The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

[AlNg]

That’s not what I asked for. I asked for: “What is the principle?

The equation or “regularity” of motion follows from minimizing the action S where S is the integral over time of the Lagrangian or T - V.
T the kinetic energy
P the potential energy.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

That’s not what I asked for. I asked for: “What is the principle?

The equation or “regularity” of motion follows from minimizing the action S where S is the integral over time of T - V.
T the kinetic energy
P the potential energy.

Again, not what I asked for. Why are you snipping the rest of the post after that sentence?

 

[AlNg]

Again, not what I asked for.

That is the principle of least action. Perhaps you are asking about why it works independently of final causality? There are various ways to show this. I have already explained briefly why it works.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Again, not what I asked for.

That is the principle of least action. Perhaps you are asking about why it works? There are various ways to show this. I have already said briefly why it works.

You are proposing that the Principle of Least Action is a thing that can affect other things. What kind of thing is it? How does it affect things to make them obey it?

You are proposing that the PoLA is a Law of Nature, but what kind of thing is a law of nature anyway?

In post #213 I asked jan the following:

---

That’s a particular example, but what exactly is a law? Let me provide a few proposals to show what I mean. A law is…

• When God causes an effect to happen on specific occasions.
• a tendency intrinsic to the natures of things.
• A thing in itself that acts on other things to make them act certain ways
• Nothing more than descriptions we make of observed regularities.

 

[AlNg]

You are proposing that the Principle of Least Action is a thing that can affect other things. What kind of thing is it? How does it affect things to make them obey it?

The principle of least action is that the path that the planet (or particle) takes is always the one which minimizes the time integral of the Lagrangian.

What kind of thing is it?

It is a principle governing the motion of the particle. That is where the regularity comes from.

How does it affect things to make them obey it?

From the definition of what a Newtonian force is. From the fact that a Newtonian force is given by F = ma and from the fact that work is force times distance, you can derive the principle of least action.
In some sense it can be seen as a generalization of Fermat’s principle according to which light travels between two given points along the path of shortest time.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

You are proposing that the Principle of Least Action is a thing that can affect other things. What kind of thing is it? How does it affect things to make them obey it?

The principle of least action is that the path that the planet (or particle) takes is always the one which minimizes the time integral of the Lagrangian.

What kind of thing is it?

It is a principle governing the motion of the particle. That is where the regularity comes from.

How does it affect things to make them obey it?

From the definition of what a Newtonian force is. From the fact that a Newtonian force is given by F = ma and from the fact that work is force times distance, you can derive the principle of least action.
In some sense it can be seen as a generalization of Fermat’s principle according to which light travels between two given points along the path of shortest time.

You’re still not answering my question. But what exactly is a law of nature? What is a principle governing the motion of particles? Let me provide a few proposals to show what I mean. A law is…

• When God causes an effect to happen on specific occasions.
• a tendency intrinsic to the natures of things.
• A thing in itself that acts on other things to make them act certain ways
• Nothing more than descriptions we make of observed regularities.

I’m going to bed for tonight.

 

[AlNg]

But what exactly is a law of nature?

It can be thought of as a description of a regularly occurring phenomenon.

However, there are other ideas on it, such as the one given by Hobbes, which perhaps is not relevant to the discussion on this thread.

Why do these phenomena occur regularly. Here i am speaking about the planetary orbits or motion of particles. These objects move according to a particular path, because of the principle of least action; ie, the path taken is always the minimum of the action S, the time integral of the Lagrangian.

 

[Freddy]

A law is…

• When God causes an effect to happen on specific occasions.
• a tendency intrinsic to the natures of things.
• A thing in itself that acts on other things to make them act certain ways
• Nothing more than descriptions we make of observed regularities.

It’s a combination of the second and fourth.

Regarding the second for example, protons have certain inherrent properties. For example being a particle having a positive charge of 1 and an atomic mass of 1. Which is actually the wrong way around in describing it because that implies that protons must have those properties. Which then implies if not a design or a necessity but perhaps a requirement. Which isn’t the case. It isn’t the case that protons must have these properties. It’s just that we call all particles that have a positive charge of 1 and a mass of 1 ‘protons’.

This might seem a minor point but it’s critical. Because the question is always along the lines of: ‘Why is it that a proton has an electrical charge of 1?’ as if there’s something deeper here to be discovered. But it’s no different to asking ‘Why is it that all bachelors are not married?’.

Let’s say that in the first moments of the big bang there was an exotic combination of quarks that produced a single particle with weird properties that went almost immediately out of existence and had no interaction with any other material. If we knew it had existed and knew its properties we might give it a name: Wesrockium. Would it make any sense whatsoever to ask why Wesrockium must have the properties it did? Obviously not. There was a particle that had some random properties and we happened to give it a name. The properties weren’t required by Wesrockium. The properties weren’t a necessary condition for it to exist. We just associated the two.

