The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

[kk23wong]

They are only fra(-gile state )-ments.

Have you read mine?

O’clocks cannot see the truth because they have their heads in soil.

What do you think, professors?

The time is running short.

History will tell. Science will do.

The truth is the dominant force.

Teru Wong

 

[JDaniel]

I must admit to being surprised at the sudden vexation of the threads…

JD…
As for definition of Motion being circular because the words ‘movement’ and ‘motion’ are similar, key word and trick phrase here is ‘similar’. Movement is defined as the ‘change of place or position’, ‘motion’ could then be defined by substitution as the “change in place or position of one body in relation to the another body”. That should not be considered circular.

While it is possible for today’s dictionaries to use the word being defined in the definition, for philosophy, and classical lexicography, it was considered the fallacy of begging the question or bad form to merely re-use the word, or a form of the word, as the definition for the word. Notice, I did not use the word similar when explaining this (or did I in any previous explanation).

I am getting concerned that people are going to bale on this thread without answering question legitimately put.

You say the questions are “…legitimately put.” But, are they?

Thomas points regarding time need clarification. This again gets to the root of a problem. Thomas considered ‘time’ to be uniform and continuous throughout the universe. Thomas’ understanding of time in incorrect. Time does not flow uniform but is relative to the mass and momentum of the ‘potential’ fields the object is in. The Big Question then becomes, how does Thomas being incorrect about the attribute of time affect his TCA?

So, according to you, time is not correlative with motion, it is the same as motion?

Is it true that “motion takes time”?

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Since you refer to our discussion, I will respond. I never asserted that the current arrangement of matter was “necessary”. Indeed there exists the so-called “anti-matter”, where the electric charge is “reversed”. The collision of matter-antimatter would result in mutual “annihilation”, which is another ill-conceived word. The pair of electron-positron particles will not “disappear”, rather they will transform to another type of “matter-energy”.

Whatever the final building blocks of matter (in this existing universe) turn out be (and the current quark scenario is just a beautiful mathematical construct) the result will be always “matter”. Yes, it is also an abstraction, but it is nevertheless something “tangible”, physical substance - with certain physical charateristics or attributes. The attributes are not “arbitrary”, they are the corollaries of the physical substance. The principle of conservation of matter/energy/momentum would hold no matter how the building blocks are arranged and no matter “what” they eventually turn out to be.

The concept of necessary existence has nothing to do with the “blocks” themselves, nor does it have to do anything with their possible different arrangement. As long as something cannot be created or destroyed, **and **that “stuff” already exists - it cannot non-exist, and that is the definition of necessary existence. I wonder why do you call that simple and straightforward reasoning “illegitimate”.

because you are simply making more assertions here, let me list them for you.

1. Whatever the final building blocks of matter (in this existing universe) turn out be (and the current quark scenario is just a beautiful mathematical construct) the result will be always “matter”.

you still havent shown why “matter” is a necessity. the universe could just as easily be composed of non-matter. something not physical at all, it could just as easily be composed of spirit, flimbarkle, or terabiix. it just happens to be matter.

1. As long as something cannot be created or destroyed, **and **that “stuff” already exists - it cannot non-exist, and that is the definition of necessary existence. I wonder why do you call that simple and straightforward reasoning “illegitimate”

first, that is not the definition of necessary existence, your simply assuming that the conservation rules of this universe apply to all possible worlds. this is not the case, if you have taken more than basic physics, you should know this. here is an abstract that makes my point.

Where did the laws of physics come from?
Victor J. Stenger
Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, Colorado
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, Hawaii

arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0207/0207047v2.pdf

see, you can only say those rules seem to apply here since the last symmetry breaking at the BB, you have no basis to assert then that the physical laws support the necessary existence of the physical universe. they might well have been entirely different in any pre-BB environment, in fact,we dont have evidence that there was anything at all prior to the BB, much less matter of the kind we see now. obviously even the physical laws are contingent on the existence of the universe and then cannot be the reason for the universes necessary existence.

your pseudo-science has been refuted.

 

[Spock]

you still havent shown why “matter” is a necessity. the universe could just as easily be composed of non-matter. something not physical at all, it could just as easily be composed of spirit, flimbarkle, or terabiix. it just happens to be matter.

Is that supposed to an argument? Listing of made-up words, without meaning? Really… that is pathetic.

first, that is not the definition of necessary existence,

It certainly is. Using a slightly different terminology, if something exists in all possible worlds, then it exists necessarily. Existing in all possible worlds means that it cannot non-exist. And since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot non-exist, therefore it exists in all possible worlds, which is necessary existence.

