On refutation of the Unmoved Mover

[Linusthe2nd]

Good of you to make my case for me, since Paul is not making a sophisticated argument only comprehensible by professional philosophers of religion, he is making a simple statement of fact:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things than have been made.

But that is philosophical thinking. And St. Thomas was well aware of the value of that statement and referred to it ofter in his work to justify something he was about to say. He took this common sense kind of philosophy and made it fit into the philosophical thinkers of the past to show that God was revealing Himself to these giant intellects through their philosophical observations of the beings He had created.

Then there is this. Acts 17: 18-34 " 18 And certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers disputed with him, and some said: What is it that this babbler would say? But others: He seemeth to be a preacher of new gods: because he preached to them Jesus, and the resurrection.

19 And taking him, they brought him to the Areopagus, saying: May we know what this new doctrine is, which thou speakest of?

20 For thou bringest certain new things to our ears: We would know, therefore, what these things mean.

21 (Now all the Athenians, and strangers that were there, employed themselves in nothing else, but either in telling or in hearing something new.)

22 But Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that ye are in all things over-religious.

23 For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: to the unknown god. What, therefore, you worship without knowing it, that I preach to you.

24 *God, who made the world and all things therein, he being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth **not in temples made with hands.

25 Nor is he served by the hands of men, as though he needed any thing, seeing it is he who giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation.

27 That they should seek God, if haply they may feel after him or find him: although he be not far from every one of us.

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being: as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

29 Being, therefore, the offspring of God, we must not suppose the Divinity to be like unto gold or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man.

30 And God, indeed, having overlooked the times of this ignorance, now declareth to men, that all should every where do penance.

31 Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man, whom he hath appointed, giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead.

32 And when they had heard of the resurrection of the dead, some indeed mocked: but others said: We will hear thee again concerning this matter.

33 So Paul went out from among them.

34 But certain men adhered to him and did believed: among whom was also Dionysius, the Areopagite, and a woman, named Damaris, and others with them. "

So Paul was appealing to these philosophers in philosophical terms so that they would be disposed to here the Word. And Dionysius the Areopagite was a famous philosopher of Athens whom Paul later ordained Bishop of Athens. Thus the value of philosophy is established as a tool to use to dispose the non-believer to hear the Word.

Linus2nd

---

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It would seem inexplicable if “what can be known about God is plain to them” why so many diverse opinions about God are to be found in the minds of human beings.

Of course, it can be contended by some, as is the case in this thread, that their view is the plain truth and does not require any philosophical support, since it is plainly obvious to them what the truth is. There is no arguing with such a self-verifying contention.

I think what Paul is getting at is that the truth about God is plain and accessible to those who are absolutely pure of heart and are completely open to the truth. This does not preclude, however, that truth might also be accessible by logical or philosophical methods.

On the other hand, it does mean that truth would have to be non-contradictory and would need to be immune to debunking by philosophical argumentation. Which means it would NOT be resistant or opposed to a complete and comprehensive philosophical analysis, which makes me skeptical about some “versions” of the truth being proposed by those who wish to avoid analysis completely, as if their “knowledge” claims about God could not withstand even the most cursory examination and, in fact, are not even self-consistent.

This would be the underlying motive of some on this thread to separate out completely evidential knowledge from knowledge about God as if they are two completely independent spheres of thought. The first being objective, while the second completely subjective and not amenable to scientific or philosophical methods.

The problem with this completely subjective view of God, is that it enshrines personal opinions about God as “the truth” about God and avoids the heavy lifting of having to demonstrate the “objective” truth and validity of these.

As you have seen, discussing such a position with someone who holds to it is an exercise in futility since denial, obstruction and diversion are seen as legitimate tactics for defending the position because “subjectivity” rather than objective logic determines the means by which this kind of “truth” is to be defended.

You may well be right.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, I was commenting on the OP. Is your question pertinent to the OP?

The O.P. didn’t bring up Jesus, you did.

Linus2nd

 

[Portofino]

This is a rather strange observation since the unmoved mover would be the absolute beginning and absolute terminus of all change. Logically speaking, this does nothing to limit science, since if science continues to find causal antecedents it could not have arrived at the absolute beginning. In principle, science is free to continue to legitimately pursue explanations for every effect without limitation until science itself arrives at the conclusive beginning.

Aquinas is making a logical point about the logical necessity of the Unmoved Mover. This does not limit scientific pursuit in the least. In fact, it may serve to challenge limits proposed by science that are shortsighted, since the limits of the evidential capacities of humans may be, and, in fact, very likely are, restricted by method.

A Thomist would be undaunted by this kind of critique and the proper response would be, "Go for it! Let science do its absolute best, but it, too, should be liable to critique when it proposes solutions which are held to be the “final” say on any matter.

There is a distinction between a logical conclusion and a scientific conclusion. Scientific conclusions are dependent upon evidential and testable premises. Logical conclusions are deduced from axiomatic principles.

