Infinite regress

[IWantGod]

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

You are talking about the particular way things move given their particular natures. But the movement of a nature in general is an actualization of potential, and potential cannot actualize itself because it is not the source or power of existence and therefore not the cause of motion either.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14056845:

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.

Neither do modern scientists think of motion as Aristotle did. If you object when I use Aristotle’s way of talking of a star, as a thing with its own nature, then object to all of Aristotle’s wrong physics, and the unmoved mover argument fails.

btw we should remember that by motion, Aristotle and Thomas meant all kinds of change, not just movement in space.

 

[inocente]

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.

You’re using Aristotle’s wrong physics here. It was accepted without being tested for almost two millennia, then finally when it was tested, starting with Galileo, most of it was found to be wrong, including what you’ve used here. Unlike modern physics, all of which is tested.

If we read Aristotle’s unmoved mover argument, he makes a long calculation using the astronomy of the celestial spheres (the invisible spheres which moved the stars and planets) that there could be up to 55 unmoved movers. By his science, 55 unmoved movers.

He whittles that down by observing there is only one heaven (in his cosmology, heaven was the place in all directions beyond the celestial spheres) and then does a bit of a shoulder shrug to arrive at a single unmoved mover. His whole argument is based on wrong ideas. See from 1073a to 1074b.

 

[Vico]

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.

St. Thomas Aquinas give the definition of motion.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Question 2. The existence of God, Article 3. Whether God exists?:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. …

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity,

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

 

[lmelahn]

I don’t have the time to find all the sources (but they are somewhere in my previous replies to other threads), but the key to understanding the need for the first cause is to understand Aquinas’s distinction between essential (Latin: per se) and accidental (per accidens) causes.

The difference is not easy to grasp at first, but it boils down to the degree of dependence that the effect has on the cause.

Here are a couple of examples.

Pope Julius II wanted to have the Sistine Chapel redecorated, so in order to do that he needed a painter. He wanted it to be done really well, so he needed, not just any painter, but a top-notch painter.

Having a top-notch painter is essential (per se) to having a well-decorated Sistine chapel. You will get no paintings, or a lesser quality painting job, without one.

It turns out that Julius contracted Michelangelo Buonarroti. To get a first-rate chapel, he could have contracted Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino (“Raphael”) instead (the one who painted the Stanze Vaticane). Hence having Michelangelo as the painter specifically is not essential to a first-rate Sistine Chapel—it is accidental (per accidens).

More a propos to our topic, let’s look at something we are all familiar with: human ancestries.

Let’s think about what are the things that sustain us in our existence right now in this very moment; and to make things easier, let’s limit ourselves to efficient causes: food, water, the heat of the sun, the earth’s gravitational field, our shelter which protects us from the elements, and so on. (With a bit more investigation, we discern that our soul sustains our bodies’ continued existence; and God maintains the soul in existence; and so forth.)

There is an efficient cause that is notably absent from this list: our parents (or, generally speaking, our ancestors). Why not? Because, at the present moment, we do not depend on them (in the order of efficient causes, that is) for our existence. They exerted that type of causality once (especially at the moment of our conception, but also, in a different way, when we were growing in our mothers’ wombs, and also when our parents took care of us when we were children); but they do so no longer. For instance, when our parents go to be with the Lord, we will not at that moment cease to exist.

What this example illustrates is that causes that are remote in time cannot be essential causes; they are merely accidental causes. The effects of such causes are no longer dependent on them for their very existence (which is the definition of an essential cause).

Now, back to the infinite regress: what is not allowed is for there to be an infinite regress of essential causes. On the other hand (according to Aquinas anyway—and I think I agree with him), there is nothing preventing there from being an infinitely long chain of accidental causes, spread out indefinitely in time.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I don’t have the time to find all the sources (but they are somewhere in my previous replies to other threads), but the key to understanding the need for the first cause is to understand Aquinas’s distinction between essential (Latin: per se) and accidental (per accidens) causes.

