box can go on moving for eternity.

This series is called temporal because B acts after A, C acts after B, and D acts after C. But the important characteristic of this series is that each mover does not depend on the prior mover in order to act. It is a series of independent movers.

Hierarchical Causal Series: Imagine a moving ball A that strikes and causes another ball B to move. Then the moving ball B strikes and causes another ball C to move, and so on.

This series is called a hierarchical causal series, because the motion of any ball depends on the motion of the prior ball. This is a series of dependent movers. The “falling domino” example would fall under this type of series, because a domino would not fall unless pushed by a prior domino.

Looking forward, can this series be infinite? Sure, as long as there is always another ball to strike, and provided no energy is being lost when one ball strikes another. Looking back, can this series of dependent movers be infinite? The answer is NO, unless there is an Unmoved Mover outside the series that would maintain the activity of this infinite series of dependent movers. I will elaborate on this answer when I finish responding to the other people who also needed my clarifications.

 

[lelinator]

Hierarchical Causal Series: Imagine a moving ball A that strikes and causes another ball B to move. Then the moving ball B strikes and causes another ball C to move, and so on.

This series is called a hierarchical causal series, because the motion of any ball depends on the motion of the prior ball. This is a series of dependent movers. The “falling domino” example would fall under this type of series, because a domino would not fall unless pushed by a prior domino.

I think that you need someone to explain a hierarchical causal series to you, because the dominoes are definitely NOT a hierarchical causal series. If you like, perhaps you could revive the aforementioned thread, and if you’re lucky @Wesrock will explain it to you.

As it is, I think that it’s somewhat off topic. But do as you wish.

 

[rom]

How can you possibly contend that one is any more real than the other? They’re both mental conceptualizations of a supposedly external reality, whether you refer to it as "the 3D world " or “ spacetime ”, they’re exactly the same thing.

They are not the same thing. A 3D world can be conceptualized, but it also exists in reality. A 3D world has length, width and depth, which is our world of common experience. On the other hand, the spacetime world exists only in our mind because it has one extra dimension, which is time. And that makes it impossible to exist in reality. For, although we live in time, we only live in the present instant. The past no longer is, and the future is not yet. Only the present, the NOW, exists. That means, you cannot have a time-axis or a timeline in the real world. Of course, you can think or imagine a timeline in your mind, because you can have a memory of the past and an anticipation of the future, but that will only be in your mind. The past and the future don’t exist in reality anymore. So a time dimension does not exist in the real world. It exists only in our mind.

I say that a spacetime continuum is only a mental construct. It is not real like the 3D world we live in.

 

[lelinator]

A 3D world can be conceptualized, but it also exists in reality.

Look around you, that’s spacetime. Go ahead…kick it. Drop a brick of it on your foot. You’ll see that it’s just as real as your “3D world” is. As I say, they’re exactly the same thing, they’ve got exactly the same number of dimensions. Why do I say that? Because the last time that I checked, we were in fact moving through time.

Or am I wrong about that?

 

[rom]

Yeah I really don’t get what he’s saying at all. It just comes across as mass science denialism to propose alternatives without any supporting evidence.

I never denied any conclusion of modern science. I believe in quantum mechanics, general relativity, mathematical physics, etc. I love science just as much as I love philosophy and theology. When I called your attention to the models of modern physics as being models only, I am not denying the reality itself that is being modeled by the model. The models that we use are subject to change, so I spent my time explaining to you and the other members of the forum not to mistake the models for the reality.

 

[lelinator]

The models that we use are subject to change, so I spent my time explaining to you and the other members of the forum not to mistake the models for the reality.

But your term “3D world” is just as much a symbolic representation as the term “spacetime” is. One carries with it a deeper mathematical concept, while the other carries a more visual and experiential concept. But they are in fact describing the same thing. And both of them are prone to being wrong. Remember, it wasn’t all that long ago that the most educated among us thought that the sun went around the earth.

