The First Way Explained

[Linusthe2nd]

These phenomena are not conjecture, they are proven to great accuracy.

Which ones are you talking about, please be precise. Cite the proofs.​

The First Way relies on the idea that the natural starting condition is nothing changing, therefore change must be invoked. This was reasonable when, for instance, the Earth was thought to be at rest in the center of the universe, providing an absolute reference point for motion from place to place.

It was meaningful to talk of something being at absolute rest or moving.

Wrong. The first way begins, " It is obvious some things in the world are moving. Now whatever is moved is be moved by some other…" And as I said before, many times, the proof does not depend on local motion. Substantial change, changes of quantity and quality are equally valid notions of movement, and the First Way could apply to them as well.

It is no more advantageous to start from an absolute reference point than from the fact of motion and change.

But Newtonian relativity says there are no absolute reference points in space

Sorry, you are going to have to prove that. You may reference The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy at archive.org. Find the correct paragraph and cite the Book, chap. and page. Otherwise, we will have to reject this statement.

, then we found out that space and time themselves are also relative.

Only to an observer. In one’s own frame of reference, his personal reality. These are not relative.

That means that actuality and potentiality are perforce relative,

That doesn’t follow at all. So, which side are you on, that of Parmenides or Heraclutus? That is the conundrum Aristotle solved.

and if it is meaningless to talk of anything being at absolute rest then the First Way fails.

It certainly isn’t meaningless to the people living in the real world.

Methinks you have a growing list of things to explain away, for instance even the order of events is relative:

And methinks you haven’t got a leg to stand on. So you don’t think there is an order to events? Well, well, well.

Say there is a great little book you can read in Pdf online. A classic of sorts, it has been aroung since 1958. You can read it in an hour or two, Relativity for the Layman
by James A. Coleman, very respectible physicist. Definitely not a philosopher.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif
Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

I think we need to get practical here. That does not mean reality is relative. You have to specify the conditions. Everthing is real and objective in one’s own frame of reference. And, even for other conditions it is true only under highly special conditions and at the extreme ends of reality. GPS is the only paractical ordinary application. But it doen’t really matter, we still have causality, act and potency, and all that jazz in each frame of reference .

You could have linked the web sites rather than copying verbatim from them, then we could have seen “Fr. Wallace and his 90th birthday cake” and so on. Still not sure how any of that tackled my original point, that according to the book’s blurb it’s about which philosophy of science he likes the best.

Look under the rug. home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02000.htm

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Twas phrases like “enthusiasts have chosen”.

Bother! Do you spread egg shells all around you at home so people will be super scrupulous about tip toeing around you?

It’s hard to believe you said that. Did you even bother to look it up?

So you really think that is reality? That is the pictoral representation of a mathematical formula. Space does not bend, neither does time, these are metephors describing the relationship between different inertial frames. Yes, the pied pipers of science are giving real science a bad name, it makes them all sound like fools. We have several of them on this forum at this very moment. There, I said it again.

Try seeing how many papers are cited on google scholar when you (name removed by moderator)ut words such as space-time, gravity, curve, geometry.

You just don’t get it. Math is not reality. When you do math, you always leave part of reality behind.

Try GB-P at Stanford University.

Apparently you are an acolyte. Here’s a good idea, a book just for you…

Bankrupting Physics

Review

… theoretical physicist Alexander Unzicker and science writer Sheilla Jones offer a polemic. They question whether the large-scale, multinational enterprises actually lead us to the promised land of understanding the universe. The two scientists take us on a tour of contemporary physics and show how a series of highly publicized theories met a dead end. Unzicker and Jones systematically unpack the recent hot theories such as “parallel universes,” “string theory,” and “inflationary cosmology,” and provide an accessible explanation of each. They argue that physics has abandoned its evidence-based roots and shifted to untestable mathematical theories, and they issue a clarion call for the science to return to its experimental foundation"–

“The recently celebrated discovery of the Higgs boson has captivated the public’s imagination with the promise that it can explain the origins of everything in the universe. It’s no wonder that the media refers to it grandly as the “God particle.” Yet behind closed doors, physicists are admitting that there is much more to this story, and even years of gunning the Large Hadron Collider and herculean number crunching may still not lead to a deep understanding of the laws of nature. In this fascinating and eye-opening account, theoretical physicist Alexander Unzicker and science writer Sheilla Jones offer a polemic. They question whether the large-scale, multinational enterprises actually lead us to the promised land of understanding the universe. The two scientists take us on a tour of contemporary physics and show how a series of highly publicized theories met a dead end. Unzicker and Jones systematically unpack the recent hot theories such as “parallel universes,” “string theory,” and “inflationary cosmology,” and provide an accessible explanation of each. They argue that physics has abandoned its evidence-based roots and shifted to untestable mathematical theories, and they issue a clarion call for the science to return to its experimental foundation”–

