Argument from Change: How does it show God can't change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it just clicked for me!! (My computer died earlier).

Anyway, I think my problem was considering “existence” as a thing on its own, like in order for a cat to be, its “existence” had to be actualized.

But what is really the case is that, when we say a cat’s existence is actualized, we are really talking short-hand for the essence of a cat to be actualized. When it is – by its atomic structures and various other features like gravity and so on – we say that the cat exists.

But we are led to a First Cause whose existence must not be actualized by another. Its existence must be actual. HOWEVER, and this is what I failed to see earlier: What we are really saying is short-hand for saying that the “essence” of the First Cause is not actualized by another; it is actual.

The First Cause’s essence itself is to be actual.

So it doesn’t make sense to say the existence is actual, and consider it separate from its essence.

I think I had been confusing my words.

Does this make sense?

@Wesrock @IWantGod
 
Last edited:
Interesting to note that all of it came together for me almost immediately asking Thomas Aquinas to pray for me. Maybe I should do that first next time…
 
RealisticCatholic said:
Interesting to note that all of it came together for me almost immediately asking Thomas Aquinas to pray for me. Maybe I should do that first next time…
Click to expand...
Loool, That’s exactly what i did when i first started out. Looool

I asked Aquinas to lend me his understanding!!!
 
Last edited:
A quantum field will appear to fluctuate, when it actually doesn’t. And if reality arises out of an unchanging quantum field, then an underlying consciousness shouldn’t be necessary, because the only requirement of this underlying source, is that it exist.
Click to expand...
If a a reality arises out of an unchanging quantum field, then it is by definition not stable in itself and is therefore finite, restricted, and most certainly not equivalent to the fullness of being, which must exist “prior” to any expression of existence. Moreover, science suggests that such an unstable state must have a beginning.

If you are agreeing that the First Cause must be immutable, and if we both agree that there currently exists changing realities (the entire Universe), then we have to connect these two facts. If the First Cause is immutable, then it would seem the only possible explanation for the rest of reality is if the cause of it resembled a choice.
 
Last edited:
looskanal said:
40.png
Wesrock:
You’re basically describing what monotheists conceive of as God acting through the quantum field.
Click to expand...
I’m acutely aware of the similarities between what certain theists believe and what I’m proposing. Where we differ is in where this line of reasoning ultimately leads. No offense, but I think that yours and Aquinas’ concept of the first cause is wrong. I think that you’ve invoked a divine cause where none is necessary. I think that it’s possible that the only conscious cause necessary, is my own.
Wesrock said:
This feels more like a tongue-in-cheek response and unreasoned speculation not grounded in science on something that is empirically observable on some level.
Click to expand...
Fortunately for me this recent experiment suggests that my understanding of quantum mechanics is indeed correct.

https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

I realize that this may be difficult for some people to understand, but it suggests that a quantum superposition doesn’t actually collapse when observed. In short, this experiment strongly suggests ( I’m a solipsist, I don’t particularly like the word proves) that a quantum system never changes. This should hold true for particles passing through a double slit experiment, and for a quantum field. When you observe a quantum system, it will appear to change, when in fact it never does.

A quantum field will appear to fluctuate, when it actually doesn’t.
Click to expand...
As a solipsist you may reject the notion of an objective external reality, but this experiment doesn’t demonstrate that quantum fields don’t change or that there is definitively multiple objective realities. We can also surmise that our perception and ability to observe is limited and our models are just that: models. They have some predictive power but don’t convey a perfect understanding of the nature of what we’re observing. And even so, whether in superposition or fixed polarization, there is something there being observed, a photon, a packet, a wave, whatever, and it can still be deduced that it’s not something that actualizes itself or eternally actual. We also still have issues with the teleology of the quantum field and other concerns as well, which if they don’t resolve to a monotheist conception of the Unmoved Mover, it follows that such a quantum field would still be dependent on something external to it.
And if reality arises out of an unchanging quantum field, then an underlying consciousness shouldn’t be necessary, because the only requirement of this underlying source, is that it exist. The determining factor of what reality looks like most likely lies within the observer, not within the source.

I realize that I haven’t backed up any of these claims, but time isn’t something that I have a lot of, so any further explanations will have to wait.
Click to expand...
I don’t have time to back up everything I write in detail, either. But the arguments for the Unmoved Mover/Ultimate Reality being Intellect/Intellectual would still apply here.
 
Like, if the Quantum Field was Subsistent Actuality, then congrats, we’re talking about the same thing with different words. But if it’s not, and I don’t see how it could be, a world-block of any sort doesn’t get around the First Way, then I would still argue that it must be dependent upon that which is Subsistent Actuality by nature for it’s existence.
 
And there are accounts of QM and quantum entanglement which don’t posit any type of retrocausality, as well. Retrocausality is one hypothetical model of some systems, but there are others that work, too.
 
looskanal said:
40.png
Wesrock:
but this experiment doesn’t demonstrate that quantum fields don’t change or that there is definitively multiple objective realities. We can also surmise that our perception and ability to observe is limited and our models are just that: models.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you’ve said, but I just wanted to clarify what that experiment implies. It implies that an observer doesn’t collapse the wave function. One observer can perceive a particle as being in a fixed state, while another observer can still perceive it as being in superposition. We could probably extend this to an infinite number of observers and that superposition would never go away. This implies that there’s an underlying quantum aspect to reality that never changes.
Click to expand...
That’s one take. Another is that it’s in the nature of the thing being observed and our nature as the observers to take away different perceptions of a quantum event.
 
looskanal said:
the quantum field never changes. It has no concept of space and time
Click to expand...
In quantum field theory, the second quantization field density phi and the conjugate momentum density pi of the field phi are functions of space and time. The second quantization conjugate property densities are given by the Poison brackets which are also dependent on space and time as given by the appropriate delta function.
 
I just have to say that I love CAF. This is such an interesting conversation and you are all being so respectful to each other. This environment is so enjoyable. I’m glad that each one of you is apart of my reality.
 
For example, theists describe God as being immutable, and yet supposedly He thinks, and acts, and does all of the things that we would expect a temporal being to do. So how can we reconcile these two seemingly contradictory claims. That God doesn’t change, and yet He certainly appears to change.
Click to expand...
What do you mean God appears to change?

Also, do you consider the quantum field to be the simplest possible reality?
 
Last edited:
looskanal said:
Even having no idea what you’re talking about
Click to expand...
You bring up quantum field theory and say that the quantum field has no concept of space and time. I point out that the field density functions depend on space and time. Do you know anything about quantum field theory ?
 
looskanal said:
40.png
RealisticCatholic:
What do you mean God appears to change?
Click to expand...
I mean that it’s difficult for us to conceive of the process of thinking, for example, without associating it with the passage of time.
Click to expand...
Yes… This is precisely why classical theism denies, if we’re being technical and not colloquial, that God “thinks” or has a ratiocinative mind or discursive thought processes.
 
Last edited:
looskanal said:
Good call, I don’t.
Click to expand...
If you don’t have even a rudimentary understanding of it, then how can you make claims about the nature of it. Science reveals it as a physical process; and it is intrinsic to the physical processes of the universe, not something distinct from it. For you to claim that it doesn’t only reveals your lack of understanding and not a well reasoned argument.
 
Last edited:
And reason tells me that Aquinas got his Five Ways wrong. But that doesn’t make them any less impressive. It’s understandable that he got them wrong, we’re almost certainly still getting them wrong.
Click to expand...
Aquinas got his five ways wrong? Sooo…

There is no unactualized actualizer
There is no First Cause
There is not necessary-existing reality?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top