The unmoved mover is a logical conclusion from the principle of sufficient reason. To sufficiently explain change it is necessary to posit a self-sufficient cause that adequately explains all change. In a sense, logic has set the target for science to aim at. Until science can adequately explain all change in terms of sufficient cause, logic continues to challenge science by “holding its feet to the fire,” so to speak.

I don’t see this as limiting science, at all, but rather it keeps science from becoming presumptuous about its findings by providing an independent standard by which to critique science. The danger is in coming to believe human experiential capacities are the final arbiters of truth, when in fact, those simply make truth parochial and contingent.

Science, when mixed with hubris forms a potentially explosive combination. I don’t think it is prudent or wise to allow human beings with a means to some knowledge to enshrine a belief that what little knowledge is to be had by an inherently limited method is sufficient onto itself. Nothing wrong with a little humility in the pursuit of understanding. It keeps you alert, questioning and respectful.

These are fair observations, I think. For a scientist to say that the Unmoved Mover hypothesis has no place in science, because it is not scientific – is, indeed meta-physical, beyond space and outside of time, though it is posited as being the origin of both – does not mean that it is thereby untrue. So they may be right that it has no place in a physics textbook – unless referenced as a hypothesis, an explanation proferred for the origin of time and space – but this does not mean that Unmoved Mover has no place in philosophy, metaphysics, or logic (and perhaps religion, as well ).

For the proponent of the Unmoved Mover argument ,this means it is scientific inquiry that is limited, not the other way around. So maybe both sides can agree, in a way – don’t present it in a physics textbook as an established fact, but argue for it in a philosophy textbook – or in a public forum – as a fact demonstrated to be logically necessary. And, of course, live with the implications of this knowledge, in one’s personal life – or, at least, live with the implications according to one’s understanding of them.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I read Feser’s paper and made some notes. Sad to say I was hoping for something great but was sorely disappointed. The main problem is a basic mistake, as if he never completed high school physics.

Now really, that was uncalled for, most unjust and displays your prejudices for all to see. With a remark like that the reader is warned that he can expect no objectivity from you. Besides, you know it is wrong. You may not like him but he is a highly respected Doctor of Philosophy, respected even by his opponents, much in demand on the lecture circuit and the author of a number of books, and numerous articles. Whatever his faults, I can assure you he knows his high school physics. Besides, he explains Newton’s " principle of inertia " in the first paragraph on pg 1 of P. S. M. L. M. And by the way, please be disabused of the idea that it is only Catholics that are interested in Medieval Logic and Metaphysics, a number of non-Catholics and even a few atheists are very interested - though you are obviously not among their number.

The howler appears in several places starting on p.5 (II.1) and destroys his case. He argues that a continued state of uniform motion needs to be explained, questioning if it really is a state and implying there needs to be some agency maintaining the motion (a “necessarily existing intelligent substance or substances" on p.12).

I continue to find your self contradictions rather odd. While demanded absolute objectivity on the part of Feser and Thomists in general, you do not recognize the same need in yourself. Use of the derogatory adjective " howler " is hardly objective.

And you miss the whole point. It isn’t that the " principle of inertia " needs to be explained, it is that there seems to be a need to reconcile Aristotle’s " principle of motion " with Newton’s law of Inertia. This is due to the fact that skeptics have constantly argued that Newton’s law disproves Aristotle’s " principle of motion " and therefor disproves the Thomas’ First Way. And he states that in the second paragraph on pg 1. He goes on in the third paragraph to say that this view is mistaken and unfounded. And the rest of his presentation attempts to explain why. And by the way you can read more about this on his blog here edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-02-03T00:05:00-08:00&max-results=40&start=44&by-date=false . I think you will find it interesting.

He insists that the two laws do not contradict each other at all, that " Indeed, when we consider the philosophical issues raised by motion, by the idea of a law of nature, and so forth, we will find that there is a sense in which the principle of inertia presupposes the principle of motion. "

But a state of uniform motion is exactly the same as a state of rest, the only difference is the observer’s frame of reference. There is no more need to explain uniform motion than lack of motion.

That is the position of modern physics, as Feser points out. He further states, pg 6, "But the point to emphasize for the moment is that, precisely because the principle of inertia treats uniform local motion as a “state,” it treats it thereby as the absence of change. Moreover, it holds that external forces are required to move a thing out of this “state” and thus to bring about a change. " Now this clearly an artifice designed to make everything nice and snug mathematically ( my opinion ). It certainly has no force in my dayly life, here and now. When I fire my 4/10 at a rabbit, I don’t give a hang about the idea of motion being a " state of rest. " At this moment I would definitely favor Aristotle’s " principle of motion. On the other hand if I am charting my way through the galaxies I would naturally pay more attention to Newton and Einstein.