.Local Note: 1
bt/pjs
.Additional Contributors: Jones, Sheilla
.ISBN: 1137278234
9781137278234
.Time Period: 20th-21st century .Statement of Responsibility: Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones .Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (pages 261-268) and index. .Other Language: Translated from the German. .Subject Headings: SCIENCE / Relativity. bisacsh
SCIENCE / Physics. bisacsh
Physics Mathematical models.
Physics Experiments.
Physics Philosophy.
.LCCN: 2013004524 .« Less More » MARC Display» .
Alexander Unzicker is a German theoretical physicist and neuroscientist whose work has been covered in Physics World . He lives in Germany. Sheilla Jones is the author of The Quantum Ten and an award-winning Canadian journalist and a science contributor to CBC. She reviews science books for The Globe and Mail …

…there’s a rising chorus grumbling that the discipline has lost its way. The authors of this witty and earnest “book of doubts” join that choir, explaining how modern physics became “lost at sea” and what it can do to recover. The Standard Model of physics-a roster of particles and forces and their interactions-depends on 17 constants (numbers unexplained by the theory); galaxies spin faster than they should, thanks to “dark matter”-but after chasing it for 80 years, we still don’t know what it is; and some theorists say there is a “dark energy” pushing the universe apart, which is created by a field called the “quintessence,” a concept straight out of speculative medieval science. And then there’s the niggling worry that values like G, the gravitational constant, might not be so constant, or that our perception of time isn’t correct. From “Higgsmania” and string theory to cosmological mysteries, neuroscientist Unzicker and Jones (The Quantum Ten) lobby for math that’s more down-to-earth and a reorientation of attention toward phenomena that can actually be measured. Their assertion that “science means, after all, not being a sucker” is well worth taking to heart. Agent: Ethan Ellenberg, Ethan Ellenberg Literary Agency. (July) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
.
…

I appreciate that physics might be a shock to your system, just as Galileo was a shock to some people in the past, but serious question: do you think you’re helping or hurting the First Way with these knee-jerk reactions to things you admit are new to you?

As long as I defend the truth I really don’t care what people’s reactions are. Seems to me that your own reactions are somewhat off key though.

Couldn’t understand that, but geometry is math, always has been.

Well, there is a little wanting in us all.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Let’s dismiss all the teachers and university professors, let’s burn all the books.

I don’t understand how it could possibly have escaped your notice that he was demonstrating the teaching aid to other teachers so they could use it in their schools - it wasn’t a lesson.

No point, this thread isn’t the world according to Thomas, it’s just a world according to you.

Just the typical rant .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I located a copy of From a Realist Point of View, 1979 edition, by William A. Wallace… Took me two weeks to find it. I guess a vendor was watching Amazon and located a copy. Got it for $45 using new sign up special for Amazon credit card. It has been shipped. New vendor in Missouri had a coy, will get it in a couple of days. This is one of the books I was going to Linda Hall Library a couple times a week to read. I have already received Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by James A. Weisheipl.

Highly recommend getting both editions of From a Realist Point of View and Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages for anyone wanting an in depth understanding of Thomas’ " Whatever is moved is moved by another, " and the effects of modern science on Thomistic Philosophy. These books are by Thomistic scholars of the highest order. These men explain how modern science and the philosophy do not contradict eachother and how Thomism can comfortably accomodate modern science and offers no impediments to scientific endeavors, as has been mantra shouted by those with an ax to grind with philosophy for the past three hundred years or so.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Which ones are you talking about, please be precise.

GR, and SR, along with work such as this “General relativity also predicts that a close binary system such as this one will radiate gravitational energy in the form of ripples in space-time called gravitational waves. …] Our radio observations were so precise that we have already been able to measure a change in the orbital period of 8 millionths of a second per year — exactly what Einstein’s theory predicts,” said Paulo Freire, another team member at the Max Planck Institute. - space.com/20826-einstein-gravity-theory-toughest-test.html

*Wrong. The first way begins, " It is obvious some things in the world are moving. Now whatever is moved is be moved by some other…" And as I said before, many times, the proof does not depend on local motion. Substantial change, changes of quantity and quality are equally valid notions of movement, and the First Way could apply to them as well.

It is no more advantageous to start from an absolute reference point than from the fact of motion and change. *

Wrong. You are cherry picking. The First Way continues “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover”.

So, as I said “The First Way relies on the idea that the natural starting condition is nothing changing, therefore change must be invoked”.

Sorry, you are going to have to prove that. You may reference The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy at archive.org. Find the correct paragraph and cite the Book, chap. and page. Otherwise, we will have to reject this statement.

What’s with the royal we, your highness?

You only have to get as far as reading Newton’s scholium in his definitions. And please read him carefully to avoid any pesky knee-jerks (see plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-principia/#DefAbsSpaTimMot).

See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

Only to an observer. In one’s own frame of reference, his personal reality. These are not relative.