 

[wussup]

Well, no, I know nothing at all about physics but of course that’s not the point here. If it’s Quarks or Fewer Quarks or Whatever Quarks that is the building block of the universe is quite irrelevant to the question. What I tried to convey to Spock was the idea that the present configuration of the physical universe is not necessary. Spock replied that matter exists necessarily. But then ‘matter’ is just an abstract concept. In reality we find tiny particles(or whatever you like) as the building block and those particles(or whatever you like) could have been arranged otherwise or been of a different kind/nature… What we easily catch by intuition, namely the notion that on a macro-scale the universe could have been otherwise, we also perceive on the level of the infinitely small. Macro-scale: If certain parameters after the big bang(density, expansion) would have been different just by a tiny degree, the universe would have collapsed again and we wouldn’t see all the array of stars and blackness we do today. Micro-scale: if those tiny particles etc.

So, in essence, what I was trying to say that the flight to an abstract concept(‘matter’) that Spock took was an illegitimate way to proceed in order to arrive at the necessity of anything physical.

One of the ‘pop science’ concepts bandied about in non-scholastic discussions with great vigor is the mathematical construct of the various multiverse themes. While at one level it is irrelevant what the ‘building blocks’ are named, it is necessary to have a common designation for them, so in the absence of one, this thread is casually using ‘quarks’ as that name. My math skills are way to weak for me to make a judgment on the veracity of the work, but take the principles on faith and I believe the reality of existence is somewhat like Tegmark’s ’Mathematical Universe Hypothesis’, MUH. Since I am on a Catholic Forum, I don’t want to be careful how I progress here. In the academic world I have experienced a Universe is very generally thought of as the existence in which we experience reality and the associated laws with which it acts and interacts. The Multiverse describes various mathematical constructs where there are many of the aforementioned Universes, but that do not have any interaction. Needless to say this concept is very controversial if only because it violates the QM theory as illustrated by Schroedingers Cat, with Archibald Wheeler suggesting that because the mathematics suggesting a Universe-type within the Multiverse is enough of an observation for that Universe to exist. For example the MUH suggests the constants we are familiar with here are not the same across the Multiverse (such as pi might not equal 3.1416… everywhere.
…hold that thought…

I never asserted that the current arrangement of matter was “necessary”. Indeed there exists the so-called “anti-matter”, where the electric charge is “reversed”. The collision of matter-antimatter would result in mutual “annihilation”, which is another ill-conceived word. The pair of electron-positron particles will not “disappear”, rather they will transform to another type of “matter-energy”.

Whatever the final building blocks of matter (in this existing universe) [emphasis added at wussup thread] turn out be (and the current quark scenario is just a beautiful mathematical construct) the result will be always “matter”. Yes, it is also an abstraction, but it is nevertheless something “tangible”, physical substance - with certain physical characteristics or attributes. The attributes are not “arbitrary”, they are the corollaries of the physical substance. The principle of conservation of matter/energy/momentum would hold no matter how the building blocks are arranged and no matter “what” they eventually turn out to be.

The concept of necessary existence has nothing to do with the “blocks” themselves, nor does it have to do anything with their possible different arrangement. As long as something cannot be created or destroyed, **and **that “stuff” already exists - it cannot non-exist, and that is the definition of necessary existence.

…continuing thought…Spock, correct me if I am wrong, all the statements you make here referencing the lines beginning in color should always be considered in the Universe of this Multiverse. Hence, in this Universe it is necessary for ‘stuff’ that exists cannot be created or destroyed, but (key word and tricky phrase, KWTP) this may not be true in other Universes where the mathematics suggests this reality in this Universe does not apply ‘there’?

Whim, that being the case, the question regarding application to TCA is very relevant. How so? Within the construct of the TCA does the Universe equate to the Multiverse in the sense that all possibilities for existence are encompassed; does the TCA recognize a God so omniscient that he has other Universes that follow different rules than those we are aware of. This is important because in the Universe we live in, STEM exists necessarily. Without and part of STEM, our existence would be so radically different this very conversation would not be possible. Yet, as you stated, it is mathematically possible (and it appears Spock agrees with you on this matter) idea that the matter as we know it does not necessarily exist in the Multiverse. The difference appears to be that you tie the TCA to this construct (that the STEM is not necessary existence in this universe) while simultaneously living in an existence that belies the fact. Spock says that STEM only is necessary in this Universe, but recoginzes the possibility that it does not necessarily exist across the Multiverse.

