Aristole's Causes: my thoughts and your comments

[lemondiesel]

Please give me your thoughts, anything will do. I understand we can describe cause and effect relationships but if our universe is run on physics shouldn’t it also run on cause and effect? The Universe is the effect of some kind of cause, right?

Material cause describes the material out of which something is composed. Thus the material cause of a table is wood, and the material cause of a car is rubber and steel. It is not about action. It does not mean one domino knocks over another domino.

Atoms? or would it be something forms nothing which was formed from “nothing”?

The formal cause tells us what a thing is, that any thing is determined by the definition, form, pattern, essence, whole, synthesis or archetype. Plainly put the formal cause according to which a statue or a domino, is made is the idea existing in the first place as exemplar in the mind of the sculptor

From “nothing” comes something? Is that pre-existing idea potential infinity, or potential infinite possibilities?

The efficient cause is that from which the change or the ending of the change first starts. It identifies ‘what makes of what is made and what causes change of what is changed’ and so suggests all sorts of agents, nonliving or living, acting as the sources of change or movement or rest.

If our universe started from “nothing” could we say that there were potentially infinite number of possibilities that could have happened? If we have infinite number of possibilities, could that have started a new plane of existence? (conscious plane, which is reflected in a limitless minds)

The final cause is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done, including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities. The final cause or telos is the purpose or end that something is supposed to serve, or it is that from which and that to which the change is.

The universe not atoms allows us to live. It houses atoms which in turn are the building blocks of everything. The change happened from “nothing” to nothing to something, and it will continue housing these atoms.

if something happens all or most of the time, we cannot say that it is by chance.

Does a universe happen all the time? Stars and planets come and go, so it can’t be chance that they will form again.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What is nothing?

 

[reggieM]

Please give me your thoughts, anything will do. I understand we can describe cause and effect relationships but if our universe is run on physics shouldn’t it also run on cause and effect? The Universe is the effect of some kind of cause, right?

Right.

Atoms? or would it be something forms nothing which was formed from “nothing”?

As MOM asks above, what is “nothing” and how could something form from it?

From “nothing” comes something?

No, it’s not possible. In order for something to come into existence, something must exist before it to bring it into existence.

If our universe started from “nothing” could we say that there were potentially infinite number of possibilities that could have happened?

If our universe started from nothing, where did it get the “something” to create a universe?

A universe needs lots of “something” to come into existence. If “no” of anything existed, then the universe could not begin to exist.

The universe also could not create itself. In order for the universe to create anything, it would have to exist first. If the universe didn’t exist, it couldn’t create anything at all. So, if it didn’t exist, it couldn’t create itself.

The creation of the universe requires some power or energy to be created. If there was nothing, then there wouldn’t be any power or energy to create anything.

If we said “only power and energy existed”, then we know, every effect needs a cause. The existence of power is an effect – what caused that pre-existing energy to exist?

The universe not atoms allows us to live. It houses atoms which in turn are the building blocks of everything. The change happened from “nothing” to nothing to something, and it will continue housing these atoms.

As soon as you reach a point where there is “nothing” … before, after, during – any time whatever you arrive at a point where there is “nothing” … then nothing can ever exist.

Some cause is needed to explain the effect.

If nothing ever existed, then there could never be a cause – thus, no effects.

 

[Gloria1]

If our universe started from “nothing” could we say that there were potentially infinite number of possibilities that could have happened? If we have infinite number of possibilities, could that have started a new plane of existence?

In my opinion, Nothing is “nothing” and “nothing” cannot exist because it is “nothing”. There cannot be “possibilities” in “nothing”. If there are possibilities in nothing then it is not “nothing” but “something”.

 

[lemondiesel]

so if “God” created this universe, how did he do so if there is no such thing as “nothing”? Do you agree that there always had to be something?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

so if “God” created this universe, how did he do so if there is no such thing as “nothing”? Do you agree that there always had to be something?

There always had to be a God, for God is existence, and there can never be a time, ontology, or objective truth, where existence does not exist, because time, ontology, and objective truth is an expression of reality or existence. God creates ideas in virtue of having a prefect knowledge of God and thus has perfect knowledge of all possible consequences intrinsic to Gods nature. In virtue of having perfect knowledge of Gods nature; God has ideas about his nature which have always existed consequent to Gods perfect knowledge. Gods will is love; and thus God very being is an act of sharing that love. Existence expresses Existence. In that eternal act of sharing, God timelessly unites actuality with possibility. This is to say that God actualizes his ideas by sharing the objective “actuality” of Gods being with the ideas of Gods timeless imagination. In so doing, ideas become “objective actual essences”, rather than just mere ideas.