Que? Your understanding is, how shall I put this, relative . See feynmanlectures.info/docroot/I_15.html

*That doesn’t follow at all. So, which side are you on, that of Parmenides or Heraclutus? That is the conundrum Aristotle solved. *

No absolutes means no absolutes, and authorities who got that wrong are authorities on getting that wrong.

It certainly isn’t meaningless to the people living in the real world.

Sounds a bit as if your “real world” is a world in denial, occupied by one person, you.

And methinks you haven’t got a leg to stand on. So you don’t think there is an order to events? Well, well, well.

Appears you didn’t read the article I linked, Einstein himself talks about it, see vicphysics.org/documents/teachers/unit3/EinsteinsTrainGedanken.pdf

Say there is a great little book you can read in Pdf online. A classic of sorts, it has been aroung since 1958. You can read it in an hour or two, Relativity for the Layman
by James A. Coleman, very respectible physicist. Definitely not a philosopher.

It would be great if you read and understood it .

*I think we need to get practical here. That does not mean reality is relative. You have to specify the conditions. Everthing is real and objective in one’s own frame of reference. And, even for other conditions it is true only under highly special conditions and at the extreme ends of reality. GPS is the only paractical ordinary application. But it doen’t really matter, we still have causality, act and potency, and all that jazz in each frame of reference . *

I think this indicates huge issues with your understanding and I don’t know how to overcome them in the setting of a forum. Anyway I’m not the right person to attempt the job so sorry but I’m going to give up here (you’ll be relieved to hear). I’ve said everything that needed to be said anyway, so I’ll leave you with a grin and a warning. It’s been a blast.


talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“General relativity also predicts that a close binary system such as this one will radiate gravitational energy in the form of ripples in space-time called gravitational waves. …] Our radio observations were so precise that we have already been able to measure a change in the orbital period of 8 millionths of a second per year — exactly what Einstein’s theory predicts,” said Paulo Freire… -

So these " gravity waves " are actual ontological realities as opposed to dots on a graph. Well I wonder about that. I don’t doubt the difference in time. I already told you that and it has no adverse impact on the First Way. It fits right in with Thomism. It shows there is a cause - gravity.

Wrong. You are cherry picking. The First Way continues “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover”.

Of course I was only giving the beginning, had forgotten how overly critical you can be. So who is " cherry picking? " And you yourself are wrong. It actually reads :

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. … Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands " So how much of it should I have given?

So, as I said “The First Way relies on the idea that the natural starting condition is nothing changing, therefore change must be invoked”.

You didn’t explain yourself very well. I assumed you were talking about the things that are being moved, rather than the Unmoved Mover who exists outside the series.

You only have to get as far as reading Newton’s scholium in his definitions. And please read him carefully to avoid any pesky knee-jerks…

I will check with Newton, thanks. But you went on to say, " … then we found out that space and time themselves are also relative. That means that actuality and potentiality are perforce relative, …, and if it is meaningless to talk of anything being at absolute rest then the First Way fails. "

You have not proven your point. Thomas was not concerned with how things looked to an observer in a different reference frame. He was concerned with his own reference frame, I am concerned with mine. And by the way, the same truths hold for your reference frame too, because it is yours, you are not traveling at warp speed throughout the universe waving at space ships going the other way - and you never will be. And Newton had his feet right on the ground, he did not deny reality as you seem to be doing.

As long as things are moving in any fram of reference, we arrive at the Unmoved Mover.

The First Way fails only in your mind. From the very beginning I never thought you would be convinced other wise.

See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

Que? Your understanding is, how shall I put this, relative . See feynmanlectures.info/docroot/I_15.html

So are you saying that the great Feynman says I can’t have my own frame of reference? Nonesense, I’m not traveling through space. I’m talking to you and I don’t think your are in space either. My, my, your barbs are getting sharper and sharper.

No absolutes means no absolutes, and authorities who got that wrong are authorities on getting that wrong.

And to whom are you referring? Everyone except Feynman of cours.

Sounds a bit as if your “real world” is a world in denial, occupied by one person, you.

Ouch, another zinger. I can see you have been practicing. Pays to keep in shape.

Appears you didn’t read the article I linked, Einstein himself talks about it, see vicphysics.org/documents/teachers/unit3/EinsteinsTrainGedanken.pdf

Perhaps not. Nor have you read the Lecture Course by Fr. Wallace. But I can assure you Einstein lived in the real world. Nothing in his Theories, if they are real, prove St. Thomas wrong. And that is what is getting you, you just cant stand that.

It would be great if you read and understood it .

You might read it, you would learn a few things yourself.

I think this indicates huge issues with your understanding and I don’t know how to overcome them in the setting of a forum. Anyway I’m not the right person to attempt the job so sorry but I’m going to give up here (you’ll be relieved to hear). I’ve said everything that needed to be said anyway, so I’ll leave you with a grin and a warning. It’s been a blast.