 

[wussup]

In the Commentary on the Physics of Aristotle, St. Thomas said, "And because everything having matter is mobile, it follows that mobile being is the subject of natural philosophy. Moreover, natural science is about natural things; what is natural is that whose principle is nature; nature is the source of motion and for rest in that which it is; natural science therefore is about those things which have in themselves a principle of motion.” – Translation from the Angeli-Pirotta Edition, (Naples 1953) Book I, les. 1, nn 1-4.

No. St. Thomas (and I) believed God to be immobile. If a non-physical being is infinite, where can it move. What does He move in relation to? Since there can be no other infinite beings, He is One. He occupies all there is. I am not saying here that movement is relative to God, as it is relative to us, I am saying that as an infinite being, (it would at least seem that) He has no need of movement, nor does He consist of matter/energy, so He would consist of no quantum particles which might be in a state of flux or set into motion.
jd

I absolutely know Catholics do not believe in a form of Pantheism, however, to the outside, non-Catholic this concept of God being immobile because he ‘occupies all there is’ sure sounds like it. No need to explain in detail how the concept is a layering all there but not really all there, Trinitarian-like argument, I get it. From my perspective, God is in all time, this has a defacto effect of making him all present, while not denying God the ability to be (and I say this with caution and with the understanding the statement is very loosely tied to our reality) a physically central Being. God being all present, he is in effect everywhere at once, while simultaneously not.

You say the questions are “…legitimately put.” But, are they?

I was referencing my question which I believe are legitimate because I do not ask questions rhetorically.

So, according to you, time is not correlative with motion, it is the same as motion?
Is it true that “motion takes time”?
jd

Ahhh, the last question is the real crux between you and I! No, it is not necessary for ‘motion to take time’. This has been proven demonstrably by IBM at its Switzerland research lab. They changed the spin (granted, an exotic application of motion) of an electron by another electron several miles away. The change in spin (‘motion’ as you and I are describing it) was causally created by the electron, and the time it took to do this was instantaneous. There are clearly deep ramifications to our understanding of time related causality in this experiment.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Is that supposed to an argument? Listing of made-up words, without meaning? Really… that is pathetic.

yes it is an argument, calling it pathetic isnt a refutation, again, why must the universe be made of matter? what stops it from being a

It certainly is. Using a slightly different terminology, if something exists in all possible worlds, then it exists necessarily. Existing in all possible worlds means that it cannot non-exist.

in possible world semantics, yes. now, do you have any evidence that the physical laws we experience are present in all possible worlds? do you have any evidence that all possible worlds are even composed of physical matter? huge holes here.

And since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot non-exist, therefore it exists in all possible worlds, which is necessary existence.

and again, as the abstract shows, the laws you are relying on are contingent on this universe, you have nothing but bare assertion to say that they exist in all possible worlds.

your reasoning is circu;ar.

1. the universe is necessary because of the conservation laws.
2. the conservation laws are necessary because of the universe.

that is not necessary existence even by the standards of possible world semantics.

 

[JDaniel]

Ahhh, the last question is the real crux between you and I! No, it is not necessary for ‘motion to take time’.

Good answer. Thus, the motion of an essentially subordinated series of movers cannot, in fact, regress beyond a finite number of movers. And, such a motion is, in fact, the kind, or form, of motion which must lead to the knowledge of a First Mover. Good.

But, only in an essentially subordinated series, does motion not take time. In the “series” you mention - at IBM - of which I know almost nothing about, there may be activities taking place that you and I just don’t understand. For example, perhaps a part of the laws of thermodynamics has been missed and when an essentially related pair of electrons is separated, e.g., by distance, they somehow continue to interact relative to each other. Perhaps there is also an unknown axiom, from thermodynamics, that says that a direct correspondence between the numbers of electrons, in the universe, must maintain an equilibrium of left and right “spins”. I don’t know, but, that is not what is primary in importance - at least right now.

This has been proven demonstrably by IBM at its Switzerland research lab. They changed the spin (granted, an exotic application of motion) of an electron by another electron several miles away. The change in spin (‘motion’ as you and I are describing it) was causally created by the electron, and the time it took to do this was instantaneous. There are clearly deep ramifications to our understanding of time related causality in this experiment.

Yes, you explained all of this in a previous post. You are still ignoring that through a series of subordinated movers, the “spin” of E-1 was changed, simultaneously, and the “spin” of E2 was part of that overall subordinated series of movers that changed simultaneously. That might make them essentially subordinated. Not knowing any more about it than from your brief description, it makes little sense to comment further.

