Infinite regress

[ynotzap]

I’m going to try to answer my own question real quick:

If each cause was equally infinite and transferred its infinity to the next one, what would the difference between them be? Can’t we just consider them all the same thing?

Can’t we? Seriously, I need to know if I’m wrong.

If each cause was equally infinite, then each cause would not need to be caused, to be, or to exist,you would not have a series of cause and effects. Infinity means no beginning and no end. Cause and effect apply to things that have a beginning. Once a thing is caused by an infinite , or uncaused cause, it can be sustained infinitely and still remain finite in its nature. It is illogical to think that an infinite cause could transfer its infinity to another already infinite cause. A cause produces an effect, to bring a thing into existence, or completeness. An infinite cause already exists, and supposedly do the other infinite causes. And there can be only one infinite cause, multiplicity and individualization are earmarks of creation, finite, not infinite, limited, not unlimited.

 

[ynotzap]

Yet Aquinas agrees with Aristotle that an infinite effect is possible when it comes to motion in the material order .

God moves a potential to act, a potential can not move itself to act without something already in act (God, who is pure ACT), what is moved in creation is moved by another (and there are secondary movers depending on the Prime Mover for their motion.) When something is brought into existence is has the characteristics of Potency and Act That is in the nature of created things, motion is not inherent in the nature of created things, but is moved by another. Once created the Uncaused cause, because His acts are eternal, keeps finite creation existing infinitely. For this reason science can not destroy matter, just alter the way it exists If motion was the nature of man, then everything he could be, he would be, because motion is towards completion, fulfillment, and the good which is found in being. God is the Ultimate Good, and Complete and Pure Being The facts are that man is not all that he can be because he is always subject to motion and change. Something that has complete being, never changes, because for him potency does not exist, potency is a capacity to be or become, act is being, and in created things, becoming.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I have never understood the validity of this alleged example of simultaneous causality.

Aristotle’s 4 cauxses are all about explaining change/motion.
Where is the change/motion in this example?

Because it basically illustrates the requirement for a first cause. Since a hierarchical series of causes must have a First Cause, which gives support to the First Cause argument. If we were talking about a temporal series of causes then for Aquinas he would say it could be an infinite series. (Although, I personally disagree with the possibility of an infinite series). In Aristotle’s day it was common thought that the universe was infinite. Thus, the First Cause argument is not based on a First Cause in order of time. Ultimately, it shows that God is the ground or foundation of existence at any moment.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Its really a question of dependency not quantity. Aquinas does not intend to disprove an infinite regress, but rather he intends to show the dependency of our world on an uncaused cause.

Whatever his intention he argues that infinte causal regress is not possible as a matter of logic. Yet he also affirms that the world could be eternal…which also logically requires the necessity of infinite causal regress.

There is a contradiction here that needs to be resolved somehow.
Perhaps ICR is possible with efficient causes but not other causes?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is illogical to think that an infinite cause could transfer its infinity to another already infinite cause.

I have no idea what an infinite cause is sorry and I am not sure you do.
It seems to be a mixing of unrelated categories, like saying a flower smells blue.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Because it basically illustrates the requirement for a first cause.

It might if it was an example of a chain of causality but it isn’t.
There is no change or motion in this example. Aristotelian 4 causes must involve change if the word “cause” is being validly used.

I therefore conclude that however much the use of the word “cause” here seems to be valid in fact it is not. It cannot mean what Aristotle would mean. I suggest it is a modern scientific use/definition of the word … Therefore the example fails when applied to Aristotle/Aquinas.

 

[inocente]

If each cause was equally infinite, then each cause would not need to be caused, to be, or to exist,you would not have a series of cause and effects. Infinity means no beginning and no end. Cause and effect apply to things that have a beginning. Once a thing is caused by an infinite , or uncaused cause, it can be sustained infinitely and still remain finite in its nature. It is illogical to think that an infinite cause could transfer its infinity to another already infinite cause. A cause produces an effect, to bring a thing into existence, or completeness. An infinite cause already exists, and supposedly do the other infinite causes. And there can be only one infinite cause, multiplicity and individualization are earmarks of creation, finite, not infinite, limited, not unlimited.

Google can’t find “infinite cause”. I think XndrK means a cause following an infinitude of others.

No cause has any knowledge of its position in a chain, so its position can’t alter its effect.