 

[Gloria1]

so if “God” created this universe, how did he do so if there is no such thing as “nothing”? Do you agree that there always had to be something?

It takes nothing for “nothing” to exist. For something to exist, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. Fore example, according to the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin, we all evolved out of a pre-existing matter. Matter cannot be created nor be destroyed. However, there must exist what it took for the pre-existing matter to exist because the pre-existing matter is something and not “nothing”.

 

[reggieM]

so if “God” created this universe, how did he do so if there is no such thing as “nothing”? Do you agree that there always had to be something?

Regarding the topic of this thread – every cause has an effect.

The “things” that we see in existence today came from an effect or cause. So, when we go back in time, there had to be a first cause that explains all the other causes.

In that case, yes, I agree that there always had to be “something” (although not a material thing) and that is the First Cause or the origin of existence - the first Being. By definition, we say that is God.

 

[lemondiesel]

It takes nothing for “nothing” to exist. For something to exist, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. Fore example, according to the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin, we all evolved out of a pre-existing matter. Matter cannot be created nor be destroyed. However, there must exist what it took for the pre-existing matter to exist because the pre-existing matter is something and not “nothing”.

Another common mistake. Matter can also be transformed/transferred. We do not even fully understand the atom so to make comments like that is absurd, so we can not truly know what causes them to exist. Potential energy/infinity/possibilities can come from nothing.

 

[reggieM]

Potential energy/infinity/possibilities can come from nothing.

These are measurements that must be aligned to some “thing” in order to exist.

For example, we could determine if something is “possible” by looking at various probabilities. If the probability is 999 in 1000, then the thing will probably happen. If the probability is something like one in 10[sup]5000[/sup], then it’s much less probable – or could be virtually impossible.

In a case where there is nothing, how could we measure the possibility of something occurring?

As Catholics, we do believe that some things come from no material-things. But not from nothing. They come from God - ex nihilo – and it’s through miraculous power that this happens.

If some material thing could come from nothing, then science would never be able to predict it (since science needs “some-thing” in order to operate). Things could pop into existence from nothing.

Actually, a state of nothing is beyond nature. It’s beyond empirical evidence.

 

[lemondiesel]

^^

The furthest we know about the atoms is the empty space between the quarks or whatever. There is literally “nothingness” inside of an atom, that we know of so far.

 

[Areopagite]

I’m quite sure I’ve missed your point, and it’s probably my fault, but here are some things I’d like to say.

Atoms? or would it be something forms nothing which was formed from “nothing”?

The material cause of a tree can be said to be its cells, and the material cause of the cells (or the tree, for that matter) can be said to be the protein molecules … and then then you can say that material cause of that (and the rest of the stuff mentioned) is the amino acids … down the atoms … and then the quarks … and then you arrive at the question “what’s at the bottom?” Really, you end up with the question, is* there something that has matter without form*? For if it has form, then you ask again, what’s it made of? And you go on forever. Hence … is there matter without form? Aristotelians refer to this as “Prime Matter.” However, most Aristotelians would say Prime Matter is merely abstract concept because all material must have form (and I think I would agree). But then is there something that form but not matter that composes all physical matter? Some Aristotelians would say yes. It would seem that one gets to a particle that has only form but no matter. This is not too problematic for believers in, say, angels, who are also said to beings that have form but not matter. Forms can be immaterial, and in that sense they are made up of nothing (i.e. of no matter), but they nonetheless are “made of” of form.

Well, that was confusing … but maybe I have a point in there somewhere.

From “nothing” comes something? Is that pre-existing idea potential infinity, or potential infinite possibilities?

When it is said that God makes things from nothing, it merely refers to the idea that God didn’t make things out of pre-existing matter … i.e. He made the matter too (which is different from, say, the Platonic notion of God).

If our universe started from “nothing” could we say that there were potentially infinite number of possibilities that could have happened?

Right. Exactly.

If we have infinite number of possibilities, could that have started a new plane of existence? (conscious plane, which is reflected in a limitless minds)

No idea what you just said.

Are you saying that the nothingness gave rise to existence? Because once again, it was God that gave rise to existing things completely and only in that sense “things were created out of nothing.” The nothingness didn’t cause things. God caused things.