Back to our original conversation and questions, if we change the starting point of our original question from using the fact of motion due to an essentially subordinated series of movers to the fact of motion from a second kind of motion, that being an accidentally subordinated series, then we shall ask the question again. (In fact, what we sense, in the universe, consists more often in this second type of series.) So, considering most motion that we sense is of this second type, does motion take time?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I absolutely know Catholics do not believe in a form of Pantheism, however, to the outside, non-Catholic this concept of God being immobile because he ‘occupies all there is’ sure sounds like it.

Not at all. The Church is aware that God permeates all places and all beings, but, is not all beings nor a part of all beings. In terms of magnitude, God occupies everything everywhere.

No need to explain in detail how the concept is a layering all there but not really all there, Trinitarian-like argument, I get it. From my perspective, God is in all time, this has a defacto effect of making him all present,

Not so. His permeation of all things is analogously like water permeating a sponge. The water exists within the porosity of the material but not the matter of the material, per se. Since humans and God consist of very different material essences - physical matter and spiritual matter - there is no essential merging of the two matters into some pantheistic unity.

while not denying God the ability to be (and I say this with caution and with the understanding the statement is very loosely tied to our reality) a physically central Being. God being all present, he is in effect everywhere at once, while simultaneously not.

Not so. God is not only everywhere at once, but also, He permeates all physical matter. There are no special gyrations about being present and not present.

jd

 

[wussup]

Good answer. Thus, the motion of an essentially subordinated series of movers cannot, in fact, regress beyond a finite number of movers. And, such a motion is, in fact, the kind, or form, of motion which must lead to the knowledge of a First Mover. Good.

But, only in an essentially subordinated series, does motion not take time. In the “series” you mention - at IBM - of which I know almost nothing about, there may be activities taking place that you and I just don’t understand. For example, perhaps a part of the laws of thermodynamics has been missed and when an essentially related pair of electrons is separated, e.g., by distance, they somehow continue to interact relative to each other. Perhaps there is also an unknown axiom, from thermodynamics, that says that a direct correspondence between the numbers of electrons, in the universe, must maintain an equilibrium of left and right “spins”. I don’t know, but, that is not what is primary in importance - at least right now.

Yes, you explained all of this in a previous post. You are still ignoring that through a series of subordinated movers, the “spin” of E-1 was changed, simultaneously, and the “spin” of E2 was part of that overall subordinated series of movers that changed simultaneously. That might make them essentially subordinated. Not knowing any more about it than from your brief description, it makes little sense to comment further.

Back to our original conversation and questions, if we change the starting point of our original question from using the fact of motion due to an essentially subordinated series of movers to the fact of motion from a second kind of motion, that being an accidentally subordinated series, then we shall ask the question again. (In fact, what we sense, in the universe, consists more often in this second type of series.) So, considering most motion that we sense is of this second type, does motion take time?

jd

My apologies for not stating this more clearly. First, I take only one thing of ontology from the IBM research, that is there is proven to exist the concept of simultaneous causality. The ramifications are it confirms the General Theory of Relativity idea that at the speed of light a being would be instantaneously and simultaneously everywhere present. The IBM research strongly suggests that it matters not how far apart the electrons are from one another in some way they are still connected, that a oneness exists for them. This leads me to theorize or philosophize on the possibility (even probability) that all of our universe is connected in a oneness. I hasten to state that I do not believe in this in a pantheistic way.

Also, this experiment does not address the ‘first cause argument’, nor does it impact the ‘subordinate cause’ because as you suggested, the scientist was the ‘first cause’ in this experiment, the result was the simultaneous movement of the electrons. but does suggest other logical avenues of approach.

And, yes. In our reality motion takes time, usually. In non-calculus form the equation for velocity is v=(s2-s1)/t. However, I think for the purposes of God, we need to address the subject in a different paradigm. Do we as human beings function in a Newtonian Physics environment? In a real world manner, yes. Do you think God functions in a Newtonian Physics universe? Clearly not. God does is not limited as we are. As Spinoza and others have stated, God is perfectly free of Causality, His limits are only those placed upon him by the necessary attributes that make him God. This is a completely alien concept to a human. I will grant that I have found Aquinas’ arguments persuasive. They are logically sound. However, by the same token, they do not fit with the knowledge of the universe as we know it. This does not make them ‘wrong’, but it does create problems when taken to an extreme. While it is a valid proof of God, it is not valid expression of existence. Spock is an example of the mindset that requires any proof of God as the maximal whatever, also meets the criteria of a valid proof of the universe as we know it. In essence, he is throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater.

I must say, thank you for your detailed an courteous response. I do not want to seem overly polite, but in light of the clear anguish that can be caused by folks not empathetical to logic in the eyes of another, I cannot stress how much I value the time given to the patient answering of my questions.