The difference is not easy to grasp at first, but it boils down to the degree of dependence that the effect has on the cause.

Here are a couple of examples.

Pope Julius II wanted to have the Sistine Chapel redecorated, so in order to do that he needed a painter. He wanted it to be done really well, so he needed, not just any painter, but a top-notch painter.

Having a top-notch painter is essential (per se) to having a well-decorated Sistine chapel. You will get no paintings, or a lesser quality painting job, without one.

It turns out that Julius contracted Michelangelo Buonarroti. To get a first-rate chapel, he could have contracted Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino (“Raphael”) instead (the one who painted the Stanze Vaticane). Hence having Michelangelo as the painter specifically is not essential to a first-rate Sistine Chapel—it is accidental (per accidens).

More a propos to our topic, let’s look at something we are all familiar with: human ancestries.

Let’s think about what are the things that sustain us in our existence right now in this very moment; and to make things easier, let’s limit ourselves to efficient causes: food, water, the heat of the sun, the earth’s gravitational field, our shelter which protects us from the elements, and so on. (With a bit more investigation, we discern that our soul sustains our bodies’ continued existence; and God maintains the soul in existence; and so forth.)

There is an efficient cause that is notably absent from this list: our parents (or, generally speaking, our ancestors). Why not? Because, at the present moment, we do not depend on them (in the order of efficient causes, that is) for our existence. They exerted that type of causality once (especially at the moment of our conception, but also, in a different way, when we were growing in our mothers’ wombs, and also when our parents took care of us when we were children); but they do so no longer. For instance, when our parents go to be with the Lord, we will not at that moment cease to exist.

What this example illustrates is that causes that are remote in time cannot be essential causes; they are merely accidental causes. The effects of such causes are no longer dependent on them for their very existence (which is the definition of an essential cause).

Now, back to the infinite regress: what is not allowed is for there to be an infinite regress of essential causes. On the other hand (according to Aquinas anyway—and I think I agree with him), there is nothing preventing there from being an infinitely long chain of accidental causes, spread out indefinitely in time.

Yes, that is similar to what I said in post 28. The hand that causes the stick to move which causes the leaf to move, must necessarily require the hand to move in order for the stick or leaf to move. Thus, the movement of the leaf requires this first cause (the hand) of its movement at all times. If there was no first cause of the moment there could be no movement.

 

[ynotzap]

"Blue Horizon:

, post:40, topic:426047"]
It doesnt matter if there is in practise no perfectly resistanceless medium

I have reasons that tell me it does matter, Does there exist a space with nothing in it? Does matter exist in some way in what we call empty space Is matter a continuum? Will there always be some resistance to physical movement? It is good to use truths found in conceptual reality to can come close to the real condition in our objective real world, but as you said, these conceptual, ideal realities are “unachieveable” in our imperfect world, a world that is constantly moving to perfection. Truths in a conceptual ideal world only have validity if those truths are found in the real objective world which is EXTERNAL TO US
Blue Horizon:

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)

.If speed changes that would mean that the object moving had a potential to change its speed which is a truth found in both the objective real world, and the conceptual ideal world. Some force or influence had to be the cause of the change, could the object moving cause its movement to change from being a capacity to change to the actual change? If the object with the potential to change its motion could produce the change then the force would be intrinsic to its nature, meaning that the force to change was one with its nature, and moves itselfThis is not the condition we find in objective reality.
Blue Horizon:

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

An object moving at a constant velocity, is a conceptual ideal reality which has no connection to the real objective world, a world of imperfection moving toward perfection and completeness, and being. Velocity may be near constant, but never be constant in the real objective world. But in the ideal conceptual world it may be because one conceive perfection but that perfection has no connection with the real objective world.
And can perfection be connected in any way with objective reality? In conceptual reality that is based on objective reality, such as the concepts of "cause and effect, found in the real objective world, as well as the principles of Potency and Act, real conceptual realities, and real objective realities. With these realities we can prove that God exists, who is Perfection and Pure Being

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But the movement of a nature in general is an actualization of potential

It may be debatable whether existence is an act - which seems to be an essential aspect of the IR argument for it to work.

