Aquinas and Modern Physics

[rom]

Simple rna arose from happenstance processes and their interactions with lipids and other organic structures gave rise to cells. No intelligence, just chance.

How did you know the chemical synthesis of RNA only happened by chance?

No intelligence? Like a dumb monkey typing haphazardly on a word processor and producing a book on quantum mechanics?

“Just chance.” – Now, remember, you just made this assertion.

If you’re looking for evidence without providing your own then there’s no way to finish this discussion. Neither side has proof.

I did not assert that atoms came into being. I don’t have to provide evidence for something that I did not assert.

You are the one that made the bold assertion that atoms always existed. Where is your evidence?

As far as I know, from the Big Bang model, atoms did not form until about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. So, there was a time when there were no atoms. See Timeline of the Big Bang - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

How did you know the chemical synthesis of RNA only happened by chance?

It had to, if we’re ruling out any higher power.

I did not assert that atoms came into being. I don’t have to provide evidence for something that I did not assert.

You are the one that made the bold assertion that atoms always existed. Where is your evidence?

I’m not providing evidence. You asserted that the universe was made. Prove it.

 

[AlNg]

our perception of time is exactly the same as our perception of space.

My perception of time is that it always moves in one direction - forward. My perception of space is quite different as I can see a rope extended both forward and backward.

 

[rom]

It had to, if we’re ruling out any higher power.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) rom:

Why will you rule out a higher power, when it is the existence of that higher power that we are trying to prove?

You asserted that the universe was made. Prove it.

I did not assert that the world was made. My assertion was that there is a God on which the existence of the world depends. The proof is in Post #39 above.

 

[lelinator]

@lelinator mentioned me a few times in regards to hierarchical series. I don’t know how far the topic has moved on from that, but I can briefly speak to it.

Thanks for the help. This thread wasn’t really intended to be about hierarchical series, but somehow the topic cropped up. And who better to give us a quick primer on the subject than you. Perhaps now we have a basis upon which to start a discussion if anyone so desires.

**Be warned though, I do have a few objections to Wesrock’s concept of a hierarchical series. Not the least of which is whether they actually exist.

 

[rom]

A series of falling dominoes is not an example of an hierarchical series, because once one domino is fallen its role is done. It does not need to contribute any continuing action to the series for the other members of the series to be actualized. Like Aquinas’ example with father begetting son, who becomes a father and begets a son, the series is accidentally or linearly ordered.

Hi, Wesrock. I’m glad you joined. I have a few comments to make on your statements.

1. The case of the falling domino. When a domino, A, falls, it transmits its power to the next domino, B. Then this domino, B, transmits the same power to the next domino, C, and so on. You see, the power of domino, A, does not really disappear. It only gets transmitted from one domino to the next. Although A is no longer moving physically, its causality continues to produce its effect on the other dominos that fall. The reason I say this is because domino B will not push C had it not been pushed by A. And C will not push D unless it had been pushed by B, which would not act if it had not been pushed by A. It IS an essentially ordered series. This is NOT the same as the accidentally ordered series of St. Thomas. In St. Thomas example, a man, A, begets a son, B. Then the son, B begets his son, C, and C begets D and so on. St. Thomas explains that C depends on B, not insofar as B is the son of A, but insofar as B himself is a man. Therefore, the dependence of C on A is purely accidental in that respect. But in the domino example, C depends on B insofar as B depends on A for that power; so the dependence of C on A is essential, not accidental. The series is hierarchical although apparently A is no longer moving after pushing B. The truth is, the causality (the power) of A continues to cause all the other dominos to fall, although the power does not stay in each domino but continues to be passed on from one domino to the next. I do not think that it is essential to the meaning of an “essentially ordered” series for the power to stay in each domino. It is sufficient that the power being used by each domino essentially depends on the power of the prior domino. The example I gave in my post, which was a ball striking another ball, is also hierarchical and is basically the same as the falling domino example.
2. The case of the book on a shelf. This is also a hierarchical series. No dispute there. The earth holds the foundation, the foundation holds the walls, the walls hold the shelf, and the shelf holds the book. In this example, the causality and action of each cause stays with that cause, while it causes its effect on the next. But this series of causes is still an essentially ordered series because the action of any cause essentially depends on the action of the prior cause.