" But then the Newtonian principle of inertia hardly conflicts with the Aristotelian principle that “motion”—that is to say, change—requires something to cause the change. The disagreement is at most over whether a particular phenomenon counts as a true change or “motion” in the relevant sense, not over whether it would require a mover or changer if it did so count. "

Also the quote at the top of p.11 shows clearly that act and potency are not valid concepts. In one inertial frame (the one implied) the body moves past A, B and C and so has the potency. In another inertial frame, not mentioned, the body is stationary and A, B and C move past it, thus they have the potency instead. The supposed potency is an artifact of the observer.

Not so. The example in question is not dealing with mathematical models but with an actual event. I got hit between the eyes with a batted hard ball once and I can guarantee you that that baseball was not in a state of rest. So your objection is invalid.

On p. 8 he makes the often repeated plea that science cannot tell us about the intrinsic character of reality while metaphysics can, but these basic errors show that, in his case at least, what individual philosophers hold to be intrinsic is relative to how they see the world, not how the world is.

Wrong again, the real world is both ways. One thing the world is not and that is that it is not a mathematical model. And that is what some physicists forget.

I think you need to reread the presentation.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Re: On refutation of the Unmoved Mover

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by polytropos
The argument says nothing about the creation of the universe. As has been discussed at length in this topic, Aquinas did not believe that it was philosophically demonstrable that God created the universe (or that the universe had a finite past).( end quote)

( Innocente )
Perhaps it’s how you said it, but unless the unmoved mover necessarily created the universe, it isn’t the Creator God of Genesis.( end quote)

Linus2nd responds

The Unmoved Mover would either be eternally creating the universe out of nothing in time or he would have created the universe out of nothing in time at some absolute or unique moment.

Quote Polytropos )
What do you mean by “an underlying assumption in the argument that material bodies are more than just math”? Are you math?( end quote)

Innocente responds
Could well be. Atoms are virtually all space, and E = mc2 says that energy, mass and space-time (through the c2) are related, therefore matter is no more or less a substance than energy, space or time. What are they all then? Well, they can all be represented by math, and it’s a bit mystifying why this should be unless they are math. That’s just some peoples’ guess, the string theorists and fellow travelers, but it seems whatever it is, it will be similarly surprising. If this is new to you, you’ll need to mull it around a while.

Linus2nd
We live in a real world. We are real. We are not numbers.

Quote Polytropos)
You seem to allow that this might be wrong, but if you want to use it as an objection you’d have to argue for it positively. To me this seems like a bad example of modern eliminativism. Physical laws are mathematical abstractions about relationships between matter and energy. So are you suggesting that we reify the abstractions and deny the existence of matter and energy? Or what? (Please correct me if I am misrepresenting what you are proposing.)( end quote )

Innocent responds
From the above, energy, mass and space-time are related. We also know that all things affect all other things through the inverse square law, etc. So in some deep sense all is one.( end quote )

Linus2nd responds
Yes, we are all composed of matter and form with an act of existence! Angels are just essence and existence.

Innocent goes on.
Philosophically, everything is what it is because of everything else, and without everything being how it is, nothing would be as it is. Which sounds rather Eastern mystic when put like that.( end quote )

Linus2nd
No, everything is what it is because that is the way the Unmoved Mover made it.( end quote)

Innocente goes on

In any case, in the statement “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another,” motion means change, which means “a reduction from potency to act by something else in act.” So that can’t be conflated with the Newtonian understanding of particles in constant motion, because the two notions are just referring to different things.

At our scale level there are things, at a much smaller scale things are made of particles, and particles are waves, and waves are motion and cannot be otherwise.

Quote:
Not to mention, in the Newtonian conception, motion is a state, whereas in the Aristotelian conception, motion is change. So the principles at face value agree: a particle stays in motion (Newtonian) unless acted upon by some force. It only changes from its state when it is acted upon. In Aristotelian terms, it has a state (act) but could be in another state (potentiality) only if it is acted upon by something else in act.

From all the above, since everything is everything, and everything is made of waves, and waves are motion and cannot be otherwise, the attempt to divide the world into things with various states of motion (change) is an artifact of how we see the world at our scale.

Which reminds me of a really cool demonstration of scale - htwins.net/scale2/

Quote:
A discussion of the compatibilities of Newtonian and Aristotelian motion can be found faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SML…10/PSMLM10.pdf. (I hope you don’t interpret this as didactic or condescending. It just covers the topic in more depth than we can go into here; ignore it if you’d like.)

Not at all, thanks it looks interesting, I’ll try to read some of it tomorrow.

Quote:
It should be obvious while this won’t do. You said there were “many” alternatives. I said, fine, at least show me “a few.” And now you say, “Too many to mention.”

I don’t know what “our relationship with God” or “the problem of evil” has to do with it. Could you clarify?

The continuum from all-good to all-evil is a large space. Where is the unmoved mover in this space, and why (using only the first way)?

Then similarly, our relationship, for example does the argument say we are in the unmoved mover’s image? I think I can guess the answer to that.