The notion of the position in a chain, and the notion of a chain are human inventions, and Hume thinks even cause and effect themselves are assumptions we can never prove. - sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/section4.rhtml

God moves a potential to act, a potential can not move itself to act without something already in act (God, who is pure ACT), what is moved in creation is moved by another (and there are secondary movers depending on the Prime Mover for their motion.) When something is brought into existence is has the characteristics of Potency and Act That is in the nature of created things, motion is not inherent in the nature of created things, but is moved by another. Once created the Uncaused cause, because His acts are eternal, keeps finite creation existing infinitely. For this reason science can not destroy matter, just alter the way it exists If motion was the nature of man, then everything he could be, he would be, because motion is towards completion, fulfillment, and the good which is found in being. God is the Ultimate Good, and Complete and Pure Being The facts are that man is not all that he can be because he is always subject to motion and change. Something that has complete being, never changes, because for him potency does not exist, potency is a capacity to be or become, act is being, and in created things, becoming.

But motion is inherent in nature. Aristotle and Thomas thought motion has to be constantly imparted, because here on earth things stop moving unless constantly pushed. Newton told us that’s wrong - “every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it”. Also, there is no state of absolute rest, something can only be at rest relative to an observer, other observers will see it in motion.

Aristotle was also wrong that a thing cannot move itself. Einstein worked out that matter moves itself by curving space-time, something we call gravity. Things move themselves all the time.

Science can destroy matter, for instance in a PET scanner, electron-positron annihilation generates photons. (The word matter is only loosely defined, it has no principle of conservation like mass or energy).

 

[fisherman_carl]

It might if it was an example of a chain of causality but it isn’t.
There is no change or motion in this example. Aristotelian 4 causes must involve change if the word “cause” is being validly used.

I don’t see where you are getting this requirement from. The 4 causes are completely general, and describe an object whether it is moving or not. In the table example, the efficient cause of the lamp being held up is the table. The efficient cause of the the table being held up is the floor and then the ground. For Aquinas causes are things not events. Each of the causes in this scenario derive their causal power from the First Cause which in this example is the ground for illustration purposes. That is why there must be a first cause in this type of series of causes. If the ground ceased to exist from which all the causes derive their causal powers then none of the other causes could continue to hold up the lamp.

Whereas in a temporally ordered sequence of events it is not the same. Take for instance the example of generations. If Bob beget Frank, and then Frank beget Tom, it is not necessary for Bob to exist any longer for Tom to beget someone else. So previous causes in a temporal causation chain do not need to be continually linked. In addition, Aquinas, although he did not believe the universe was infinitely old, did not think it was possible to prove philosophically that it wasn’t. So, if there could be an infinite series of temporal causes each cause could exist on their own even without the continued existence of past causes, and therefore are no longer are continually linked to or need a first cause, for them to have their causal power.

Now, if you don’t like the table and lamp example because nothing is moving (even though something is happening - a force is being imparted) Dr. Feser uses other examples. For instance he talks about a hand which is holding a stick that is moving a leaf. The leaf’s efficient cause of it’s movement is the stick. The stick’s efficient cause of it’s movement is the hand. In this example the hand can be compared to a first cause of this motion (even though technically it isn’t). Each of the other causes derive their causal power from the first cause, the hand. If the hand does not move then neither the stick or the leaf can move themselves. They are completely dependent at all times on the first cause for their movements. Thus, unlike a temporal sequence of causes there must always be a first cause that accounts for the motion of the other causes. This is the example that Feser uses in the unmoved mover argument in his book Aquinas where he does a much better and more thorough job of explaining it.

He uses a similar example to the lamp example in his Aristotelean proof for God in the video I linked to in my first post. You might want to check that one out.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Google can’t find “infinite cause”. I think XndrK means a cause following an infinitude of others.

No cause has any knowledge of its position in a chain, so its position can’t alter its effect.

The notion of the position in a chain, and the notion of a chain are human inventions, and Hume thinks even cause and effect themselves are assumptions we can never prove. - sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/section4.rhtml

But motion is inherent in nature. Aristotle and Thomas thought motion has to be constantly imparted, because here on earth things stop moving unless constantly pushed. Newton told us that’s wrong - “every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it”. Also, there is no state of absolute rest, something can only be at rest relative to an observer, other observers will see it in motion.

Aristotle was also wrong that a thing cannot move itself. Einstein worked out that matter moves itself by curving space-time, something we call gravity. Things move themselves all the time.

Science can destroy matter, for instance in a PET scanner, electron-positron annihilation generates photons. (The word matter is only loosely defined, it has no principle of conservation like mass or energy).