The same is true of protons. If there had just been the one and we said ‘Hey, mark it down as a ‘proton’ and note that it had x properties’ then nobody woild be looking for a deeper meaning as to ‘why’ it had those properties. It just did. So there turned out to be more than one. And the properties they had meant that they didn’t go out of existence. But is there any deeper meaning? Well, there wasn’t in regard to Wesrockium so why for protons?

And if we have protons and then we have electrons then we have everything we need without some underlying intelligence to guide it all.

And the fourth item is just the way we describe regularities in nature. They don’t control anything in the way that the offside law in soccer requires a certain action. It simply describes it.

 

[lelinator]

lelinator:

I think that we can agree that Aquinas’ Fifth Way is the culmination of a set of arguments meant to prove the existence and characteristics of a first cause. Specifically the Fifth Way is meant to prove that the first cause must be intelligent. But to do this it simply makes the assertion that absent an intelligent cause it’s impossible for any system, no matter its characteristics, to produce order.

No, you’re drifting into Paley’s argument about complexity and complex systems again. The Fifth Way is that any cause lacking intelligence can produce an effect or end at all (without which you couldn’t have any notion of a system to begin with).

I do believe that I understand the difference between Paley’s argument and Aquinas’ Fifth Way quite clearly. In fact, in some ways it’s the difference between the two that demonstrates the frivolity of them both.

Paley looks at the unpredictability of things, and claims that its proof of God. Sand doesn’t regularly transform into a watch, nor trees into a house, without the actions of an intelligent cause. For Paley it’s precisely the things that don’t possess regularity that demonstrates the existence of an intelligent cause. Supposedly, some things are just too complex to occur naturally, and reality is one of those things.

On the other hand Aquinas’ Fifth Way makes the exact opposite claim, that it’s the things that do demonstrate regularity that argue for an intelligent cause. Seeds regularly give rise to plants, and the sun regularly rises in the east, and it’s this regularity that demonstrates the existence of an intelligent cause. In other words, things just naturally happen, and that’s proof of an intelligent cause.

So it seems that anything other than complete chaos is sufficient to prove to a believer that an intelligent cause exists. Why is there something rather than nothing…God. Why is there order rather than disorder…God. Which makes Aquinas’ Fifth Way just another “God of the Gaps” argument.

It’s possible that there is no God, and things are orderly and regular simply because things are orderly and regular. It’s reasonable to stop at “I don’t know” without the need to appeal to the existence of an intelligent cause. But some people find it impossible to do that…and I find it curious as to why.

 

[o_mlly]

For Paley it’s precisely the things that don’t possess regularity that demonstrates the existence of an intelligent cause. Supposedly, some things are just too complex to occur naturally, and reality is one of those things.

On the other hand Aquinas’ Fifth Way makes the exact opposite claim, that it’s the things that do demonstrate regularity that argue for an intelligent cause. Seeds regularly give rise to plants, and the sun regularly rises in the east, and it’s this regularity that demonstrates the existence of an intelligent cause. In other words, things just naturally happen, and that’s proof of an intelligent cause.

Paley, I believe, argues not that natural things lack regularity but that the artifices of man do not occur without man. Man takes the regularly occurring things in nature and assembles into “unnatural” machines.

 

[lelinator]

Paley, I believe, argues not that natural things lack regularity but that the artifices of man do not occur without man. Man takes the regularly occurring things in nature and assembles into “unnatural” machines.

I agree, it’s not that Paley argues against regularity being evidence for God, but that he argues that irregularities are also evidence for God. So no matter what happens, the theist will always argue that it’s evidence for God.

I used to know someone who would inevitably point to current events as evidence for the Second Coming. If war broke out, or terrorism occurred somewhere in the world, he would proclaim that it was a sign of the second coming. But conversely if violence subsided or a peace accord was signed, he’d claim that it too was a sign of the second coming. So no matter what happened, he would always point to it as evidence for the immediacy of the second coming.

That’s one of the problems in arguments for God, it doesn’t matter what happens, the theist will always find a way to frame it as an argument for God’s existence. Good or evil, war or peace, regularity or irregularity, in the eyes of a believer, they’re all irrefutable evidence for the existence of God.

People see what they’re predisposed to see, and it seems that there’s little that can be done to change that…why? And what does that mean for free will?

 

[Wesrock]

I wanted to acknowledge that I’ve seen all your responses and state that it’s not my intent to just let this die. Since returning from vacation a week ago I have just not found time for any lengthy and thoughtful posts. I still intend to respond when time is available.

 

[EndTimes]

no offense intended. .

this is one of the most undesirable for me threads on this forum…

reason?

I’m seeing it as a potential eternal king of ‘talking the talk’ … period.