- Status
M
mblet
Guest
Modern physics cannot invalidate Aristotle metaphysics like this, quite the contrary. classical physics was closer to invalidate it than quantum mechanics. An aristotelian interpretation of quantum mechanics was proposed by Heisenberg historically and is discussed by some specialists - see Nigel Cundy (his blog is called the quantum thomist and he is a specialist of theoretical physics, you can also read Stephen Barr, Modern physics and ancient faith, himself a theoretical physicist) . For a discussion of aristotelian metaphysics and modern physics, read Feser, for instance : excellent place to start, in my opinion (The last superstition, 5 proofs of the existence of god, Scholastic metaphysics, Aristotle’s revenge : read them in that order…).
Anyway, the short answer is that no, the first way has not been taken down by modern physics.
Marc
Anyway, the short answer is that no, the first way has not been taken down by modern physics.
Marc
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
I don’t think it is even possible for science to either discover or in principle conceive of a theory about the universe that would invalidate metaphysics.
I think the problem with modern criticisms of Thomism and Aristotle today is that their metaphysics is treated like an alternative scientific theory of the universe; and because God is a consequent it is perceived as a controversial subject. In other-words it is presumed to be wrong from the outset or not something to be taken seriously.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I thought the problem was that Aristotle was wrong on so many questions?
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
And there in lies my point, the conflating of different types of questions and their meaning. Just because somebody is poor at maths doesn’t mean they are not a good farmer.
L
lelinator
Guest
But to quote AINg’s linked article:
So why should we put any credence in a discipline that has been shown to be consistently unable to discern the truth?
Obviously its methodology is flawed.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Obviously science is not the same thing as metaphysics which anybody with the ability to discern the difference would agree. If you got a problem with metaphysics you have to refute it on it’s own ground, instead of creating fallacies, which you wouldn’t have to do if you had a leg to stand on.
Hitler is responsible for the death of millions; but is he wrong if he says that 2 + 2 = 4? Do things suddenly pop out of nothing by themselves because he got his ethics wrong.
Ridiculous.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Does metaphysics deal with causes? Yes or no.
Was Aristotle wrong on what causes an object to stay in motion and what causes an object to stay at rest?
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Not in the same way that physics deals with causes and effects. Lack of comprehension is not a win.
A
AlNg
Guest
Is that yes or no? Does metaphysics deal with causes?
I
IWantGod
Guest
If you really want to understand metaphysics i suggest you work it out for yourself; i haven’t got the patience right now.,
A
AlNg
Guest
Metaphysics is not taken seriously because unlike in science and math you don’t give a straight answer to a simple question concerning causality.
Instead you get a discussion about Adolf Hitler.
Why not give a straight answer instead of bringing up Adolf Hitler?
This is why people don’t take metaphysics seriously.
I haven’t seen anyone bring up Adolf Hitler when discussing quantum physics, Maxwell’s equations or when explaining Galois theory or when calculating center of mass problems, etc.
R
rom
Guest
OK I am back. Do you still want to continue? I guess you didn’t like it when I said that a paper being burned into ashes was not a heretic. Hahaha. I don’t think you can justly blame me for that because I wasn’t talking about burning a heretic. I was talking about burning a piece of paper to show that there is no ambiguity in our use of the words “potency” and “act.” It is the ambiguity in your thinking that made you flip from metaphysics to moral philosophy.
Anyway, just for your information the principles of moral philosophy are also not ambiguous either. But the application of the principles need to consider many factors, and your value judgment can be different depending on the factors you consider. To give you an analogy, consider a function of three variables, such as f = x*y^2 –z. If x=1, y= 2, and z=3, then f=1. But if x=2, y=3 and z=4, then f =14. You see? You get different values of f depending on the values you assign to the independent variables. The function itself does not change, but the value of the function could change depending on the values of the independent variables. A moral principle is similar. The principle itself does not change, but the value judgment you make out of human actions can depend on several factors, such as the the intention of the agent, the circumstances of the agent, etc.