The universe not atoms allows us to live. It houses atoms which in turn are the building blocks of everything. The change happened from “nothing” to nothing to something, and it will continue housing these atoms.

Not sure what you’re saying here.

Does a universe happen all the time? Stars and planets come and go, so it can’t be chance that they will form again.

Also, not sure what you’re saying. It seems like you have a profound point lurking just out of my scope.

 

[lemondiesel]

No idea what you just said.

Are you saying that the nothingness gave rise to existence? Because once again, it was God that gave rise to existing things completely and only in that sense “things were created out of nothing.” The nothingness didn’t cause things. God caused things.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monistic_idealism

 

[MindOverMatter2]

^^

The furthest we know about the atoms is the empty space between the quarks or whatever. There is literally “nothingness” inside of an atom, that we know of so far.

What do you mean by “literally nothing”?

I know scientist say “nothing” in-order to describe “emptiness”, but they are not describing nothing as an objective reality. For example there is a bike in that room, but there is no bike in the other room. Or, there is nothing in this “room” in “comparison” to another room. Notice that i am using the word nothing in reference to a thing or reality such as a room. Scientists are using the word nothing in order to define a “difference” in “reality”, rather than describing an independent actual “reality” called nothing. Space is not nothing. There is no such thing as literally nothing in an objective sense; nothing is not a thing or reality that can be measured or inferred.

The word nothing has no meaning accept in reference to describing a difference.

 

[lemondiesel]

What do you mean by “literally nothing”?

I know scientist say “nothing” in-order to describe “emptiness”, but they are not describing nothing as an objective reality. For example there is a bike in that room, but there is no bike in the other room. Or, there is nothing in this “room” in “comparison” to another room. Notice that i am using the word nothing in reference to a thing or reality such as a room. Scientists are using the word nothing in order to define a “difference” in “reality”, rather than describing an independent actual “reality” called nothing. Space is not nothing. There is no such thing as literally nothing in an objective sense; nothing is not a thing or reality that can be measured or inferred.

The word nothing has no meaning accept in reference to describing a difference.

Its like this,

If we are in a space vacuum with no air in the empty space, then there is “nothing.” Science says that if you have two objects in the same vacuum room, the space between those two objects contains “nothing.” In between the neutrinos of atoms in space, there is literally “nothing”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Its like this,

If we are in a space vacuum with no air in the empty space, then there is “nothing.” Science says that if you have two objects in the same vacuum room, the space between those two objects contains “nothing.” In between the neutrinos of atoms in space, there is literally “nothing”

To say that there is “nothing” between two objects, is merely to say that there is a “space” that is not being occupied by an object.They are not making an empirical inference to nothingness. “Scientists” make inferences to empirical or measurable realities.“Nothing” is not an empirical/measurable reality; and thus it is impossible that a good scientist could mean literally nothing in an ontological sense like how you are implying it. Instead they are using the word only to describe a difference between two types of spaces; for example, one with material objects such as planets and stars and one without. Empty space is not nothing; it is simply empty space. If they say that there is “nothing” in that space, they do not mean it literally, but rather they mean only that there is space alone/by itself, as opposed to space with material objects inside it that are distinct from space. The scientist, if he or she is to remain legitimate, can only mean that there is no material object in this particular space.

Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?

 

[twinc]

since the greatest achievement of Science has been the dematerialisation of matter then matter is a nothing or no thing that has been accepted as a something - this the ancient Indian seers and sages as philosophers of the first rank regarded as maya[illusion] - twinc

 

[MindOverMatter2]

since the greatest achievement of Science has been the dematerialisation of matter then matter is a nothing or no thing that has been accepted as a something - this the ancient Indian seers and sages as philosophers of the first rank regarded as maya[illusion] - twinc

What do “you” mean by the dematerialisation of matter, and why does the dematerialisation of matter logically infer the existence of nothing?

I am not aware of this great achievement of science that you are speaking about.

 

[twinc]

What do “you” mean by the dematerialisation of matter, and why does the dematerialisation of matter logically infer the existence of nothing?

I am not aware of this great achievement of science that you are speaking about.

I am surprised since you dub yourself Mind over Matter - there are some who would say nothing matters and others that it matters very little or nothing - twinc

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I am surprised since you dub yourself Mind over Matter - there are some who would say nothing matters and others that it matters very little or nothing - twinc

You obviously have nothing to say!