 

[wussup]

(1) Not at all. The Church is aware that God permeates all places and all beings, but, is not all beings nor a part of all beings. In terms of magnitude, God occupies everything everywhere.

I(2) Not so. His permeation of all things is analogously like water permeating a sponge. The water exists within the porosity of the material but not the matter of the material, per se. Since humans and God consist of very different material essences - physical matter and spiritual matter - there is no essential merging of the two matters into some pantheistic unity.

Not so. God is not only everywhere at once, but also, He permeates all physical matter. There are no special gyrations about being present and not present.
jd

1. We are in agreement, more or less here, except for the latter part where you say “God occupies everything everywhere”.
2. This is one of the reasons I hate analogies. (Not trying to be blunt, but given the incredible logic you express in virtually everything you write…) Sponges are organisms of a specific mass, and when dried out the hull of the sponge consists of ‘stuff’ not of anything other than the former ‘form’ of the sponge. Thus, if God where everywhere, he can either be ‘actually’ everywhere’ as in a Pantheistic view and include all parts which are both ‘Sponge’ and ‘God’, or he can be ‘potentially’ everywhere, in the view I subscribe to. Frankly, the sponge analogy is more proof of my argument than yours, though I would not use it either.

I have studied the history of the development of the Omnipresent theory extensively. It is not an encouraging activity.

yes it is an argument, calling it pathetic isnt a refutation

(1) And since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot non-exist, therefore it exists in all possible worlds, which is necessary existence.

and again, as the abstract shows, the laws you are relying on are contingent on this universe, you have nothing but bare assertion to say that they exist in all possible worlds.

your reasoning is circular.

1. the universe is necessary because of the conservation laws.
2. the conservation laws are necessary because of the universe.

that is not necessary existence even by the standards of possible world semantics.

First, is ‘Spock’ the name you choose because you value the persona embodied by the character? These would include an attempt at cold logic, absent emotional response. Given that, ad hominem arguments do not help the dialogue, and given the quick fingers of the moderators, can get this fascinating thread shut down…

(1) This is an excellent example. I like the approach. While STEM is a group of physical laws, as you clearly stated "in this universe", it does not follow, according to minds far greater than those here (unless we have some well hidden savants) that these laws are necessary in an infinite number of other universes. Spock, in fairness, I am surprised you do not latch onto the mathematical proofs establishing the necessity of a multiverse existence. (Note, by ‘existence’ I mean all that there is).

 

[wussup]

Is that supposed to an argument? Listing of made-up words, without meaning? Really… that is pathetic.

It certainly is. Using a slightly different terminology, if something exists in all possible worlds, then it exists necessarily. Existing in all possible worlds means that it cannot non-exist. And since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot non-exist, therefore it exists in all possible worlds, which is necessary existence.

As I have stated before (and provided links to papers of acknowledged theoretical physicists and mathematicians at the greatest universities of the face of God’s Green Earth), Warpspeedpetey is correct. The Mathematical Universe Hyposthesis proves the possibility. And if the possibility exists, than there is a logical scheme waiting to prove it. As many theoretical physicists prove, though STEM is a requirement in OUR universe, it is not a requirement for all the universes in the multiverse.

 

[Spock]

yes it is an argument, calling it pathetic isnt a refutation, again, why must the universe be made of matter? what stops it from being a

I cannot refute an empty proposition. Let me turn the table and present one myself. The absolute, irrefutable proof that God does not exist is: “God does not exist, because skfdyuir iai uenfione!” Now can you refute this?

in possible world semantics, yes…

If it is true, then what are we talking about? Necessary existence is a clear concept. The STEM - in this world - fulfills it. If the STEM is necessary in this universe, then - from the definition of necessary existence - it follows that it is true in every possible universe.

…now, do you have any evidence that the physical laws we experience are present in all possible worlds?

Sure. The concept of necessary existence is the evidence.

do you have any evidence that all possible worlds are even composed of physical matter? huge holes here.

Now that is interesting. What are they “composed of”? (And please do not repeat your list of meaningless gibberish, or invent some new ones). No matter - no energy - no space - no time - no action - no events. Isn’t that what we call: nothing? So you wish to stipulate that “nothing” actually exists? Just what are other possible worlds? They are mental constructs, thought experiments - which differ from this actual world to a certain degree. If you wish to “take away” STEM from this world - as a thought experiment - you will arrive at nothing. And no matter how much we disagree about, there is one thing we can agree upon: “nothing does not exist”. It is only a mental construct.