For instance, consider a child who is misbehaving. As a parent, you know that the child needs to be corrected, right? That is true, and that principle does not change. But what disciplinary action would be suitable to impose? Well, that depends on the age of the child, what he did wrong, what his motives were, etc. What method of correction you choose will also depend on what you perceive as best for the child. One method might be good in one respect, but another method might be good in other respects. Value judgments are not as clear-cut as finding out what the atomic weight of an element is. It is not that moral philosophers are full of ambiguities. The truth is that many moral questions are far more difficult to answer than physical or metaphysical questions. Also, don’t forget that you are here dealing with issues that can be affected by the freedom of choice exercised by the actors involved.
Now, let’s go back to your heretic. The heretics during the middle ages were not like the heretics today. The Albigensian heretics, for example, were not merely people who disagree with your Christian beliefs. Most of them were actually fanatics, and some were more like terrorists They repudiated material riches and private property. They didn’t value life either because they believed that death was good in itself, since it liberated the soul from the body. HOWEVER, the moral principles for dealing with them remains the same. The punishment of trouble-makers was good then, and it is still good now. The principle itself did not change. But the nature of the punishment can change depending on circumstances. Also, we have better ways of punishing trouble-makers today, than they had during the middle ages.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
Yes, especially the material, formal, efficient, and final causes of things.IWantGod:
Is that yes or no? Does metaphysics deal with causes?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Then you’re doing it wrong.
You haven’t been around the internet long enough, then. Give it time.
R
rom
Guest
Even in quantum field theory particles don’t just pop into existence from absolutely nothing. Because in quantum field theory empty space is not really empty, but is filled with field fluctuations. So, if you really want to explain the existence of the world without having recourse to a God-Creator, you need to explain where those field fluctuations came from, and where the laws of quantum mechanics came from.
The mother and father are responsible for the child’s coming into the world, but not for the child’s existence or being. Parents are not responsible for their own being or existence either; otherwise, they will never die or cease to exist. If they can’t explain their own being, how can they be a cause of another being?
Yes, but he was also right on many other questions. For example, I find his logic and dialectic quite useful in controversy; his theory of four causes (material, formal, efficient and final) is more complete than many physicist’s understanding of causes; his understanding of human nature as partly material and partly immaterial can better explain why we have universal ideas, such as truth, beauty, infinity, etc. His metaphysics contain many principles useful in theology, such as his classic distinction between substance and accidents, essence and existence, etc. And there are many concepts in his ethical and political treatises that are perennially valid. He may have made a mistake on a few points, but his treatises were not all trash.
I know that Aristotle has been insulted and maligned because of his outmoded physics. But it is amazing what he accomplished, considering that he didn’t have microscopes, telescopes, computers, etc. Using common observation and reasoning alone he was able to build an edifice of human knowledge that guided the world for almost 2000 years. I don’t think that modern physicists are better at interpreting physical data than Aristotle. The truth is, they just have better data to interpret.
Last edited:
R
rom
Guest
No, I was talking about the Albigensian heretics. Neither St. Joan of Arc nor William Tyndale were Albigensians, and both of them were unjustly burned at the stake.
Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for political reasons. The accusation that she was a “heretic” was only a political excuse to get rid of her. The English secular authorities asked the local bishop to try her as a witch.
William Tyndale was not really burned alive. He was strangled first, then his corpse burned at the stake. Do you think he was executed for “heresy”? I’m not sure. The magistrate of Emperor Charles V, who had been his accuser all along, received a large sum of money for executing him, in addition to having confiscated all of Tyndale’s properties. So, go figure.
Moral values can actually be detected by the consciences of men, but their correct understanding and application presuppose an upright conscience. A conscience distorted by selfishness and greed could make a faulty judgment about right and wrong.
A
AlNg
Guest
Supposedly, if you believe in the BB, there was in existence a void, with zero energy and the energy required for matter and antimatter exactly balanced each other with the positive and the negative adding to zero. Further gravity together with a fifth force supplied the additional push for the BB to occur. However, this occurred about 13.8 billion years ago.
Can you tell us why God decided to create the universe 13.8 billion years ago instead of say, 15.7 billion years ago?
R
rom
Guest
No, I can’t tell you that, for the simple reason that I can’t read God’s mind. But what is your point?
- Status