So it doesn’t matter which terminology you use, you’re symbolically describing reality. And neither of these symbolic representations are reality itself. Both of them are representations created in your own mind. Neither of them are the real thing.

 

[rom]

Look around you, that’s spacetime.

I looked around in my room. I saw the length, the width and the height. I didn’t find the time dimension.

Go ahead…kick it. Drop a brick of it on your foot. You’ll see that it’s just as real as your “ 3D world ” is

ehr … I need first to drink more beer to do that.

 

[lelinator]

I looked around in my room. I saw the length, the width and the height. I didn’t find the time dimension.

Ahhh…and since you can’t see it, it’s not there. Yet you’re aware that you’re traveling through it…right?

 

[rom]

Ahhh…and since you can’t see it, it’s not there. Yet you are aware that you’re traveling through it…right?

Yes, because I have a mind where it exists.

 

[lelinator]

Yes, because I have a mind where it exists.

Hmmm…I wonder if it’s possible for something to have a perspective outside of time. I do recall hearing about something that has just such a perspective…but that’s nonsense…right? Because the dimension of time doesn’t exist…right?

 

[rom]

NEED FOR PRIME MOVER OR FIRST CAUSE IN A HIERARCHICALLY CAUSAL SERIES (AKA ESSENTIALLY ORDERED SERIES)

Suppose you want to buy a car, but you don’t have the money. So, you go to your friend A to borrow the money, but A also doesn’t have the money. So A runs to his friend B to borrow money, but B also doesn’t have the money. So B runs to his friend C to borrow money, but C also doesn’t have the money, and so on. Can this series go to infinity? Well, if that is the case, then you will have an infinity of bankrupt lenders who need to borrow money to lend money. The end result, is that you will not be able to buy the car! For, an infinity of “have nots” will not produce money.

Now, you might think that you still can buy the car because there is no end to the series. Since in an infinite series there is always a lender you can run to, so you think you will still be able to buy the car. But that is not true. Because money is not going to be available. If every lender has to borrow money to lend money, then there simply will be no money. What we are looking for is not the first lender (since there is none in an infinite series). What we are looking for is the origin of the money. Where is the money going to come from? So, either there is a first lender in the series who has money and does not need to borrow money (in which case the series is a finite series), or there is a Lender outside the series that provides the money to any one or more of the members of the infinite series, that means, a super Lender who has the money and who does not need to borrow money, that can sustain and keep this borrowing-and-lending money business going on indefinitely.

Motion, actuality, existence, etc. are analogous to the money in the example given above. We are talking here of a series of movers borrowing motion to transfer motion, or a series of causes borrowing existence to cause a being. I believe that the actual series of movers or causes is finite, and that the universe has a beginning. In which case there is in this series an Unmoved First Mover or an Uncaused First Cause, which we call God. However, it is also possible that the world is everlasting (without beginning and without end), and it is possible that the world is forever in motion, as St. Thomas admitted. But even in this hypothetical case the world would not have a beginning or end, but would still be eternally dependent on a transcendent God for its being. Therefore, God exists.

 

[rom]

Thank you, so much, for these posts. It is almost impossible to explain these things in a way that is understandable by the neophyte (like myself) and you’re doing a great job.

Thank you. I’m glad you appreciate my efforts.

 

[lelinator]

Suppose you want to buy a car, but you don’t have the money. So, you go to your friend A to borrow the money, but A also doesn’t have the money. So A runs to his friend B to borrow money, but B also doesn’t have the money. So B runs to his friend C to borrow money, but C also doesn’t have the money, and so on. Can this series go to infinity? Well, if that is the case, then you will have an infinity of bankrupt lenders who need to borrow money to lend money. The end result, is that you will not be able to buy the car! For, an infinity of “have nots” will not produce money.

I can appreciate the effort, but it really would be better if @Wesrock explained a hierarchical series to you. Because if I try to do it you’re just going to disagree with everything that I say. So I’m not even going to try…sorry.