Excellent effort. Even a closing barb. Worthy of an adoring devotee. But no cigars.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A comment was made by a participant that: "But Newtonian relativity says there are no absolute reference points in space, then we found out that space and time themselves are also relative. That means that actuality and potentiality are perforce relative, if they exist at all, and if it is meaningless to talk of anything being at absolute rest then the First Way fails. " To which I responded, you will have to prove that by showing me a reference in the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy…

This was done but not using the Principia. However, I grant the point, having read the referenced " Scholium ( Explanation ) " in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, pgs 76-82. The point is not expressed in those exact terms but is understood from the context.

It should be noted however that Newton did not deny the truth of the validity of common notions of space, time, motion. But to solve certain problems it is better to consider these concepts in a mathematical form in which we can achieve absolutely certain answers.

However, to conclude from this that one cannot speak of anything being at absolute rest is unwarranted. And from this to conclude that the Firsrt Way fails, presumabably because the poster assumes, incorrectly, that the First Way depends on something being at absolute rest. Firstly, Newton does not claim that there is nothing as absolute rest - at least that I could find. But that is not important.

We do know that in actuality, everything is in motion, in some respect. That can hardly be denied. However, neither can it be denied that there is always something in each substance which remains the same. Otherwise we would never be able to discern one substance from another, one thing from another. Aristotle resolved this dilemma by discerning that substances were formed of the two principles of matter and form.

This made, both, aspects of stability and change understandable.

What is important is to understand Thomas’ argument. It speaks of a substance changing from one state to another, first it only had the new state potentially. But once change began, it began to take on aspects of the new state. Finally the new state was achieved. Thus illustrating the Aristotelian/Thomistic notion of a substance changing by moving from a potential state to an new state, a new actual state, possibley a new actuality altogether. There cannot be an infinite series of such motion/change, otherwise one would never have a first mover. And if no first mover there would be no final actuality either.

However, the First Mover, must of necessity posses no potentiality itself, it has to be pure Actuality. And since no such entity exists in our world, the First Mover is not a part of the changing series, but exists outside the series. And since the First Mover is Pure Act, because having no potentiality, it can be referred to as the Unmoved Mover.

Now it makes no difference if frames of reference are relative to each other. In each frame of reference, motion/change is not relative to those existing in that frame of reference.

The poster, errored, in thinking that the first mover had to be an actual part of the series.

The poster was correct in saying that there is no possible point of reference in the universe between two or more " moving " bodies. There is no privileged point where one can observe which body is moving. But even here we are speaking of very special conditions. We can indeed determine what is moving in our own solar system.

But God is an objective observer and he did not create a meaningless universe. And because it is complex to us, we should not feel there are no real answers to issues in relativity. He knows the real whever it is, we are the ones who are confused.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

Wrong. You are cherry picking. The First Way continues “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover”.

inocente, I think we’ve previously discussed this in far too much detail for you to construe what you’re quoting here as referring to strictly local motion (unless this quote was not meant to respond to Linus’s point where you quoted him on that matter, in which case it hasn’t been responded to). You have not even responded to Linus’s point: even if the first way completely and utterly failed to explain local motion, it would have other starting points (substantial, qualitative, and quantitative change).

So, as I said “The First Way relies on the idea that the natural starting condition is nothing changing, therefore change must be invoked”.

Not sure how you get this from what you quoted. Aquinas says “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.” That does not require that there is a static starting condition; everything could be changing (besides God, as the demonstration goes on to claim).

 

[inocente]

So these " gravity waves " are actual ontological realities as opposed to dots on a graph. Well I wonder about that. I don’t doubt the difference in time. I already told you that and it has no adverse impact on the First Way. It fits right in with Thomism. It shows there is a cause - gravity.

Yikes! Theory matches observations to unasked for levels of accuracy and you “wonder about that”.

God, sit up and take notice, Linus doesn’t like Your universe, it doesn’t come up to his expectations.

 

[inocente]

inocente, I think we’ve previously discussed this in far too much detail for you to construe what you’re quoting here as referring to strictly local motion (unless this quote was not meant to respond to Linus’s point where you quoted him on that matter, in which case it hasn’t been responded to). You have not even responded to Linus’s point: even if the first way completely and utterly failed to explain local motion, it would have other starting points (substantial, qualitative, and quantitative change).

polytropos, I think we’ve previously discussed this in far too much detail for you to construe that I would imagine the First Way refers to strictly local motion.

Not sure how you get this from what you quoted. Aquinas says “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.” That does not require that there is a static starting condition; everything could be changing (besides God, as the demonstration goes on to claim).

:coffeeread:

OK, one last time:

1. “whatever is in motion (B) must be put in motion by another (A)” states that before B was put in motion by A, B wasn’t in motion (since otherwise it wouldn’t need to be put into motion).
2. What is meant by saying B wasn’t in motion? It means B was not in motion relative to some fixed point, that B didn’t change relative to that fixed point until put in motion by A.
3. But that means we can only claim B wasn’t in motion if we can identify a physically fixed point from which to measure its lack of motion.

