Infinite regress

[Blue_Horizon]

An object that has no external outside [efficient] cause for it’s motion, necessarily is the cause of its own motion.

The whole point of this conversation is that this principle is not self-evident.
Sure its a reasonable hypothesis.

As is Newton’s ( some motions seem to require no mover nor ongoing explanation).
Which is exactly the point I made in the very first place.

You are quite rational in holding your view, as am I in holding mine.

For some reason you feel the need to demonstrate Newton is provably wrong.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The slit experiment is taken cause-effect in a very loose sense. I do not believe the slit experiment would be classified as cause-effect in the Aristotlelian or Aquinas sense. An efficient cause produces some new being of some kind. If I’m not mistaken, the slit experiment had to do with the phenomenon of light. Now, whether light (or an electron or photon if you will) passes through one slit, two slits, or 1000 slits, it is still light. The slit or slits are not the efficient cause of light. Whether it is detected as a particle or wave, it is still light. The slit experiment is an example of scientists trying to determine the nature of light which by the way to this day, we don’t really know what it is, the scientists have theories. An efficient cause of light would be the sun, for example.

A better example may be entangled photons. Here an imposed change on one seems to coincide with an instantaneous change in the other regardless of separation distance.
They seem to act as if they are the same single photon.

If true this may be the only known example of truly instantaneous temporal cause effect pairing. Though if they have true mutual identity it may not be valid to call this an example of cause effect but rather a dual simultaneous effect flowing from a single cause external to both.

BTW cause effect in Aristotle doesn’t have to cause a new being of some kind. Ie substantial change…it can of course be just an accidental change where substance is preserved but modified. The unsolved mystery re the DSE is that we do not know why the firing of single electrons or even molecules at a double slit still causes an interference pattern over time indicative of a wave. Electrons are definitely particles. How can a single particle interfere with the previous particle or the following particle?
However I agree with you that this DSE doesn’t seem directly relevant to our discussion here as it is hardly proves causality is non temporal in nature. It is but one very tentative theory to explain what is still inexplicable. There are other theories that do not rely on the suspension of temporal causality…which is probably the better direction to look in given that temporal causality has worked very well as a model to date.

 

[ynotzap]

The whole point of this conversation is that this principle is not self-evident.
Sure its a reasonable hypothesis.

As is Newton’s ( some motions seem to require no mover nor ongoing explanation).
Which is exactly the point I made in the very first place.

You are quite rational in holding your view, as am I in holding mine.

For some reason you feel the need to demonstrate Newton is provably wrong.

There is no doubt that Nowton’s laws are basically quantitative in concept, and by math principles have become a rule of measurement of motion. Inertia, the concept, is founded on empirical experience in the real world. From this concept the other laws have validity. But Aristotle’s natural philosophy is concerned with the Nature of a thing, his realistic option can be summerized by three basic questions. What makes a changeable being what it is?
Aristotle based his answers on the existence and various types of change: Accidental change: local, qualitative, or vital; and substantial change (such as death, or corruption)

His whole conception of the changeable world was based on an attempt to safeguard the reality of substantial change. Arguing from a comparison with artificial change (such as that of molding clay into a statue) he said the beings are made up of a material element capable of receiving form, and the form received. To account for substantial change, the material element must be conceived of pure capacity for forms, nothing more: It is this aspect of a being that allows it to be able to change into something else substantially different. It is not a physical, real material element, as in the case of accidental or artificial changes. It can not be equated with atoms, but is something more radical, something that can only be conceived by the mind- the mere possibility of receiving forms (both the one it has in an individual being, and the forms that that being can turn into) including the form of an atom.

This material is called primary matter, it is the most radical kind of material out of which things are made. Modern science for the most part does not take this factor into consideration; it has no need to. It has chosen to limit itself to the quantitative aspect of things, and this is satisfactorily explained on the assumption of atoms. (continued next post)

 

[ynotzap]

continuation of last post

Scientists do accept the difference between accidental chemical changes (mixtures for instance) and true substantial changes (those that yield genuine chemical compounds) Hence scientists implicitly and on a common sense basis admit something very like primary matter.