---

Faith, hope, love - Are the sum of perfection on earth; love alone is the sum of perfection in heaven. Wesley’s Notes on 1 Cor 13:13

inocente
View Public Profile
Find all posts by inocente

Page 10 of 17 «

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is time to summarize just what the First Way does demonstrate.

The universe is made up of things which are or can change, this includes substantial, qualitative, and location changes. Whatever changes must be changed by that which is actual. If that has been brought into act from a potential state then it to must have been moved by another. We cannot procede to infinity in this process, we must arrive at an Unmoved Mover who causes the changes in everything else. And this we call God.

The Unmoved Mover is Pure Act by necessity. As Pure Act it transcends the universe of changing beings which It has created or which It is continually ceating.

The Unmoved Mover is Simple, since it is Pure Act

The Unmoved Mover is Intelligent, since only a super intellect could have created the universe.

The Unmoved Mover has a Will, since the universe could have been created only by a Being with the Will to do so.

The Unmoved Mover is Good, since all that It created is Good.

The Unmoved Mover is Love , since It would not have created what It did not love.

The Unmoved Mover directs the universe in all its activities, since It would not have created the universe and " walked " away, since there would be no point in doing that and since It would not have created the universe without a reason in mind. And to assure that that intention is carried out, the Unmoved Mover directs the universe to It’s desired end.

The Unmoved Mover sustains the universe in existence, since the universe cannot sustain its own existence.

The Unmoved Mover is a Personal Being, since It would not have created the universe without a personal interest and for all the above reasons.

The Unmoved Mover has many of the qualities Christianity attributes to its God. And since there cannot be two such Beings, the Unmoved Mover is the Christian God. He is revealing Himself to man through arguments appropriate to man’s intellect, preparing man’s intellect for His Personal Revelation.

All arguments directed against the First Way are known to have failed, including those raised in this thread. Not a single one has succeeded.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Even if the God of the philosophers is shown to be identical in every-way with the God of Abraham, this would not necessitate that it is the God of Abraham. It could just mean that humans imagined and wrote stories about a deity that happens to correspond to something real.

However, reasonable evidence of a higher power sharing many if not all of the attributes described by some religion ought to at least give a person serious pause for thought. Could it really be a coincidence?

Intrigued by your phrase “the God of the philosophers” I looked around and found a survey published this year of 1,972 faculty members “in 99 leading departments of philosophy”.

philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP (pdf)

Amongst the responses:

A priori knowledge: yes 71.1%; no 18.4%; other 10.5%.
Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.
God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%

So the majority of the professional philosophers are atheists but also believe in a priori and free will, which I found a bit of a surprising combination, don’t know why but I did.

Anyhow, if we make the reasonable assumption that theist philosophers past and present don’t agree on everything, and so change it to “the God of some philosophers”, then I guess you could make an atheistic argument that both God and the unmoved mover are created in the image of those who believe in them, and therefore are bound to have some points in common. But from a theistic angle, as well as the little matter of personal experience and what seems obvious, that would be to presuppose that the God of revelation is not beyond our understanding and can be rationally defined and pinned down in order to make such comparisons.

 

[inocente]

Yes, and I said I agreed. God gives everyone the gift of Faith. But what I was driving at was how can we demonstrate to the skeptic, athiest, agnostic, oriental cultest that we are justified in that conclusion. Not very convincing unless we can give persuasive reasons for stating it.

I was responding to the question you asked yesterday, I don’t remember you asking it or me answering it before. As to your current question, we can ask your exotic mix to just look around, as Paul did, and we can tell them the good news. Whether they believe us depends on their faith, and faith is a gift. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.

*I guess Thomas was and nothing but a " Dumb Ox " after all. It took him much more than that to understand Aristotle, Avicenna, Avicebron, Averroes, Maimonides, Al Farabi, Plato, etc. Nice to know we are dealing with a genius. Also nice to know you know where to find the old Catholic Encyclopedia. There is a new one by the way, came out in 1968 and is usually found in the better libraries. One of my favorite philosophers was the editor of the Philosophy section, Fr. William A. Wallace O.P., age 90 + and still active a year ago, multi-Doctorites, including Physics!. *

It’s still not very complicated. Some of the most brilliant and learned people produce the simplest arguments. Just because an argument is straightforward doesn’t mean it had to be written by a dumb ox.

 

[inocente]

But that is philosophical thinking. And St. Thomas was well aware of the value of that statement and referred to it ofter in his work to justify something he was about to say. He took this common sense kind of philosophy and made it fit into the philosophical thinkers of the past to show that God was revealing Himself to these giant intellects through their philosophical observations of the beings He had created.

Then there is this. Acts 17: 18-34 " [snip]

So Paul was appealing to these philosophers in philosophical terms so that they would be disposed to here the Word. And Dionysius the Areopagite was a famous philosopher of Athens whom Paul later ordained Bishop of Athens. Thus the value of philosophy is established as a tool to use to dispose the non-believer to hear the Word.