(remembering of course what we’ve previously discussed in far too much detail)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yikes! Theory matches observations to unasked for levels of accuracy and you “wonder about that”.

God, sit up and take notice, Linus doesn’t like Your universe, it doesn’t come up to his expectations.

Sorry, but that went right by me. What I have said all along, is that reality exists and for all changes in state ( local motion or other types of change ) there is a cause. And it doesn’t matter what frame of reference one is in respect to another. Though our perspectives may be different, reality is solid and has causes, therefore the philosophical explanations are operative in each frame and just as real. Now science claims many things about which even scientists disagree. That does not justify witholding judgment about the objectivity of reality until the last cow comes home. Whatever the future scientific facts may be, whatever they are now, reality is still and will still be objective and Thomism is still valid and will always be valid. And this does no disservice to science, nor does it demean it in any way.

I see your point about the beginning of motion to be a state of non-movement or immobility. Granted. What you are leaving out is the state of potentiality of the beginning state. See my post # 22 where I said : " What is important is to understand Thomas’ argument. It speaks of a substance changing from one state to another, first it only had the new state potentially. But once change began, it began to take on aspects of the new state. Finally the new state was achieved. Thus illustrating the Aristotelian/Thomistic notion of a substance changing by moving from a potential state to an new state, a new actual state, possibley a new actuality altogether. There cannot be an infinite series of such motion/change, otherwise one would never have a first mover. And if no first mover there would be no final actuality either. " And of course this cannot go on ad infinitum, otherwise there would be no first motion and no subsequent motion. Therefore, there must be a First absolutely Unmoved Mover, which, perforce, exists outside the universe of beings composed of elements which make them able to change/move, that is having a principle of potentiality in their essence, a matter susceptible of change.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

polytropos, I think we’ve previously discussed this in far too much detail for you to construe that I would imagine the First Way refers to strictly local motion.

Note: “(unless this quote was not meant to respond to Linus’s point where you quoted him on that matter, in which case it hasn’t been responded to).” I was not construing your argument in that way; I was just noting that he made the point where you quoted him, and you either did not respond to it, or were disputing it. I could not tell which (it now seems to be the former), hence the caveat.

1. “whatever is in motion (B) must be put in motion by another (A)” states that before B was put in motion by A, B wasn’t in motion (since otherwise it wouldn’t need to be put into motion).

The Latin is: “Omne autem quod movetur, ab alio movetur.” “Now everything which is moved, is moved by another.” So your interpretation here is a bit off. As you know, Aquinas is referring to simultaneous motion (ie. the change in the thing moved is simultaneous to its being acted upon), since that is what is meant by “motion” is his broader metaphysics. This does not seem to show that anything which is now moved must have at one point been “still” (a poor word choice, since it implies local motion when it need not be). All that is required is that it is moved by something else.

But even if it did mean what you’re saying…

1. What is meant by saying B wasn’t in motion? It means B was not in motion relative to some fixed point, that B didn’t change relative to that fixed point until put in motion by A.
2. But that means we can only claim B wasn’t in motion if we can identify a physically fixed point from which to measure its lack of motion.

(remembering of course what we’ve previously discussed in far too much detail)

It is rather ironic that you’re chiding me for reminding you that motion need not be local motion, because your argument here totally relies on construing it as local motion. If we can’t identify an absolute reference frame, that’s fine. With respect to substantial (or qualitative, or quantitative) change, there is such a “fixed point” for B prior to its being moved by A, ie. the point where B’s substance wasn’t changing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

GR, and SR, along with work such as this “General relativity also predicts that a close binary system such as this one will radiate gravitational energy in the form of ripples in space-time called gravitational waves. …] Our radio observations were so precise that we have already been able to measure a change in the orbital period of 8 millionths of a second per year — exactly what Einstein’s theory predicts,” said Paulo Freire, another team member at the Max Planck Institute. - space.com/20826-einstein-gravity-theory-toughest-test.html

You mean this? The gravitational field created by the pulsar is so strong that the scientists suspected they might notice deviations from the predictions of general relativity in the motions of the white dwarf around it. General relativity posits that massive objects warp the space and time around them, causing other objects, and even light, to travel along curved paths when they pass nearby.

General relativity also predicts that a close binary system such as this one will radiate gravitational energy in the form of ripples in space-time called gravitational waves. This loss of energy would cause the orbital period of the system to change slightly over time. Alternative theories of gravity offer slightly different predictions for the white dwarf’s motions.

“Our radio observations were so precise that we have already been able to measure a change in the orbital period of 8 millionths of a second per year — exactly what Einstein’s theory predicts,” said Paulo Freire, another team member at the Max Planck Institute.