To be continued on my next post …

 

[rom]

1. The sliding box example. This is a temporal causal series because each cause pushing the box is acting independently of the cause before it. In other words, any cause does not essentially depend on the prior cause for its action, except temporally (which is a purely accidental dependence). Now, there is a reason why I used this example for the temporal causal series instead of the father and son example of St. Thomas, which I will discuss next.
2. The father and son example. I already discussed this briefly in item 1 above. But why did I not use this example to illustrate the temporal series? Because it is not clear that this series can be carried to infinity. It is true that C does not depend on B insofar as B is the son of A, but insofar as B is a man. The problem is, B cannot exist as a man and be a cause of C unless B exists as a son of A (or some other man). Therefore, the dependence of C on B’s father is, in respect of existence, also essential, although in respect of generation it is accidental. So, we have here a case where a cause, C, accidentally depends on A in one respect, but essentially depends on A in another respect. It is not a purely accidental dependence, and cannot fully illustrate that the temporal series could be carried to infinity. For this reason, I invented my sliding box example to illustrate the concept of temporal series without any mixture of existential dependency.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Why will you rule out a higher power, when it is the existence of that higher power that we are trying to prove?

Because all of your proofs can occur in a world without a higher power. That’s my point.

 

[lelinator]

Hi, Wesrock. I’m glad you joined. I have a few comments to make on your statements.

One of the problems with trying to discuss a hierarchical series vs a temporal series is agreeing on just what constitutes a hierarchical series. I had been hoping that Wesrock would be able to clear up any confusion, but perhaps I was mistaken.

Now I’m no expert, but I’ll try to explain it as best as I can using a couple of analogies.

Let’s say that we have a young Jesus, and He’s set up both an infinite series of dominoes, and a toy train set that’s infinitely long. In the case of the dominoes, all that Jesus needs to do is knock over the first domino and the rest of the dominoes will begin to fall one after another. At this point Jesus can simply sit back and watch the dominoes fall. No further (name removed by moderator)ut is required. This is an example of a temporal series, because although the effects of that initial cause continue to exist, the cause itself doesn’t have to. Jesus can just walk away and let the dominoes keep falling forever.

But in the case of the infinite train set, it’s different, because Jesus sets the train in motion by pulling on the engine, which causes all of the other cars in the train to move as well. But if at any point Jesus stops pulling on the engine, the whole train stops. He can’t just sit back and watch, like he can with the dominoes. He has to keep pulling. This is an example of a hierarchical series, because the cause…in this case Jesus, must continually act to sustain the effect…the movement of the train.

So the difference between a temporal series and a hierarchical series is that in a temporal series the effect will continue even though the initial cause no longer exists. But in a hierarchical series as soon as the cause disappears, its effects disappear as well. Every point in the series is dependent upon the continued action of that initial cause.

Now because these are physical analogies they have certain limitations that people can use to question their validity. For example, in the case of the dominoes, forces such as gravity and inertia act to keep the dominoes falling. While in the case of the train set, gravity and friction act to slow the train down. If you take those forces away, then the analogies no longer work. The dominoes won’t keep falling, and the train set won’t slow down.

But that’s why they’re analogies. They have limitations. So my question has always been, can anyone give me a real world example of a hierarchical series. Can they for example, trace back the hierarchical series from a loaf of bread…to God? You can trace back the temporal series from the loaf of bread, to the baker, to the farmer, and every step in between, but what does the hierarchical series look like?

Aquinas’ First Way depends upon the real world existence of hierarchical series. But can anybody give me an example of one?

 

[rom]

One of the problems with trying to discuss a hierarchical series vs a temporal series is agreeing on just what constitutes a hierarchical series.

I agree 100%. Actually, I have never used the terms “hierarchical series” and “ temporal series” before. I first saw those terms in a quoted text contained in Post # 7 by Veritas6. So, I accommodated the terms “hierarchical series” and “temporal series” to be equivalent to what used to be called “essentially ordered series” and “accidentally ordered series” respectively.

Let me first give you a little more insight about the essentially ordered, and accidentally ordered series. Let’s get back to the falling domino example. This time, let us assume that the dominos have different colors. For example, domino A is red, domino B is blue, domino C is green, domino D is yellow, etc. (Sorry if this looks like LBTQ dominos – hehehe). Now, look at one domino, say C. We say that the motion of C depends on the blue domino, B. However, it depends on B, not because it is blue, but because B moved. In other words, the motion of C is only accidentally dependent on B being blue; but it is essentially dependent on B being in motion.