 

[Spock]

(1) This is an excellent example. I like the approach. While STEM is a group of physical laws, as you clearly stated "in this universe", it does not follow, according to minds far greater than those here (unless we have some well hidden savants) that these laws are necessary in an infinite number of other universes. Spock, in fairness, I am surprised you do not latch onto the mathematical proofs establishing the necessity of a multiverse existence. (Note, by ‘existence’ I mean all that there is).

As I said, “possible other universes” are simply mental constucts, thought experiments. I do not subscribe to the “multiverse theory”. For details, see the post above.

 

[wussup]

(1) I cannot refute an empty proposition. Let me turn the table and present one myself. The absolute, irrefutable proof that God does not exist is: “God does not exist, because skfdyuir iai uenfione!” Now can you refute this?

(2) If it is true, then what are we talking about? Necessary existence is a clear concept. The STEM - in this world - fulfills it. If the STEM is necessary in this universe, then - from the definition of necessary existence - it follows that it is true in every possible universe.

(3) Now that is interesting. What are they “composed of”? (And please do not repeat your list of meaningless gibberish, or invent some new ones). No matter - no energy - no space - no time - no action - no events. Isn’t that what we call: nothing? So you wish to stipulate that “nothing” actually exists? Just what are other possible worlds? They are mental constructs, thought experiments - which differ from this actual world to a certain degree. If you wish to “take away” STEM from this world - as a thought experiment - you will arrive at nothing. And no matter how much we disagree about, there is one thing we can agree upon: “nothing does not exist”. It is only a mental construct.

(4) As I said, “possible other universes” are simply mental constructs, thought experiments. I do not subscribe to the “multiverse theory”. For details, see the post above.

1. I’m sorry, you are misstating the argument. The argument was not about the ‘gibberish’ but about the mathematical concept there exists other universes where STEM is wrong. As a side note, I recall you believing quarks to be ‘just a beautiful mathematical construct’. First, that is not the full truth. Several of the ‘flavors’ of quarks have been experimentally proven to exist. Second, it is interesting to note the ‘beautiful mathematical construct’ was many years ahead of the actual proof. Third, the term “quark” was a term of Gibberish used by James Joyce and borrowed by the man who discovered the particles, Murray Gell-Mann. So don’t be so quick to discount Gibberish! Maybe one day one of the readers of this thread babble will borrow one of Warpspeedpetey’s gibberish for the name of a sub-sub-sub-particle.
2. Logically, this is not true. Just because STEM is true in ‘this world’ does not follow it is true in every universe. In a very real way, as outlined by the aforementioned great article by Dr. Stenger, “Where did the laws of physics come from?”, STEM would be the actual ‘mental construct’, however logical; the Mathematical sound proofs would be the only actual ‘necessary existent’ laws.
3. Because we cannot see over the horizon of our own Universe (with STEM and all its baggage) does not mean the Universe on the other side of our horizon follows the same rules. In fact, the mathematics say it does not. Spock, do you figure than that imaginary numbers are simple mental constructs and mathematical aberrations?
4. Again, I am sorry…from the post above I do not see a logical explanation of why the Multiverse does not exist. Frankly, I am surprised at your denial of such a thing. Curious again, did you choose ‘Spock’ as your nom de plume because you like the name or because you seek to emulate the attributes of the character? I am also curious if you have read the two referenced articles addressing the transitory nature of the laws of physics (courtesy of Warpspeedpetey) and the paper on the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis?

 

[Spock]

1. I’m sorry, you are misstating the argument. The argument was not about the ‘gibberish’ but about the mathematical concept there exists other universes where STEM is wrong. As a side note, I recall you believing quarks to be ‘just a beautiful mathematical construct’. First, that is not the full truth. Several of the ‘flavors’ of quarks have been experimentally proven to exist. Second, it is interesting to note the ‘beautiful mathematical construct’ was many years ahead of the actual proof. Third, the term “quark” was a term of Gibberish used by James Joyce and borrowed by the man who discovered the particles, Murray Gell-Mann. So don’t be so quick to discount Gibberish! Maybe one day one of the readers of this thread babble will borrow one of Warpspeedpetey’s gibberish for the name of a sub-sub-sub-particle.

Listen, WSP argued that instead of “matter” there “might be” some other “things” in a different universe, and gave these “examples”: “you still havent shown why “matter” is a necessity. the universe could just as easily be composed of non-matter. something not physical at all, it could just as easily be composed of spirit, flimbarkle, or terabiix. it just happens to be matter.” To rattle off some meaningless words does not constitute an argument, and that is what I was pointing out.