Paul is not making a complicated argument which only philosophers of religion with years of training can understand, he is making a simple argument which anyone can grasp.

You appear to think I’m against philosophy in general. On a previous thread I argued for science, for empiricism, for a posteriori knowledge, and against philosophies which exclude and attack them. And since some people seem to define philosophy as excluding them anyway, I argued against that limited definition. It was good fun, it got much further than I dreamed, but that was another thread, RIP.

I’m not against philosophy, certainly in ethics and other areas. But when a philosophical argument makes claims which are at odds with a scientific theory, the latter makes predictions confirmed by empirical evidence while the former does not.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Paul is not making a complicated argument which only philosophers of religion with years of training can understand, he is making a simple argument which anyone can grasp.

You appear to think I’m against philosophy in general. On a previous thread I argued for science, for empiricism, for a posteriori knowledge, and against philosophies which exclude and attack them. And since some people seem to define philosophy as excluding them anyway, I argued against that limited definition. It was good fun, it got much further than I dreamed, but that was another thread, RIP.

I’m not against philosophy, certainly in ethics and other areas. But when a philosophical argument makes claims which are at odds with a scientific theory, the latter makes predictions confirmed by empirical evidence while the former does not.

A few closing remarks. There is no contradiction between Thomistic philosophy and science. That is a distinction which began with Hume and continues today. Thomists have never denied the value of science. It is those scientists who have been railing against philosophy since Hume that have expelled philosophy from the realm respectable knowledge and learning. The current battle has been initiated by those scientists who view Thomism as a threat to their world view. For them it really is a battle over the existence of God and they view genuine Thomism as the single greatest threat, after Catholicism, to that view.

As for those who eschew philosophy and plead Faith, these ideologues dismiss as credulists and of no account.

Linus2nd

 

[1AugustSon7]

Nope, I never said the universe is not expanding, please cite the post where you think I did.

And nope, next time you use GPS remember that it would not work if relativity made incorrect predictions, just as your computer would not work if quantum theory made incorrect predictions.

And nope, it’s called the big bang theory, not the bing bang theory. :doh2:

The big bang theory is itself an implication of relativity. It was developed by a Catholic physicist, one of many Catholic physicists.

Your ideas about space appear to be a bit eccentric. The articles I linked were to try to help you but it seems no good deed goes unpunished.

No inocente. I actually read your articles that did nothing to validate your point. All you did was waste my time trying to create a smoke screen. Perhaps you should have read them first and bothered to wonder whether or not they could do anything to substantiate your position. You tried to contradict the implications I raised about the fact that the universe is observed to be expanding by linking to the authority you cited which, as I pointed out, failed to negate the implications of an expanding universe in regards to motion or whether or not the universe has a centre; in fact, your own authority explicitly concluded inconclusively on that very subject; but you cited it as if it denied the universe had limits or a centre outright!!!

Moreover, for some strange reason that makes me believe you don’t even bother reading my replies - just as you don’t bother reading your own sources - you claim that I am objecting to the theory of relativity or relativistic physics per se on practical grounds (i.e. as if it could not be used succesfully for practical purposes); whereas, I explicitly admitted that modern physicists abandons attempts to affirm absolute motion or location “and for good reasons” ! From this you claim that somehow I denied the practicality of relativistic theories outright; but I did no such thing! In fact, I did just the opposite.

Before the theory of relativity men were quite capable of finding their way about using maps that had no basis in and made no reference to a theory that did not even exist yet; does it follow from their practical success then that relativity must be false? For you claim that since a modern GPS makes accurate predictions that it follows that absolute motion does not exist; but that is absurd. My GPS not only gives me absolute locations and references but even calculates my speed and produces an ETA based on it. How, then, does GPS negate necessarily absolute motion, absolute locations or -even more ridiculously- the possibility of the universe having a centre? As your own authority says, modern physicists are not sure whether or not the universe has a boundary. They can neither affirm nor deny based on the evidence that it has one; however, they cannot deny that if the universe does have limits or a boundary that it would then necessarily also have a centre.

Impracticality or improbability is not the same as impossibility, inocente.

 

[inocente]

No inocente. I actually read your articles that did nothing to validate your point. All you did was waste my time trying to create a smoke screen. Perhaps you should have read them first and bothered to wonder whether or not they could do anything to substantiate your position. You tried to contradict the implications I raised about the fact that the universe is observed to be expanding by linking to the authority you cited which, as I pointed out, failed to negate the implications of an expanding universe in regards to motion or whether or not the universe has a centre; in fact, your own authority explicitly concluded inconclusively on that very subject; but you cited it as if it denied the universe had limits or a centre outright!!!

There are no authorities in science, theories either make correct predictions or they get filed in the bin. I linked the pages as explanations of a few things in standard physics, sorry they wasted your time.