In order that matter and form not be conceived in too naive a fashion, it is best to avoid thinking of them except in terms of the next question.

2 What is nature? Nature is the condition of the possibility of change( or rest) which belongs to a thing essentially. as such it is an entirely relative term: Nature can not exist without change or rest, and change cannot exist without nature. This is why I spoke about motion being intrinsic to the nature of the object moving, and its irrational consequences I already explained what change is which is the third question Aristotle asked. the definition immediately suggests a connection with matter and form, as possibilities (potentials for
change

The implications and foundation of the special sciences:
The principal implication of the view is that Aristotle’s world is dynamic through and through. There is no possibility of conceiving the world as Newton did, as a gigantic clock that God created and then set in motion. Material beings simply cannot exist without natural changes that belong to them.

A second implication is that the world is an interrelated system of bodies all acting on one another and each carrying out its assigned role in the whole-- there is no place for a vacuum or empty space between bodies; they always extend as far as the next body so that the two can act on one another in accord with the role of each. Each natural being has its place in its own system, and it will either move to that place or resist being moved from it. a modern version of this motion would yield a realist explanation of gravity, and a realist would say that the so called “force of gravity” is merely a very helpful theoretical construct to explain the quantitative effect of natural local motion.

These three conceptions – natural local motion, natural chemical change, and functional processes in biology–are for Aristotle the foundations of a realist interpretation of the special sciences of physics, chemistry, and the life sciences (taken from the "Philosophy of Science an Introduction. by Paul R. Durbin, O.P. Saint Stephen’s College, Dover, Mass.)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

continuation of last post

Scientists do accept the difference between accidental chemical changes (mixtures for instance) and true substantial changes (those that yield genuine chemical compounds) Hence scientists implicitly and on a common sense basis admit something very like primary matter.

In order that matter and form not be conceived in too naive a fashion, it is best to avoid thinking of them except in terms of the next question.

2 What is nature? Nature is the condition of the possibility of change( or rest) which belongs to a thing essentially. as such it is an entirely relative term: Nature can not exist without change or rest, and change cannot exist without nature. This is why I spoke about motion being intrinsic to the nature of the object moving, and its irrational consequences I already explained what change is which is the third question Aristotle asked. the definition immediately suggests a connection with matter and form, as possibilities (potentials for
change

The implications and foundation of the special sciences:
The principal implication of the view is that Aristotle’s world is dynamic through and through. There is no possibility of conceiving the world as Newton did, as a gigantic clock that God created and then set in motion. Material beings simply cannot exist without natural changes that belong to them.

A second implication is that the world is an interrelated system of bodies all acting on one another and each carrying out its assigned role in the whole-- there is no place for a vacuum or empty space between bodies; they always extend as far as the next body so that the two can act on one another in accord with the role of each. Each natural being has its place in its own system, and it will either move to that place or resist being moved from it. a modern version of this motion would yield a realist explanation of gravity, and a realist would say that the so called “force of gravity” is merely a very helpful theoretical construct to explain the quantitative effect of natural local motion.

These three conceptions – natural local motion, natural chemical change, and functional processes in biology–are for Aristotle the foundations of a realist interpretation of the special sciences of physics, chemistry, and the life sciences (taken from the "Philosophy of Science an Introduction. by Paul R. Durbin, O.P. Saint Stephen’s College, Dover, Mass.)

And for all this Newton still cannot be proven mistaken, a body in motion resists such change and will move eternally unless acted upon by another. Aristotle on this point has a far less adequate model.

 

[ynotzap]

And for all this Newton still cannot be proven mistaken, a body in motion resists such change and will move eternally unless acted upon by another. Aristotle on this point has a far less adequate model.

A body in motion resists such change(a change in motion) will not move eternally on it’s own unless acted upon, and it will always be acted upon so Newton’s law is an idealistic concept with no objective reality except as an subjective idea

 

[Wesrock]

The stick pushing a rock example, or train cars, or chain link hanging from the ceiling are not being looked at as discrete events. The stick only continues to push the rock so long as it continues to be moved by the hand, and so on. The train car continues to move because the car in front of it continues to be moved because the car in front of it continues to be moved (and if you wish to be nitpicky, I’m sure we can adjust this to a non-frictionless scenario and speak of “continues to accelerate”). This is what is meant by essentially ordered and ‘simultaneous’. Should an act cease, the effects will stop. If nothing in the series is itself intrinsically capable of causing itself, then it doesn’t matter if it’s an infinite series or if it’s a closed looo, there would be no change in progress.