This is why we traditionally define an “essentially ordered series” and an “accidentally ordered series” in terms of the dependence of any cause in the series to its previous cause. If every member of the series essentially depends on the previous member of the series in the same respect, then the series is an essentially ordered series. If the causal dependence is accidental, then it is an accidentally ordered series.

I don’t really like to use the word “hierarchical” to represent an essentially ordered series because I can’t see the “hierarchy” here, unless you think that in an essentially ordered series A is a higher cause than B, and B is a higher cause than C, etc. In that case, whoever pushed A and started the dominos falling is the “highest cause.” However, I am going along with the terminology, and it’s ok with me. Just remember, in this terminology one cause is “higher” than another cause if, and only if, there is an essential dependence of the other cause to the higher cause.

Likewise, I don’t quite like the use of “temporal series” to represent an accidentally ordered series because the temporal order is not always an indication of accidental dependence. As a matter of fact, although every cause is ontologically prior to its effect, it is always temporally simultaneous with the effect at the moment of causing. It is important to distinguish ontological and temporal priority in this case. If the whole world was everlasting (with no beginning and no end), it would still be ontologically dependent on God, even if they have always been temporally simultaneous.

To be continued below…

 

[rom]

The example you gave about the boy Jesus pushing the first domino is still en example of an essentially ordered series, although you don’t see Him pushing every single domino that falls. As long as the motion of every domino can be traced ontologically to Him as first mover, then the series is essentially ordered and, therefore, hierarchical. Needless to say, the example of the boy Jesus pulling a train of toy cars, is also an example of an essentially ordered or hierarchical series.

So my question has always been, can anyone give me a real world example of a hierarchical series. Can they for example, trace back the hierarchical series from a loaf of bread…to God?

Yes, you can. But you have to know in what respect one thing depends on another. Since God is the cause of being, or existence, then you have to trace the causes of the series as regards their existence. Where is the money (in this case, existence) coming from? What caused this to exist? And what caused the next cause to exist? And so forth. These are the questions.

Obviously, the loaf of bread, which exists now, did not always exist. So, if it exists now, but not always, then existence does not belong to it of necessity, and it can lose it again. In other words, it exists now, but it can also cease to exist because its existence does not belong to it of necessity. In other words, its existence is a borrowed reality, like money. Now where did its existence come from? Oh, you can find many causes that made this loaf of bread and caused it to exist, and the line of causes can be long. But it is irrelevant. The point (explained in my Post #39 above) is that if every cause in the series is only deriving existence from another, which itself does not have existence of necessity, then nothing will exist. And it does not matter if this series is infinitely long. If every member of the series is contingent (not having existence of necessity), then nothing will exist because the money is not available. Since the loaf of bread exists, then it follows that not everything is contingent. There is an Uncaused First Cause of Being that is providing existence to everything that exists.

This argument does not prove that the series of causes in the universe is finite, and that there is a first member of the series. If the series is finite, then there is a first member, which is the Uncaused, First Cause. However, if the series is infinite (a possibility that St. Thomas also admits), then there still has to be an Uncaused Cause, outside, beyond or transcending this series, which is the source of the existence of all things. Thus, an Uncaused Cause of all things exist in either case. We call this Uncaused Cause God; therefore, God exists.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

A series of falling dominoes is not an example of an hierarchical series, because once one domino is fallen its role is done. It does not need to contribute any continuing action to the series for the other members of the series to be actualized. Like Aquinas’ example with father begetting son, who becomes a father and begets a son, the series is accidentally or linearly ordered.

Hi, Wesrock. I’m glad you joined. I have a few comments to make on your statements.

1. The case of the falling domino. When a domino, A, falls, it transmits its power to the next domino, B. Then this domino, B, transmits the same power to the next domino, C, and so on. You see, the power of domino, A, does not really disappear. It only gets transmitted from one domino to the next. Although A is no longer moving physically, its causality continues to produce its effect on the other dominos that fall. The reason I say this is because domino B will not push C had it not been pushed by A. And C will not push D unless it had been pushed by B, which would not act if it had not been pushed by A. It IS an essentially ordered series.

I would be interested in your source of understanding, because I believe you are in error. Continued dependence on continued action is the very basis for what it means for a series to be hierarchical. The reason why the domino example is linear and not hierarchical is because you can remove the dominoes that have already “spent” their action without affecting the currently active dominoes from falling and the series continuing. An hierarchical series is when the removal of any prior term (in order of dependency) means the current states of later terms can no longer be actualized. The actualization of domino 1,000 in the series is only accidentally dependent on domino 50 as a prior cause.