Though the results don’t help physicists solve the fundamental gravity quandary, they do confirm that current efforts to detect gravitational waves, based on Einstein’s predictions, are on the right track. Several Earth-based tests are underway to look for perturbations in space-time distances caused by passing gravitational waves."

What I disagree with is the descriptor " bend " as applied to time and space. Time and space are not entities that exist alone. They are " companions " of existing beings. Show me a gram of time or a gram of space and I will believe. Also, I do not object to the existence of gravity waves. Why should I? Though no one has found them yet. So what is the big deal in relation to Thomistic philosophy?

See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

So how does that threaten Thomism? Are we now supposed to say motion does not exist or something. I’m sure they know our space ships and satellites are moving, in spite ot Galellio and Newton. As I explained above, motion is real in my frame of reference, that is what I am interested it, that is what Thomas is interested in.

Que? Your understanding is, how shall I put this, relative . See feynmanlectures.info/docroot/I_15.html

You are such an expert in these matters, perhaps you can tell me exactly what I am supposed to object to? You know what, I don’t think you know a thing about it. You are just throwing stuff out there, assumin your " hero " has hit the nail on the head. Well, spell it out if you can…

No absolutes means no absolutes, and authorities who got that wrong are authorities on getting that wrong.

Horse feathers. I know exactly why you are playing the sophist. I shant say it however.

Appears you didn’t read the article I linked, Einstein himself talks about it, see vicphysics.org/documents/teachers/unit3/EinsteinsTrainGedanken.pdf

I think what is improtant is that lightening has struck twice. Thomas is interested in the causality of that. The explanation of how two given events cannot be simultaneous is a purely scientific explanation. Do you agree that the lightening strikes have a cause? Good, that makes you a philosopher.

Let’s face it, you have caved to scientism. For you, only a scientist can know reality or tell us what reality is. They are the arbeiters of truth.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Show me a gram of time or a gram of space and I will believe.

Errr… mass is measured in grams, time in seconds, lengths in meters.

The speed of light is constant. So if, locally, time passes more slowly, lengths must change too or the speed of light wouldn’t be constant. Thus time and space are linked, they form a single continuum.

Back to the shadows on the wall of that cave: “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” – Hermann Minkowski, 1908

Your “I do not believe it” reactions happen all the time. My first school teacher came back from a course about different number bases and taught us binary arithmetic, but she believed it was unnatural compared to base ten, while it’s perfectly natural to me because she taught it to us when we were age ten.

I’ll think about whether I can respond to your other points, but I’m not a teacher, nor a physicist, so all I can think to say is God’s not likely to change the entire universe to ease your ability to believe. Just go with the flow, there are more things in heaven and earth, Linusthe2nd, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[inocente]

The Latin is: “Omne autem quod movetur, ab alio movetur.” “Now everything which is moved, is moved by another.” So your interpretation here is a bit off. As you know, Aquinas is referring to simultaneous motion (ie. the change in the thing moved is simultaneous to its being acted upon), since that is what is meant by “motion” is his broader metaphysics. This does not seem to show that anything which is now moved must have at one point been “still” (a poor word choice, since it implies local motion when it need not be). All that is required is that it is moved by something else.

I can’t find that translation anywhere. The one I used (“whatever is in motion”) is at New Advent. Google’s machine translator also has “whatever is in motion”. So your translation might be a bit off .

In any event, are you suggesting that local inertial motion is ruled out? That would mean we discount change of location as motion and only include change of velocity, so anything moving at constant velocity escapes your “everything which is moved” clause. But that would mean that if two such objects are on a collision course, yon unmoved mover is only required to step in to alter their velocities. Not needed before or after (nor during, Newton’s laws of motion take care of it fine).

So I think you cannot ignore constant velocity and my objection is still good to go (and ditto for all other types of change).

It is rather ironic that you’re chiding me for reminding you that motion need not be local motion, because your argument here totally relies on construing it as local motion. If we can’t identify an absolute reference frame, that’s fine. With respect to substantial (or qualitative, or quantitative) change, there is such a “fixed point” for B prior to its being moved by A, ie. the point where B’s substance wasn’t changing.

Que? Did you not notice that I added “remembering of course what we’ve previously discussed in far too much detail”? You included it in the quote.

I said “we can only claim B wasn’t in motion if we can identify a physically fixed point from which to measure its lack of motion”.

i.e. we can only claim B wasn’t changing if we can identify a physically fixed point from which to measure its lack of change. Can you give examples of physically fixed points? For instance, as the argument talks of hot and cold, you might think of absolute zero temperature. But of course that’s only a theoretical value and even if it could be reached, the electrons in the atoms are still in motion, so it’s not a fixed point in the real world.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Errr… mass is measured in grams, time in seconds, lengths in meters.

The speed of light is constant. So if, locally, time passes more slowly, lengths must change too or the speed of light wouldn’t be constant. Thus time and space are linked, they form a single continuum.