The glass is breaking because the brick is pushing through the glass.

 

[Wesrock]

And for all this Newton still cannot be proven mistaken, a body in motion resists such change and will move eternally unless acted upon by another. Aristotle on this point has a far less adequate model.

When Aquinas says “motion” he just means change. So he’d be in perfect agreement that a thing resists change unless acted on by another.

 

[ynotzap]

And for all this Newton still cannot be proven mistaken, a body in motion resists such change and will move eternally unless acted upon by another. Aristotle on this point has a far less adequate model.

A body in motion resists such change, by body I can safely assume he means an object in our material world. The motion referred to again I can safely assume is locomotion. The resistance the body encounters is that which causes the resistance or opposing force, the body in motion has it’s own force causing it’s motion. When the two forces equalize, the body ceases to move physically. Now Newton jumps to an "idealistic " concept when stating “an object will move eternally…” This concept belongs to the idealistic world,not to the real, or objective. In the objective, real word, the object moving will always be acted upon, and the motion is finite, not infinite (in secondary causes of motion). Now God could sustain the motion infinitely, but He is also the cause of both forces in this essentially finite world. A thing can not move itself, but is moved by another. Newton’s concept is one that is subject to his own interpretation, and not consistent with the reality of the objective world. IOW he is mixing his concepts the ideal with the real. If he is referring to the objective physical world he is wrong. We don’t mix the finite with the infinite.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A body in motion resists such change(a change in motion) will not move eternally on it’s own unless acted upon, and it will always be acted upon so Newton’s law is an idealistic concept with no objective reality except as an subjective idea

1. On first principles of logic experimental evidence coercively points to the truth of the proposition that in the absence of friction Newton’s law of motion is valid and objects move eternally.
2. Aquinas held that elemental matter always moves down when there are no impediments.
   The removing cause cannot be said to be an external active ongoing cause. The object will obviously eventually stop when it contacts other matter which re asserts the impediment. Thus he had no notion of friction really and he would have held to its eternal motion downwards were there no existing impediments in that direction. Thus the celestial bodies move eternally because this element is not defined to move downwards.
3. Aquinas has difficulty explaining eternal celestial motion for this reason. He is forced to accept therefore there must be a constant mover. Yet that is the very definition of a soul, even if it be less than a plant soul…some sort of elemental soul. But Christianity does not allow this though Aristotle may have. Aquinas never reached a clear solution, though he favoured the angels keeping the planets in motion. So he went for an external mover rather than an internal one. He never really answered why earth moves down unaided apart from the poorly explained removing cause…which is not really the why in question.

Why raise a 2yr old discussion?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A body in motion resists such change, by body I can safely assume he means an object in our material world. The motion referred to again I can safely assume is locomotion. The resistance the body encounters is that which causes the resistance or opposing force, the body in motion has it’s own force causing it’s motion. When the two forces equalize, the body ceases to move physically. Now Newton jumps to an "idealistic " concept when stating “an object will move eternally…” This concept belongs to the idealistic world,not to the real, or objective. In the objective, real word, the object moving will always be acted upon, and the motion is finite, not infinite (in secondary causes of motion). Now God could sustain the motion infinitely, but He is also the cause of both forces in this essentially finite world. A thing can not move itself, but is moved by another. Newton’s concept is one that is subject to his own interpretation, and not consistent with the reality of the objective world. IOW he is mixing his concepts the ideal with the real. If he is referring to the objective physical world he is wrong. We don’t mix the finite with the infinite.

Concepts by definition idealise the real world .
Even Aquinas is guilty as charged.
As the Hindus? put it, the Way once named is not the Way.

That doesn’t mean such concepts or equations cannot be very helpful in understanding, predicting and manipulating the real world as landing on the moon and returning safely proves.

And some models are better for doing that than others.
Aristotle’s physics/cosmology could not have achieved that.