For Aquinas Hume’s position would be unintelligible, as would be the position of many modern philosophers. Dr Feser talks about this in his book ‘Aquinas’. He gives an example of a rock being thrown through a window. He says that Hume would say we can not be certain that the rock being thrown through the window is the cause of the window being shattered. He would say that it could be that because we experience the glass being shattered each time we throw the rock we tend to associate the two. He would say the event of the rock being thrown and the window shattering are two different events and are not casually linked. This is of course preposterous and defies common sense in my opinion. But, at any rate, for Aquinas the events are not causes, the things are causes. The rock hitting the glass and the glass shattering are one and the same event.

In addition, many modern scientists see the benefit of cause and effect in explaining how the world works. If one were to deny cause and effect one would have a very difficult time explaining for instance what the function of the heart is, to pump blood. Since one could not associate the pumping with the movement of blood.

Also, the example of gravity is not an example of things moving themselves. A rock falling to the ground is not moving itself, but being moved by another. Humans move themselves because of an internal series of causes. The hand moving is moved by the muscles, which in turn are moved by motor neurons. Such that each movement has a cause.

 

[inocente]

For Aquinas Hume’s position would be unintelligible, as would be the position of many modern philosophers. Dr Feser talks about this in his book ‘Aquinas’. He gives an example of a rock being thrown through a window. He says that Hume would say we can not be certain that the rock being thrown through the window is the cause of the window being shattered. He would say that it could be that because we experience the glass being shattered each time we throw the rock we tend to associate the two. He would say the event of the rock being thrown and the window shattering are two different events and are not casually linked. This is of course preposterous and defies common sense in my opinion. But, at any rate, for Aquinas the events are not causes, the things are causes. The rock hitting the glass and the glass shattering are one and the same event.

In addition, many modern scientists see the benefit of cause and effect in explaining how the world works. If one were to deny cause and effect one would have a very difficult time explaining for instance what the function of the heart is, to pump blood. Since one could not associate the pumping with the movement of blood.

Hume is thinking things through carefully, systematically and logically. In other words he’s doing philosophy.

From this he concludes that our common sense is indeed to link cause and effect out of habit, and this is indeed essential to how we deal with the world, but we cannot prove our assumption. I think Thomas wouldn’t just dismiss that analysis. As a fellow philosopher he would find the systematic thinking and unexpected result interesting.

Also, the example of gravity is not an example of things moving themselves. A rock falling to the ground is not moving itself, but being moved by another.

Thomas was a great fan of Aristotle. Aristotle taught that the stone moves itself. He taught there are five elements, each of which wants to return to its “natural place”. The natural place of elements water and earth is the center of the universe, which he thought was also the center of our planet. That was how he explained the “natural motion” of a stone to the ground. (What I said in the earlier post applies to what he calls “unnatural motion” or “violent motion”). That was the physics Thomas would have been taught. - aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/aristotle-physics.html

But think of a star collapsing under its own gravity. It curves the space and falls inward on itself. Nothing else involved.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Hume is thinking things through carefully, systematically and logically. In other words he’s doing philosophy.

From this he concludes that our common sense is indeed to link cause and effect out of habit, and this is indeed essential to how we deal with the world, but we cannot prove our assumption. I think Thomas wouldn’t just dismiss that analysis. As a fellow philosopher he would find the systematic thinking and unexpected result interesting.

Thomas was a great fan of Aristotle. Aristotle taught that the stone moves itself. He taught there are five elements, each of which wants to return to its “natural place”. The natural place of elements water and earth is the center of the universe, which he thought was also the center of our planet. That was how he explained the “natural motion” of a stone to the ground. (What I said in the earlier post applies to what he calls “unnatural motion” or “violent motion”). That was the physics Thomas would have been taught. - aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/aristotle-physics.html

But think of a star collapsing under its own gravity. It curves the space and falls inward on itself. Nothing else involved.

I would hardly think that modern scientists would think of objects being moved by gravity as moving themselves. The individual atoms being moved by a force or a law of gravity that all things are subject to hardly counts as the thing moving itself. Now, all movement must eventually be traced back to an unmoved mover. But, movement is simply the actualization of some potential. The unmoved mover is simply that which actualizes everything else, but does not itself need to be actualized by anything else. That is the First Cause.

 

[ynotzap]

I have no idea what an infinite cause is sorry and I am not sure you do.
It seems to be a mixing of unrelated categories, like saying a flower smells blue.