1. Logically, this is not true. Just because STEM is true in ‘this world’ does not follow it is true in every universe. In a very real way, as outlined by the aforementioned great article by Dr. Stenger, “Where did the laws of physics come from?”, STEM would be the actual ‘mental construct’, however logical; the Mathematical sound proofs would be the only actual ‘necessary existent’ laws.

The argument I presented was very simple:

1. from the conservation laws - in this universe - it follows that STEM cannot be created or destroyed.
2. this means that in this world STEM cannot non-exist.
3. if something cannot non-exist, then it exist necessarily in this world.
4. however, there is no such thing as “necessary existence” in one particular world.
5. therefore STEM must exist necessarily in all the possible worlds.

That is all. There is no logical error, and WSP even admitted that by the semantics of “possible worlds” it is true.

1. Because we cannot see over the horizon of our own Universe (with STEM and all its baggage) does not mean the Universe on the other side of our horizon follows the same rules. In fact, the mathematics say it does not. Spock, do you figure than that imaginary numbers are simple mental constructs and mathematical aberrations?

Not relevant. I cannot speak of all the laws of physics in other possible worlds. But the conservation laws cannot fail to be true - precisely because the definition of “necessary existence”. BTW, since I am a mathematician, I can tell you that the (horribly named) imaginary numbers are a simple extention of number line (into a plane), for the explicit purpose to allow the reversal of all the simple operators. No one would call them “aberrations”, even though they seem to go against the rule that multiplying a number with itself will always yield a positive number.

1. Again, I am sorry…from the post above I do not see a logical explanation of why the Multiverse does not exist. Frankly, I am surprised at your denial of such a thing. Curious again, did you choose ‘Spock’ as your nom de plume because you like the name or because you seek to emulate the attributes of the character? I am also curious if you have read the two referenced articles addressing the transitory nature of the laws of physics (courtesy of Warpspeedpetey) and the paper on the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis?

I did not say that the Multiverse does not exist. The idea of the Multiverse cannot be verified or refuted. And besides, nothing in this idea suggests that the conservation laws may be incorrect in another possible universe - at least to the best of my knowledge.

 

[JDaniel]

My apologies for not stating this more clearly.

No blame; no fault. I would like to know more about it. If you can lead me to a publication describing it, I would be grateful.

First, I take only one thing of ontology from the IBM research, that is there is proven to exist the concept of simultaneous causality.

Aquinas recognized simultaneous causing 500 years ago. Most people don’t recognize it today.

The ramifications are it confirms the General Theory of Relativity idea that at the speed of light a being would be instantaneously and simultaneously everywhere present.

Hmmm. Need to think that through a bit. If that were the case, then why does it take light from the sun 8 minutes to reach earth? That’s not “simultaneity”. But, I understand what you’re saying.

The IBM research strongly suggests that it matters not how far apart the electrons are from one another in some way they are still connected, that a oneness exists for them. This leads me to theorize or philosophize on the possibility (even probability) that all of our universe is connected in a oneness. I hasten to state that I do not believe in this in a pantheistic way.

Also, this experiment does not address the ‘first cause argument’, nor does it impact the ‘subordinate cause’ because as you suggested, the scientist was the ‘first cause’ in this experiment, the result was the simultaneous movement of the electrons. but does suggest other logical avenues of approach.

And, yes. In our reality motion takes time, usually.

This was the point that I was trying to make. If it can be sensibly said, and understood, that motion takes time, then motion and time cannot be the same things. Motion and time are correlative, but, only motion is real. Time is real only if there is motion. If the universe stopped, there would be no motion to measure; no clocks ticking.

Furthermore, regardless of the magnitude of bodies in space and the speeds at which they travel, time is not something that can be different a billion miles from earth. Sidereal time shows that. And, despite that it’s slightly smaller than a standard 24 hour day, it regularly lets us know when stars are overhead. If time was not a regular flow we could never predict any “motion” with any certainty, or gauge the passage of time with certainty. Thus, in my opinion, it is the changes in the velocities of mobile beings that lead us to believe that time speeds up or slows down rather than the actuality of time doing so.

In non-calculus form the equation for velocity is v=(s2-s1)/t. However, I think for the purposes of God, we need to address the subject in a different paradigm. Do we as human beings function in a Newtonian Physics environment? In a real world manner, yes. Do you think God functions in a Newtonian Physics universe? Clearly not. God does is not limited as we are. As Spinoza and others have stated, God is perfectly free of Causality, His limits are only those placed upon him by the necessary attributes that make him God. This is a completely alien concept to a human. I will grant that I have found Aquinas’ arguments persuasive. They are logically sound. However, by the same token, they do not fit with the knowledge of the universe as we know it. This does not make them ‘wrong’, but it does create problems when taken to an extreme. While it is a valid proof of God, it is not valid expression of existence. Spock is an example of the mindset that requires any proof of God as the maximal whatever, also meets the criteria of a valid proof of the universe as we know it. In essence, he is throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater.