Back to the shadows on the wall of that cave: “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” – Hermann Minkowski, 1908

Your “I do not believe it” reactions happen all the time. My first school teacher came back from a course about different number bases and taught us binary arithmetic, but she believed it was unnatural compared to base ten, while it’s perfectly natural to me because she taught it to us when we were age ten.

I’ll think about whether I can respond to your other points, but I’m not a teacher, nor a physicist, so all I can think to say is God’s not likely to change the entire universe to ease your ability to believe. Just go with the flow, there are more things in heaven and earth, Linusthe2nd, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

An evasion then. God made a real world. He didn’t intend to hide the facts about reality until Galileo, Newton, and Einstein appeared to inform us we were fools and didn’t know nut’en. Christ lived and walked in a real world, so do we. So inspite of what Minkowski and Einstein said ( or the enthusiasts thought they said ), space and time are not a continuum, that is a descriptor used to explain the mathematical formulas.

Now these mathematical theories have a certain utility, but they leave out the most important thing - much of reality itself. Space and time are two different concomitants of actually existing beings ( real substances or things ), and outside of them they have no meaning at all. Call them the " accidents " of realy existing things. Without really existing things, they are just words, tinkling brass…

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

I can’t find that translation anywhere. The one I used (“whatever is in motion”) is at New Advent. Google’s machine translator also has “whatever is in motion”. So your translation might be a bit off .

I am not nitpicking over translation really, but indicating that “put in motion” does not really have the sense you need it to have, given Aquinas’s broader metaphysics (since it is translated, it naturally has to be taken in context, rather than as it might be idiomatically taken in English). “Put in motion” simply does not necessarily imply a prior state of non-motion.

In any event, are you suggesting that local inertial motion is ruled out? That would mean we discount change of location as motion and only include change of velocity, so anything moving at constant velocity escapes your “everything which is moved” clause. But that would mean that if two such objects are on a collision course, yon unmoved mover is only required to step in to alter their velocities. Not needed before or after (nor during, Newton’s laws of motion take care of it fine).

There are a number of interpretations consistent with the first way. If local inertial motion is a state (as inertia purports), then it isn’t an example of uncaused change at all, since it isn’t change at all. One can’t use Newton to object that inertial motion at constant velocity isn’t genuine change and is genuine change; it’s inconsistent.

But that would mean that if two such objects are on a collision course, yon unmoved mover is only required to step in to alter their velocities. Not needed before or after (nor during, Newton’s laws of motion take care of it fine).

Well, their velocities are always changing. There is no genuine inertial motion, so the situation you propose is vacuous. But you do not seem to show that the collision is handled by Newton’s laws. I agree that it is described by them. But there is a long history of laws that describe without fully explaining, so your objection needs to be spelled out in more detail.

So I think you cannot ignore constant velocity and my objection is still good to go (and ditto for all other types of change).

Your extrapolation from inertial motion to all other types of change is a bit quick here. Can you expand?

Que? Did you not notice that I added “remembering of course what we’ve previously discussed in far too much detail”? You included it in the quote.

I said “we can only claim B wasn’t in motion if we can identify a physically fixed point from which to measure its lack of motion”.

i.e. we can only claim B wasn’t changing if we can identify a physically fixed point from which to measure its lack of change. Can you give examples of physically fixed points? For instance, as the argument talks of hot and cold, you might think of absolute zero temperature. But of course that’s only a theoretical value and even if it could be reached, the electrons in the atoms are still in motion, so it’s not a fixed point in the real world.

Why would the fixed, static temperature need to be absolute zero? It could just be some temperature x[sub]0[/sub], which increases to x[sub]1[/sub]. Certainly at any non-absolute zero there is molecular motion occurring, but there is still a change in temperature from one state to another.

(Similarly, imagine everything is in motion, and inertial motion is construed as rest, ie. non-change. That is fine; then changes in inertial motion still are not uncaused.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I can’t find that translation anywhere. The one I used (“whatever is in motion”) is at New Advent. Google’s machine translator also has “whatever is in motion”. So your translation might be a bit off .

Pardon my intrusion.

And that is incorrect. In the sentence, " Omne quod movetur ab alio movetur," the verb " movetur " is present passive, indicative and is translated " moved. " So the correct translation is " Whatever is moved, is moved by another. " Thomas never said, " Omne movens ab alio movetur. " ( or as you said above " whatever is in motion " ). Thomas didn’t need anyone to teach him Latin. He used it every day and knew it as well as it could be known. He clearly chose the passive voice for a reason. The proposition, " whatever is in motion is moved by another, " is neither self evident nor true. ( Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages, James A. Weisheipl O.P., The Catholic University of America Press, 1985, pg 78 ). Neither Aristotle or Thomas ever maintained that " …everything that is in motion must be here and now moved by something…" ( ibid, p 78 ). " This interpretation is grammatically impossible and philoslphically absurd. It is precisely this bad grammar and bad philosophy which have given rise to misunderstanding concerning the principle Omne quod movetur ab alio movetur. " ( ibid, p 78 )

In any event, are you suggesting that local inertial motion is ruled out? That would mean we discount change of location as motion and only include change of velocity, so anything moving at constant velocity escapes your “everything which is moved” clause. But that would mean that if two such objects are on a collision course, yon unmoved mover is only required to step in to alter their velocities. Not needed before or after (nor during, Newton’s laws of motion take care of it fine).