You sure know how to hurt a guy By definition, infinite, or infinity means no beginning and no end, beyond measure, endless. Cause is anything that produces an effect. I was under the deepest impression, or conviction that this was God, the Infinite Cause I do not know any thing that is infinite, other than God, do you? Can God effect another God? Can there be an infinite series of causes. When speaking of a series, I always thought to have a series you must have a beginning, where is the beginning in an infinite series I understand that God can sustain a series of causes and effects infinitely once begun because His acts are eternal, not subjected to time, or change. When we deal with the infinite and mix it with the finite, we are dealing with unrelated categories, dealing with cause and effect, series of causes we are dealing with the finite. when dealing with an infinite cause we are dealing with a different category. One is created the other uncreated, one always existed, the other began to exist.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You sure know how to hurt a guy By definition, infinite, or infinity means no beginning and no end, beyond measure, endless. Cause is anything that produces an effect. I was under the deepest impression, or conviction that this was God, the Infinite Cause I do not know any thing that is infinite, other than God, do you? Can God effect another God? Can there be an infinite series of causes. When speaking of a series, I always thought to have a series you must have a beginning, where is the beginning in an infinite series I understand that God can sustain a series of causes and effects infinitely once begun because His acts are eternal, not subjected to time, or change. When we deal with the infinite and mix it with the finite, we are dealing with unrelated categories, dealing with cause and effect, series of causes we are dealing with the finite. when dealing with an infinite cause we are dealing with a different category. One is created the other uncreated, one always existed, the other began to exist.

Sorry, didnt mean to insult. I think you really mean an endless chain of cause/effect linkages?
Which is obviously very different from saying God is infinite…and therefore an infinite cause …which makes no sense to me in terms of Aristotle.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t see where you are getting this requirement from. The 4 causes are completely general, and describe an object whether it is moving or not

I humbly disagree. The four causes in their primary meaning are related and defined by Aristotle to explain change as per hylomorphism.
All other more esoteric and derived applications must conform to this primary understandinf or face the charge of non univocal usage of the words.

The example given must therefore identify a change or motion to be considered a correct use of Aristotle’s principles.

You mention “imparting a force.”
Sorry, thats clear gobbeldy gook. For a force to be imparted energy must be expended.
There is no flow of energy when forces are balanced. Hence no loco-motion.

Perhaps some other type of change is involved?
To date noone has been able to describe it for this example as far as I know.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t see where you are getting this requirement from. The 4 causes are completely general, and describe an object whether it is moving or not

I humbly disagree. The four causes in their primary meaning are related and defined by Aristotle to explain change as per hylomorphism.
All other more esoteric and derived applications must conform to this primary understandinf or face the charge of non univocal usage of the words.

The example given must therefore identify a change or motion to be considered a correct use of Aristotle’s principles.

You mention “imparting a force.”
Sorry, thats clear gobbeldy gook. For a force to be imparted energy must be expended.
There is no flow of energy when forces are balanced. Hence no loco-motion.

Perhaps some other type of change is involved?
To date noone has been able to describe it for this example as far as I know.

 

[IWantGod]

Whatever his intention he argues that infinte causal regress is not possible as a matter of logic.

I don’t think he is arguing about the possibility of a quantity. He is not arguing that an actually infinite quantity is not logically possible. He is arguing that an infinite regress of “dependent causes”, with no cause outside of that series, is impossible.

To put it another way, they may very well be an infinite regress of dependent-causes, but in-order to exist at all that series still requires a cause existing outside of the actual series precisely because each cause in the series is dependent.

There is a contradiction here that needs to be resolved somehow.
Perhaps ICR is possible with efficient causes but not other causes?

The contradiction is only apparent until you understand that Aquinas is not dealing with the possibility of quantity but rather dependency as it relates to a beings “act”.

If Aquinas was merely arguing that there cannot be an infinite regress logically speaking his arguments would be uninteresting and so would Aristotle.

 

[ynotzap]

Google can’t find “infinite cause”. I think XndrK means a cause following an infinitude of others.

No cause has any knowledge of its position in a chain, so its position can’t alter its effect.

The notion of the position in a chain, and the notion of a chain are human inventions, and Hume thinks even cause and effect themselves are assumptions we can never prove. - sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/section4.rhtml

But motion is inherent in nature. Aristotle and Thomas thought motion has to be constantly imparted, because here on earth things stop moving unless constantly pushed. Newton told us that’s wrong - “every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it”. Also, there is no state of absolute rest, something can only be at rest relative to an observer, other observers will see it in motion.