But what is the point of talking about IR causality anyways?
The only causal link of importance for finding God could just as validly be argued from the “act” of existence of the last material object in the series.

So why speak of the material series (whether infinite or finite) at all?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

we should remember that by motion, Aristotle and Thomas meant all kinds of change, not just movement in space.

I think we all know this but the problem is his conclusions do not seem to consistently work over all types of change and they should. e.g. locomotion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have reasons that tell me it does matter, Does there exist a space with nothing in it? Does matter exist in some way in what we call empty space Is matter a continuum? Will there always be some resistance to physical movement? It is good to use truths found in conceptual reality to can come close to the real condition in our objective real world, but as you said, these conceptual, ideal realities are “unachieveable” in our imperfect world, a world that is constantly moving to perfection. Truths in a conceptual ideal world only have validity if those truths are found in the real objective world which is EXTERNAL TO US

.If speed changes that would mean that the object moving had a potential to change its speed which is a truth found in both the objective real world, and the conceptual ideal world. Some force or influence had to be the cause of the change, could the object moving cause its movement to change from being a capacity to change to the actual change? If the object with the potential to change its motion could produce the change then the force would be intrinsic to its nature, meaning that the force to change was one with its nature, and moves itselfThis is not the condition we find in objective reality.

An object moving at a constant velocity, is a conceptual ideal reality which has no connection to the real objective world, a world of imperfection moving toward perfection and completeness, and being. Velocity may be near constant, but never be constant in the real objective world. But in the ideal conceptual world it may be because one conceive perfection but that perfection has no connection with the real objective world.
And can perfection be connected in any way with objective reality? In conceptual reality that is based on objective reality, such as the concepts of "cause and effect, found in the real objective world, as well as the principles of Potency and Act, real conceptual realities, and real objective realities. With these realities we can prove that God exists, who is Perfection and Pure Being

I am thinking as Aquinas or Aristotle would.

A cause always achieves its effect - unless another agency interferes and limits the actualising force of the first agent.

So when we see objects in space slowing down over hundreds of years there are two system ways we can understand the situation.

(a) the moving object is not being moved by another - but is encountering a hidden agency that is interfering with its inherent motion (which if not interfered with would continue forever).

(b) a moving object inherently slows to zero if left uninterfered with. So it will only remain in motion if another agent acts on it.

If Aristotle had the scientific knowledge concerning friction and space that we have today I have little doubt he would accept (a) above.

Then again if we considered friction as a “de-mover” then (a) is still consistent with “whatever is in motion is being moved by another” its just that we have a negative mover!

Perhaps it is better to say “whatever is changing is being changed by another”.
AND, constant velocity is not an example of change!

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

So a lot of St. Thomas Aquinas’s arguments for God’s existence are based in part on the principle that there can’t be an infinite backward line of causes.

Why not?

There can be an infinite line of regressing causes because God has infinitely existed. Timelessness belongs to God. All-time is with God for example. If God has infinitely existed throughout time/timelessness then the causality of time infinitely stretches forwards and backwards. His Spirit is the prime reason why creation exists; and his experience outside of time relates to the causality of creation. God is a creator spirit and being timeless, God puts infinite “thought” into his creative powers causing our universe. However, in how God moves in his spirit is how he reflects those creative powers. Causality does not end with God, it begins when he moves in his creative spirit. Nonetheless, he has been moving in spirit for infinity; hence, causality regresses infinitely backwards in time along with God.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

An object moving at a constant velocity, is a conceptual ideal reality which has no connection to the real objective world

Granted it is conceptual.
But no connection to the real world is not necessarily true.
Pure forms do not exist (at least not for Aristotle) but the conceptual reality is certainly useful for understanding how more complex mixed realities (matter and form) interact and play out in the real world. Such concepts are useful for postulating and testing hypotheses. Indeed, sometimes those hypotheses actually lead to the isolation of the “pure component” which was previously regarded as a component with no self-subsisting existence: e.g. non naturally occurring elements (eg sodium) in the field of Chemistry and the soul of Scholasticism!