The father to son example is actually St. Thomas’ own example of a linear (accidentally ordered) series. His example of an hierarchical (essentially ordered) is a rock being moved by a stick being moved by a hand. The rock continues to move only by the continued action of the stick in hand. Remove either the hand or the stick and the later terms stop moving. [St. Thomas’ physics is out of date, but we can update the example to refer to changing inertial reference frames instead of old ideas of physical motion. The natural principle is still there.]

Continued in next post…

 

[Wesrock]

From Summa Theologica I:I Q46 A2

In efficient causes it is impossible to proceed to infinity per se—thus, there cannot be an infinite number of causes that are per se required for a certain effect; for instance, that a stone be moved by a stick, the stick by the hand, and so on to infinity. But it is not impossible to proceed to infinity “accidentally” as regards efficient causes; for instance, if all the causes thus infinitely multiplied should have the order of only one cause, their multiplication being accidental, as an artificer acts by means of many hammers accidentally, because one after the other may be broken. It is accidental, therefore, that one particular hammer acts after the action of another; and likewise it is accidental to this particular man as generator to be generated by another man; for he generates as a man, and not as the son of another man. For all men generating hold one grade in efficient causes—viz. the grade of a particular generator. Hence it is not impossible for a man to be generated by man to infinity; but such a thing would be impossible if the generation of this man depended upon this man, and on an elementary body, and on the sun, and so on to infinity.

All sources I’ve read, from Feser to Clarke to other analyses of the difference between accidentally ordered series and essentially ordered series present the difference as I have.

 

[Wesrock]

To put it another way, in an accidental series the present actor has received it’s power to act from a prior term, but then has that power for keeps. An hierarchical series is one in which the causal power or actualization is not “for keeps”. It is continuously derived. A prior term disappears and what’s in the system disappears from later terms in the system because they are no longer actively inheriting it.

 

[rom]

I would be interested in your source of understanding, because I believe you are in error.

I did not get my understanding from anyone. But I am not in error. I just have a different definition of an essentially subordinated series. To me, the idea that the first cause of an essentially subordinated series must be continuously present and acting, is not required. As long as the influence of the first cause persists, its continuous presence is not required.

I admit my definition is different from the understanding of other Thomists. But is my definition wrong? Not necessarily, unless you can show that it leads to an inconsistency. My definition being different does not mean it is wrong.

Also, please note that the removal of the “continuous action” in the definition of essential subordination does not mean that all that God has to do is create the world, and the world can continue to exist without Him. That is not so. Because only God possesses existence of necessity. So we need God’s continuous creative act to sustain ourselves in existence. God’s creative act cannot be compared to the act of making dominos fall, which can be accomplished by one push, and which does not require the continuous action of the pusher. But just because the nature of existence and the creative act requires continuous action by the Creator does not motivate me to add extraneous notions to the idea of essential subordination when it is not necessary. Consider again the falling domino example. The idea of essential subordination lies, not in the fact that A is always present and acting, but in the fact that C will not move if B did not move, and B will not move if A did not move. That’s the key.

We obviously have a difference in definition. In your definition the last domino falling does not essentially depend on the first domino’s fall because you can remove the first domino after it has fallen and the dominos in the series will still keep falling. In my definition, it does not matter whether or not you remove the first domino after it had fallen. The last domino’s fall essentially depends on the first domino’s fall if it will not occur had the first domino not fallen.

NOTE: I am not saying that your definition (or that of Fesser and Clarke) is wrong either. I just didn’t find it necessary to adopt it. My theology remains perfectly compatible with Catholic theology.

 

[Wesrock]

We can use whatever words we like to define things, but when you use a term with your own definition that doesn’t conform to what everyone else in the field means by it, it’s going to cause confusion. Suffice it to say, much of what you’re describing as essentially ordered is what St. Thomas and many Thomists hold can proceed to infinity without issue, and that any proofs you derive from such series are not the Five Ways as described by St. Thomas. (And I assume the Five Ways are at issue and the background context to the discussion given the topic title and the objections noted in the original post.)

 

[Veritas6]

And I assume the Five Ways are at issue and the background context to the discussion given the topic title and the objections noted in the original post

What do you make of the second objection from the OP?: “no individual changes observed nor the motion of the universe is essentially subordinated chains. They are ‘temporally successive transfers of [kinetic] energy’. Physical change and motion result from intrinsic forces and not from continuous action of per se causes.”