By no means. And Newton’s Laws of motion don’t " take care of it fine. " Even Newton’s motion - initial, constant , and changed - must have a cause. I will be discussing this later in one of my " Lessons, " it is something Wallace has addressed very well.

So I think you cannot ignore constant velocity and my objection is still good to go (and ditto for all other types of change).

Well, not good to make rash assumptions. Sol, we shall see. We know you are committed to assigning Thomas and Aristotle to the ashbin of history, but they will always be alive and well as long as there are men and women who are lovers of truth and who have not caved to the raging ideologies of the day.

I said “we can only claim B wasn’t in motion if we can identify a physically fixed point from which to measure its lack of motion”.

More sophism. Let’s skip the cutesy stuff of talking about " points. " We are talking about animals moving, trains moving, planes flying, space ships flying, wasps flying, rocks rolling, leaves falling, light moving, planets moving, trains moving, trees growing, seeds sprouting, babies being born, old men dying. Do you mean to say you deny these things are happening??? They are not some point on a graph, neither Galileos’, not Newton’s, nor Einstein’s.

i.e. we can only claim B wasn’t changing if we can identify a physically fixed point from which to measure its lack of change.

Que? " It’s lack of change." Please elaborate. Why " lack of change " ?

Can you give examples of physically fixed points? For instance, as the argument talks of hot and cold, you might think of absolute zero temperature. But of course that’s only a theoretical value and even if it could be reached, the electrons in the atoms are still in motion, so it’s not a fixed point in the real world.

Horse feathers. More sophism. That’s the problem with " points, " that is the exact problem. They leave out much of reality. And the unintiated look at the graphs and think that is all there is to the real world. The next time I have to change a tire at 40 below, I’ll be sure to send an invitation, that’s the real world your graphs leave out.

And you think the electron ( assuming it is a separate being or substance having a nature of its own - which is assuming a heap. ) escapes the need for a cause? I don’t think so.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Note: “(unless this quote was not meant to respond to Linus’s point where you quoted him on that matter, in which case it hasn’t been responded to).” I was not construing your argument in that way; I was just noting that he made the point where you quoted him, and you either did not respond to it, or were disputing it. I could not tell which (it now seems to be the former), hence the caveat.

The Latin is: “Omne autem quod movetur, ab alio movetur.” “Now everything which is moved, is moved by another.” So your interpretation here is a bit off. As you know, Aquinas is referring to simultaneous motion (ie. the change in the thing moved is simultaneous to its being acted upon), since that is what is meant by “motion” is his broader metaphysics. This does not seem to show that anything which is now moved must have at one point been “still” (a poor word choice, since it implies local motion when it need not be). All that is required is that it is moved by something else.

But even if it did mean what you’re saying…

It is rather ironic that you’re chiding me for reminding you that motion need not be local motion, because your argument here totally relies on construing it as local motion. If we can’t identify an absolute reference frame, that’s fine. With respect to substantial (or qualitative, or quantitative) change, there is such a “fixed point” for B prior to its being moved by A, ie. the point where B’s substance wasn’t changing.

Good post. I would point out two things. It is correct that all things are in motion, at least at the atomic level. Literally everything is degenerating, it is easy to see at the atomic level of the elements. On the other hand all substances which have an identifiable nature are also stable and non-moving in that nature, as long as they exists. These substances ( cows, trees, rocks, the elements, etc ) are also static or unmoved or in a state of potententiality in regard to any given perfection they can have but do not have. And this potentiality must be brought out by a cause which either actually has that perfection and can impart it or which has the power to cause it to exist in another. The cause itself is unmoved until circumstances ( nature or whatever ) cause it to act on the other substance and move its potentiality to actuality. However if the cause itself received this actuality from another, it was in potentiality to receive it. But we cannot go on to infinity with instrumental causes which must receive this perfection from another. We must arrive at a First cause which has this perfection without being in potentiality to receiving it from another. Now such a cause has no potentiality whatsoever, it is Pure Act and therefore exists outside the string of instrumental causes it has moved to perfection. And this is the Unmoved Mover or God. ( Inocente always loves that! ).

I have discussed some interesting points in my last post on " Could the Universe have Caused Itself. " I will be bringing some of these ideas here one of these days - I keep getting side tracked.

Linus2nd

 

[Ambien89]

Is inocente trying to defend fideism with reason?