Even without such real world discoveries of “the pure component” I think its going too far to say such conceptual distinctions are of no use and have no connection at all with the real world.

A world of imperfection moving toward perfection and completeness, and being. Velocity may be near constant, but never be constant in the real objective world.

I believe you may have mixed two different concepts of perfection here.
Yes we live in an imperfect world where there is no such thing as a perfect empty space.
Yes the universe could be said to be moving from imperfection to perfection as actualities play outt and move towards a final cause, an Omega Point.

But no, there is no movement to perfection where one day there will be truly empty space.

 

[Bradski]

(b) a moving object inherently slows to zero if left uninterfered with.

This contradicts Newton’s First Law.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . constant velocity is not an example of change!

Velocity = [distance (at point 2) - distance (at point 1)] divided by time
In other words change in position over time.
Time signifies change.

 

[billcu1]

So a lot of St. Thomas Aquinas’s arguments for God’s existence are based in part on the principle that there can’t be an infinite backward line of causes.

Why not?

God gives us our life here. So we owe God all. When their was “Ain” nothing there was “something”. We were but were not. IDK what Aquinas says but I’d like to know too. God is “Ain Soph” and “Ain Soph ur” or limitless light cf Judaism, Kaballah. Things are generated by the stars, combined in the elements and perfected in the principals. According to Paracelsus. You might want to look at that. Your question is interesting. I hope there’s some help there and not confusion to your question. Through you do say “Aquinas”.

 

[billcu1]

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.

Can such a question be answered by Science? Remember Science’s Philosophic construct. Ergo, Scientific method. Metaphysics can’t meet scientific method. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong of course. God in my definition is the “uncreated”. The unmoved mover.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This contradicts Newton’s First Law.

I think we all know this, why is this relevant in this particular developing point?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Velocity = [distance (at point 2) - distance (at point 1)] divided by time
In other words change in position over time.
Time signifies change.

Yes I accept that this proposition would still be a problem for Aristotle in other areas.
He would still be forced to accept that constant velocity represents a change in the accident he calls relation.

Nevertheless my tweak in understanding his “whatever moves” principle would reconcile him with Newton which seems a far weightier matter.
Something in the sinking Aristotelian project has to be jettisoned to save it!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I would hardly think that modern scientists would think of objects being moved by gravity as moving themselves.

Actually Aristotle and mod sci could possibly agree if we see matter as Aristotle saw it … not as individual pieces but as belonging to one of 5 elemental Types.
Earth being the “heaviest” sinks to the centre of the elemental Type considered as a whole. It seeks to return to its parent Type.
This is in effect a crude understanding of gravity. Individual earthy objects thus move because they seek to be joined back to the whole earthy mass…which distance does not really divide them. So in this sense the element Earth, and all its earthy pieces are not quite seen as divided…but each as representative of the whole. In this sense earthy objects do move themselves as Aristotle believes, just as the stars made of the element Ether move themselves in their characteristic ways.

 

[Aloysium]

Yes I accept that this proposition would still be a problem for Aristotle in other areas.
He would still be forced to accept that constant velocity represents a change in the accident he calls relation.

Nevertheless my tweak in understanding his “whatever moves” principle would reconcile him with Newton which seems a far weightier matter.
Something in the sinking Aristotelian project has to be jettisoned to save it!

I have no idea what you are talking about.
But, I am interested in what is meant by the accident called relation, seeing that everything is relational to my way of thinking. Wouldn’t all accidents be some aspect of a relationship? The Eucharist presents as bread although its reality is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Sorry if this is off topic.