 

[rom]

Gentlemen, please be patient with me. I will also respond but I have to take care of a few more things. Maybe I will be able to come back tonight before bedtime.

 

[rom]

We can use whatever words we like to define things, but when you use a term with your own definition that doesn’t conform to what everyone else in the field means by it, it’s going to cause confusion.

I agree it might lead to confusion. So, we need to define our terms. I did labor to define and clarify what I meant by “essentially subordinated series.” Provided definitions and clarifications are made, I don’t think we should hesitate to use terms in a different way from their common acceptation, so that we can advance our knowledge. Had Einstein hesitated to use familiar words in a different context, we will not know about his Theory of Relativity, for he spoke of “space” and “time” as relative rather than absolute, which was not the common understanding of his peers at the time.

Suffice it to say, much of what you’re describing as essentially ordered is what St. Thomas and many Thomists hold can proceed to infinity without issue,

I agree. An example of this is the Father and Son example, which St. Thomas and most Thomists consider as an accidentally ordered series that can proceed to infinity. But that is only because they considered this series as an accidentally ordered series in respect of generation. They did not realize that it is also an essentially ordered series in respect of being. If a man, A, begets a son, B, who then begets a son C, then I completely agree that C depends on A only accidentally in respect of generation, because B generates C, not as a son of A, but as a man. However, I can also say without hesitation, that C depends on A essentially in respect of being. For, C is a man (and not a lizard), because his father, B, is a man; and B is a man (and not a lizard) because his father, A, is a man. Therefore, although C only depends accidentally on A for being born or generated, C depends essentially on A for being a man. You cannot separate the generation of an individual from its being, because every organism is not generated indeterminately, but is generated as a particular kind of being.

So, if we consider a chicken that comes from an egg, which comes from another chicken that comes from another egg, etc. (a variation of the father and son example), my contention is that there was a first chicken or first egg (but I will let science determine that). I believe this to be the case because I believe that the world was created, and that it was neither infinite nor everlasting. But that things have a beginning in time is an article of faith, not a proposition demonstrated by metaphysics, as St. Thomas said. So, if the chicken and egg example is carried to infinity, it still won’t bother me. Since the dependence of each member of the series to the previous member is essential in respect of being, the entire series cannot exist without an Uncaused Cause of Being. Therefore, if my definition of an essentially ordered series is used in any of the Ways of St. Thomas, it will always work. The arguments of St. Thomas are not jeopardized just because I have a different definition of an essentially ordered series.

 

[rom]

What do you make of the second objection from the OP?: “no individual changes observed nor the motion of the universe is essentially subordinated chains. They are ‘temporally successive transfers of [kinetic] energy’.

I wanted to comment on this earlier because it was part of the OP, but I got sidetracked. Anyway, let me give you my 2 cents.

It is not true that in the universe there are no essentially subordinated chains. But you need to follow in what respect the essential subordination lies if you want to find them.

Consider the hand that holds a stick that strikes a rock and moves it. Some people will consider this an accidentally ordered series because if the hand drops the stick, the rock will still continue to move. I disagree with that. I contend that the rock is essentially dependent on the hand in respect of its motion. Although the hand already dropped the stick, nothing can adequately explain the motion of the rock that was initially at rest if the hand did not strike it with a stick. Yes, the rock does not essentially depend on the hand in respect of its existence (which is why neither the hand nor the stick needs to be present anymore after the motion has been imparted to the rock), but the rock essentially depends on the hand in respect of its motion, for it can’t be in this state of motion if the hand did not strike it with a stick in the first place.

Physical change and motion result from intrinsic forces and not from continuous action of per se causes.”

There are extrinsic causes, but certainly there are intrinsic causes at work, too. Because within bodies there are many parts, and one part is moved by another part. Even in the case of animals, which are moved by the motion of their legs, and which in turn are moved by muscles controlled by the brain, which in turn is stimulated and moved by the sight of food outside the body. The food outside was dropped from a tree, caused by the wind, which was moved by the rotation of the earth, etc. etc. etc. If you take my definition of an essentially subordinated series, and follow the thread in what respect motion essentially follows upon another, then you can find a series of essentially subordinated causes in the world. The “intrinsic causes” cited in the OP are probably the subatomic causes inside the atom. However, that was not the starting point of St. Thomas. St. Thomas started with the evident motion in the world, and called his argument from motion “the first and more manifest way.”