Moreover, for some strange reason that makes me believe you don’t even bother reading my replies - just as you don’t bother reading your own sources - you claim that I am objecting to the theory of relativity or relativistic physics per se on practical grounds (i.e. as if it could not be used succesfully for practical purposes); whereas, I explicitly admitted that modern physicists abandons attempts to affirm absolute motion or location “and for good reasons” ! From this you claim that somehow I denied the practicality of relativistic theories outright; but I did no such thing! In fact, I did just the opposite.

Before the theory of relativity men were quite capable of finding their way about using maps that had no basis in and made no reference to a theory that did not even exist yet; does it follow from their practical success then that relativity must be false? For you claim that since a modern GPS makes accurate predictions that it follows that absolute motion does not exist; but that is absurd. My GPS not only gives me absolute locations and references but even calculates my speed and produces an ETA based on it.

No, your GPS does not give you absolutes, it gives you locations and velocities relative to the surface of planet Earth. That surface is spinning, at the equator about 1670 kilometers per hour. At the same time the Earth is moving around the Sun at around 100,000 kilometers per hour and the Sun is orbiting the center of the Milky Way at around 800,000 kilometers per hour.

GPS does not take any of that into account as the only locations and speeds which interest you are relative to the planet’s surface.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Angular_speed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit#Distance_Covered_in_an_Orbit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year

Hopefully you can see that a stationary car in Kansas is constantly moving relative to every other planet, just as the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon is constantly moving relative to the car.

The GPS system requires very accurate clocks, and due to the relative speeds of the satellites the differences in their tick rates had to be taken into account in its design or it would not work.

astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

How, then, does GPS negate necessarily absolute motion, absolute locations or -even more ridiculously- the possibility of the universe having a centre? As your own authority says, modern physicists are not sure whether or not the universe has a boundary. They can neither affirm nor deny based on the evidence that it has one; however, they cannot deny that if the universe does have limits or a boundary that it would then necessarily also have a centre.

Impracticality or improbability is not the same as impossibility, inocente.

You’re free to try to replace Newton’s and Einstein’s theories with your own, but it will have to stack up correctly against all the evidence just as they do or it will be wrong.

The big bang theory says that space itself is expanding, which is confirmed by observation. It’s the same in all directions, there’s nowhere special, which is good evidence for the big bang and relativity.

Yes we can’t be certain that what we call the universe doesn’t exist in some much larger multiverse (or whatever) which has a center, which is in some even bigger superverse that has no center, and so on.

But that walk on the wild side doesn’t exactly help the unmoved mover argument. If you come to a boundary there must be something on the other side, you have more to discover, further to go. But when you get beyond the final boundary, you’re in some place with no boundaries and therefore it cannot have a center either. Relativity wins again.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There are no authorities in science, theories either make correct predictions or they get filed in the bin. I linked the pages as explanations of a few things in standard physics, sorry they wasted your time.

No, your GPS does not give you absolutes, it gives you locations and velocities relative to the surface of planet Earth. That surface is spinning, at the equator about 1670 kilometers per hour. At the same time the Earth is moving around the Sun at around 100,000 kilometers per hour and the Sun is orbiting the center of the Milky Way at around 800,000 kilometers per hour.

GPS does not take any of that into account as the only locations and speeds which interest you are relative to the planet’s surface.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Angular_speed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit#Distance_Covered_in_an_Orbit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year

Hopefully you can see that a stationary car in Kansas is constantly moving relative to every other planet, just as the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon is constantly moving relative to the car.

The GPS system requires very accurate clocks, and due to the relative speeds of the satellites the differences in their tick rates had to be taken into account in its design or it would not work.

astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

You’re free to try to replace Newton’s and Einstein’s theories with your own, but it will have to stack up correctly against all the evidence just as they do or it will be wrong.

The big bang theory says that space itself is expanding, which is confirmed by observation. It’s the same in all directions, there’s nowhere special, which is good evidence for the big bang and relativity.

Yes we can’t be certain that what we call the universe doesn’t exist in some much larger multiverse (or whatever) which has a center, which is in some even bigger superverse that has no center, and so on.

But that walk on the wild side doesn’t exactly help the unmoved mover argument. If you come to a boundary there must be something on the other side, you have more to discover, further to go. But when you get beyond the final boundary, you’re in some place with no boundaries and therefore it cannot have a center either. Relativity wins again.

All this has absolutely nothing to do with The First Way. Mathematical models are fine but they don’t necessarily reflect the reality of life. They are tools and should be regarded as such. Remember the story I told you about being hit between the eyes by a batted hard ball? That was reality, that is what The First Way deals with. That is why Feser said that Aristotle and Thomas were looking at reality one way and science was looking at it another way. Both are looking at the same reality. Both reveal different aspects of the same reality. Both are valid as far as they go, as long as they do not go beyond their legitimate bounds.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Now really, that was uncalled for, most unjust and displays your prejudices for all to see. With a remark like that the reader is warned that he can expect no objectivity from you. Besides, you know it is wrong. You may not like him but he is a highly respected Doctor of Philosophy, respected even by his opponents, much in demand on the lecture circuit and the author of a number of books, and numerous articles. Whatever his faults, I can assure you he knows his high school physics. Besides, he explains Newton’s " principle of inertia " in the first paragraph on pg 1 of P. S. M. L. M. And by the way, please be disabused of the idea that it is only Catholics that are interested in Medieval Logic and Metaphysics, a number of non-Catholics and even a few atheists are very interested - though you are obviously not among their number.