Aristotle was also wrong that a thing cannot move itself. Einstein worked out that matter moves itself by curving space-time, something we call gravity. Things move themselves all the time.

Science can destroy matter, for instance in a PET scanner, electron-positron annihilation generates photons. (The word matter is only loosely defined, it has no principle of conservation like mass or energy).

What is motion? Is it not moving a potential to act? Can a potential move itself, and if it could would it be a potential, or an act. If motion was the nature of a thing could it exist in a potential state? A potential is the possibility of being or becoming, the becoming is the act or reality. If motion was the inherited characteristic of nature, or the universe, would they have any potential to become? Or would the universe already be in act, and have becommed Motion is not the inherited characteristic of the universe. What is the inherited characteristic of the universe is Potency and Act. There is constant change and movement in the universe, there is no static state, but dynamic. Forces of a secondary nature are always active, but depend on their activity ultimately on the Prime Mover, God, who moves what is possible, to reality, from what can be to being, existing If
God brings something into existence, and His acts are eternal, would that something exist eternally? If God can annihilate what He created, would He perhaps make a mistake, or create a situation He could not accommodate and be forced to annihilate? Isn’t God Omniscient. Motion has to be constantly imparted either directly or by secondary movers who depend on the Prime Mover for their motion. A thing can not be a potential and an act in the same respect, at the same time. I take what many empirical scientists say with a grain of salt. Many who follow are like a person who is eating the meal another has digested more or less, what does that profit the man.

 

[ynotzap]

Every thing that moves tends to keep moving until the force that moves it is equalized by resistance experienced by the moving object. Do we ever experience perpetual motion, or no resistance to a moving object? Even in space, space craft have experienced resistance to their speed. Einsteins formula for energy is E=MC 2, Mass times the speed of light squared.
We can conceive mass, matter, or quantity of matter, but can we conceive speed (motion), what is motion? Is it matter changing it’s location? Is it changing it quickly? And if it is changing, that would mean that that it had the potential to change from slower movement to a faster movement, and what caused the change? Could the mass move itself? If motion was inherent in the material universe would anything that constituted the material universe have to be moved? Movement comes from outside, external to the object moved. In living things, movement still comes ultimately from another, The heart is stimulated to move by electrical impulses, what moved the electrical impulses, or even timed them? Did the heart move itself, did the impulses move itself, did it time itself? Matter can not move itself, but is moved by another. Even the will of man can not move itself but is moved by another. Motion is not an inherited characteristic of the universe or anything in it, all things are moved by another, ultimately by God who sustains motion, God is the Energy, and He doesn’t equal mass moving at the speed of light squared. I observe that science examines motion and attributes it to secondary movers, and not to God, He doesn’t even enter the picture. The motion of the secondary movers is not even considered, but taken for granted.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

He is arguing that an infinite regress of “dependent causes”, with no cause outside of that series, is impossible.

To put it another way, they may very well be an infinite regress of dependent-causes, but in-order to exist at all that series still requires a cause existing outside of the actual series precisely because each cause in the series is dependent.

That certainly makes sense.
Yet I am not so sure this is actually what is meant in his argument from motion.

What is the point in beginning with an observation of motion (obviously that of the celestial bodies is likely meant) if in the end a cause is necessitated outside the series whether that series regresses eternally, finitely or has only one member?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Every thing that moves tends to keep moving until the force that moves it is equalized by resistance experienced by the moving object. Do we ever experience perpetual motion, or no resistance to a moving object? Even in space, space craft have experienced resistance to their speed.

It doesnt matter if there is in practise no perfectly resistanceless medium.
Through maths and experiment we can derive algorithms that accurately mimic the reality observed with a variety of varying (name removed by moderator)ut parameters.

We can then extrapolate to ideal conditions which we know are unachievable in the real world but which nevertheless indicate what would happen if friction was in fact zero.
Like the limit asymptote of a hyperbole function.
And the answer is that there is clearly a principle of perpetual motion in an ideal world without resistance. Just as a cause always achieves its full effect unless impeded by other intervening causes.

Aristotles principle that whatever moves (ie local motion) is moved by another is still accurate Physics if we tweak “local motion” to mean change in speed (ie acceleration).

However an object at constant velocity does not intrinsically need an outside agent to keep moving eternally.