Argument from authority. As I said, it surprised me that an educated guy could make such basic mistakes, although if he has no interest in science and looks down on it then not so surprising. And by the way, please be disabused of the idea that the only folk who disagree with you are the disinterested, uneducated or malicious.

I continue to find your self contradictions rather odd. While demanded absolute objectivity on the part of Feser and Thomists in general, you do not recognize the same need in yourself. Use of the derogatory adjective " howler " is hardly objective.

We’re having a conversation in an online forum here, not writing for posterity. But let me have your email address and I’ll submit everything to you for approval before posting.

And you miss the whole point. It isn’t that the " principle of inertia " needs to be explained, it is that there seems to be a need to reconcile Aristotle’s " principle of motion " with Newton’s law of Inertia. This is due to the fact that skeptics have constantly argued that Newton’s law disproves Aristotle’s " principle of motion " and therefor disproves the Thomas’ First Way. And he states that in the second paragraph on pg 1. He goes on in the third paragraph to say that this view is mistaken and unfounded. And the rest of his presentation attempts to explain why. And by the way you can read more about this on his blog here edwardfeser.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-02-03T00:05:00-08:00&max-results=40&start=44&by-date=false . I think you will find it interesting.

Interesting that just after accusing me of using non-objective language, you call those who disagree with you “skeptics” as if they merely doubt rather than positively disagree.

*He insists that the two laws do not contradict each other at all, that " Indeed, when we consider the philosophical issues raised by motion, by the idea of a law of nature, and so forth, we will find that there is a sense in which the principle of inertia presupposes the principle of motion."

That is the position of modern physics, as Feser points out. He further states, pg 6, "But the point to emphasize for the moment is that, precisely because the principle of inertia treats uniform local motion as a “state,” it treats it thereby as the absence of change. Moreover, it holds that external forces are required to move a thing out of this “state” and thus to bring about a change. " Now this clearly an artifice designed to make everything nice and snug mathematically ( my opinion ). It certainly has no force in my dayly life, here and now. When I fire my 4/10 at a rabbit, I don’t give a hang about the idea of motion being a " state of rest. " At this moment I would definitely favor Aristotle’s " principle of motion. On the other hand if I am charting my way through the galaxies I would naturally pay more attention to Newton and Einstein.*

Feser makes the same mistake, which is a clear demonstration of his incomprehension of the principle.

Not so. The example in question is not dealing with mathematical models but with an actual event. I got hit between the eyes with a batted hard ball once and I can guarantee you that that baseball was not in a state of rest. So your objection is invalid.

This is an even clearer demonstration of incomprehension of the principle. It’s hard to imagine a clearer demonstration.

Wrong again, the real world is both ways. One thing the world is not and that is that it is not a mathematical model. And that is what some physicists forget.

So your opinion is there are physicists who look at their baby girl and see equations? Say no more.

 

[inocente]

All this has absolutely nothing to do with The First Way. Mathematical models are fine but they don’t necessarily reflect the reality of life. They are tools and should be regarded as such. Remember the story I told you about being hit between the eyes by a batted hard ball? That was reality, that is what The First Way deals with. That is why Feser said that Aristotle and Thomas were looking at reality one way and science was looking at it another way. Both are looking at the same reality. Both reveal different aspects of the same reality. Both are valid as far as they go, as long as they do not go beyond their legitimate bounds.

The reality, if you read that post, it that at the time of the incident with the ball you were moving relative to the Sun at around 100,000 kilometers per hour, the ball at a slightly different velocity, but sufficient for you to notice.

In all your life you have never once been stationary relative to the Sun, nor was Aristotle or Thomas. All three of you were also orbiting the center of the galaxy at around 800,000 kilometers per hour. You, Aristotle, Thomas and everything else is in a state of motion relative to something else, there is no absolute state of rest.

And that means that the medieval principle of motion on which the argument depends is at odds with all physics since Newton, which is why Feser wrote his paper in which he first tries to argue there’s no contradiction but fails, ending by hoping that inertia is a myth. He makes the desperate argument that when physicists, engineers, navigators and gunners talk of relativity and inertia, they somehow mean nothing moves and nothing changes, as if they think a ball cannot smack you between the eyes, the aircraft they are flying sits still in mid-air, or the shell they are firing won’t leave the barrel.

Thomas observed that truth cannot contradict truth, and the truth is that physicists, engineers, navigators, gunners and more can testify that relativity and inertia relate truthfully to the real world.

The world is what it is, and no amount of wishing and hoping, no amount of trying to shore up defensive “legitimate bounds” can make the world anything other than what it is.

That’s the way God made it, that’s the way God meant it to be.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Argument from authority. As I said, it surprised me that an educated guy could make such basic mistakes, although if he has no interest in science and looks down on it then not so surprising. And by the way, please be disabused of the idea that the only folk who disagree with you are the disinterested, uneducated or malicious.

We’re having a conversation in an online forum here, not writing for posterity. But let me have your email address and I’ll submit everything to you for approval before posting.

Interesting that just after accusing me of using non-objective language, you call those who disagree with you “skeptics” as if they merely doubt rather than positively disagree.

Feser makes the same mistake, which is a clear demonstration of his incomprehension of the principle.

This is an even clearer demonstration of incomprehension of the principle. It’s hard to imagine a clearer demonstration.

So your opinion is there are physicists who look at their baby girl and see equations? Say no more.

Your remarks miss the point entirely. Mere diversions.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The reality, if you read that post, it that at the time of the incident with the ball you were moving relative to the Sun at around 100,000 kilometers per hour, the ball at a slightly different velocity, but sufficient for you to notice.

In all your life you have never once been stationary relative to the Sun, nor was Aristotle or Thomas. All three of you were also orbiting the center of the galaxy at around 800,000 kilometers per hour. You, Aristotle, Thomas and everything else is in a state of motion relative to something else, there is no absolute state of rest.

And that means that the medieval principle of motion on which the argument depends is at odds with all physics since Newton, which is why Feser wrote his paper in which he first tries to argue there’s no contradiction but fails, ending by hoping that inertia is a myth. He makes the desperate argument that when physicists, engineers, navigators and gunners talk of relativity and inertia, they somehow mean nothing moves and nothing changes, as if they think a ball cannot smack you between the eyes, the aircraft they are flying sits still in mid-air, or the shell they are firing won’t leave the barrel.

Thomas observed that truth cannot contradict truth, and the truth is that physicists, engineers, navigators, gunners and more can testify that relativity and inertia relate truthfully to the real world.

The world is what it is, and no amount of wishing and hoping, no amount of trying to shore up defensive “legitimate bounds” can make the world anything other than what it is.

That’s the way God made it, that’s the way God meant it to be.

Again you miss the point. Oh, well.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Again you miss the point. Oh, well.

Par for the course. Yet Thomas did make mistakes in physics. For instance with light:

Now no local movement of a body can be instantaneous, as everything that moves from one place to another must pass through the intervening space before reaching the end: whereas the diffusion of light is instantaneous. Nor can it be argued that the time required is too short to be perceived; for though this may be the case in short distances, it cannot be so in distances so great as that which separates the East from the West. Yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end to end. - Art 2, newadvent.org/summa/1067.htm

Thomas was human, all humans make mistakes. Though I think he would be open to Newton and the last 300 years of learning rather than dismiss them to protect his arguments. Oh, well.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Par for the course. Yet Thomas did make mistakes in physics. For instance with light:

Now no local movement of a body can be instantaneous, as everything that moves from one place to another must pass through the intervening space before reaching the end: whereas the diffusion of light is instantaneous. Nor can it be argued that the time required is too short to be perceived; for though this may be the case in short distances, it cannot be so in distances so great as that which separates the East from the West. Yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end to end. - Art 2, newadvent.org/summa/1067.htm

Thomas was human, all humans make mistakes. Though I think he would be open to Newton and the last 300 years of learning rather than dismiss them to protect his arguments. Oh, well.

I agree with this largely. Though I am not sure to what extent Thomas would have found major difficulties in Newtonian physics - only a thoroughly trained and competent Thomist would be qualified to guess. Certainly Saint Thomas appears to have believed, following Aristotle, that a moving force really was always necessary (and on Earth that is normally true because of air resistance, friction and gravity). I think the Angelic Doctor may have had questions like how motion can be conceived of as inert. I mean, for example, if something in motion remains in motion inertially, then what is being lost or changed when another force or object alters that motion or even cancels it? For while we might grant that a body will remain in motion unless something else interferes with it, it is still not clear just what the relationship is between the actuality of local motion and the body that possesses it; for clearly it is something that can be lost or at least greatly reduced, and thus cannot be conceived as absolutely proper to a body. So even in Newtonian physics, motion still appears to be something positively added to a body; but from what I understand this is not how the principle of inertia is to be understood, since motion is considered as a kind of state.

Still, I think Aristotle and the Scholastics get too much flack for their understanding of the nature of motion on this point. Many of their comments and answers to questions on this subject were quite right physically for terrestrial purposes: they noted carefully and rightly the importance of air, for instance. Had people carefully considered their opinions and observations on this topic (e.g. of projectiles) we may have had achieved flight much sooner. They understood correctly the important role air resistance played in flight. They also seemed to come close to developing a principle that every action has an equal an opposite reaction. Their opinion that flying things were somehow being pushed upward by the air was very close to this in my opinion.