Actually, I think people like that merely want the power to “see” Him. Since He hasn’t allowed Himself to be sensed, they reject Him. In a way, that is reasonable, and very anthropomorphic. Almost all else can be sensed, thus we know - beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt - it’s real. I think that we do have another sense, I mean other than the physical five. I think logic can be a sixth sense. And, I think that Aquinas’s several logical views, are examples of when logic is that sixth sense.

For example, if I were to set a table for a luncheon outdoors, with napkins, etc., and had never witnessed the breeze blowing things around, I should still be able to infer - from logic - that the napkins were strewn all over the ground because of the wind. No larger “study” would be required.

I must say, thank you for your detailed an courteous response. I do not want to seem overly polite, but in light of the clear anguish that can be caused by folks not empathetical to logic in the eyes of another, I cannot stress how much I value the time given to the patient answering of my questions.

You are very welcome. The certitude of my responses notwithstanding, I hope my attempts at explanation were fruitful.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

1. We are in agreement, more or less here, except for the latter part where you say “God occupies everything everywhere”.

Why? We are not saying that He “bumps” everything else aside, or, that He “permeates” everything else in the sense of becoming one with it. (Perhaps “penetrates” is the better descriptive word.) What we are saying is that He “penetrates” everything in a way that leaves physical matter and spiritual matter separate from each other. Otherwise, He would not be infinite.

1. This is one of the reasons I hate analogies. (Not trying to be blunt, but given the incredible logic you express in virtually everything you write…) Sponges are organisms of a specific mass, and when dried out the hull of the sponge consists of ‘stuff’ not of anything other than the former ‘form’ of the sponge.

Yes, it was a poor analogy; my excuse is that there likely exists no good analogy known to us.

Thus, if God where everywhere, he can either be ‘actually’ everywhere’ as in a Pantheistic view and include all parts which are both ‘Sponge’ and ‘God’, or he can be ‘potentially’ everywhere, in the view I subscribe to. Frankly, the sponge analogy is more proof of my argument than yours, though I would not use it either.

I see your point. But, if we allot His permeation to the mere level of potentiality, then the actuality of the relationship is absent. “Potentiality”, in our philosophical discussion, means “privation”. If his omnipresence is merely potential, then, it isn’t actual. If it isn’t actual, then he cannot be infinite. If he isn’t infinite, he cannot be God. If he isn’t God, then he is something else and we still need to find/understand what/who God is.

I have studied the history of the development of the Omnipresent theory extensively. It is not an encouraging activity.

I’m sure; as has the Church. In a follow-up post, I’ll present the Church’s conclusions - it will take some research first.

jd

 

[wussup]

The argument I presented was very simple:

1. from the conservation laws - in this universe - it follows that STEM cannot be created or destroyed.
2. this means that in this world STEM cannot non-exist.
3. if something cannot non-exist, then it exist necessarily in this world.
4. however

WSP not withstanding, steps 1-3 your logic supports a necessary existence argument, then in 4 you state there is no such thing as ‘necessary existence in one particular world’, and then go to step 5 to conclude that STEM exists in all possible worlds.

Please, correct me where I am my thinking is in error…1) this is not a syllogistic argument because it has more than two premises, 2) you are affirming a positive (step 3, 'then, {the conclusion} it exists necessarily in this world, from two negative premises 3) in step 5 you again affirm a positive from a negative. These are clearly logical errors. Finally, 4) your logic contains a dichotomy without being rectified of in step 4 declaring no necessary existence {because you deny the multiverse} but then state STEM must necessarily exist in this universe that does not have an attribute of ‘necessary existence’.

Not relevant. I cannot speak of all the laws of physics in other possible worlds. But the conservation laws cannot fail to be true - precisely because the definition of “necessary existence”. BTW, since I am a mathematician, I can tell you that the (horribly named) imaginary numbers are a simple extension of number line (into a plane), for the explicit purpose to allow the reversal of all the simple operators. No one would call them “aberrations”, even though they seem to go against the rule that multiplying a number with itself will always yield a positive number.

Since you cannot speak to the laws of physics in the Multiverse, (a concept logically sound, which is why I asked if you read these exceedingly brief pages. As a Spock-like critter, you in particular should be interested in these, at least from an academic view) then you cannot deny their logic. Hence, while your assertion that STEM is a necessary existence (if you believe in necessary existence, I am still unclear on this) in this world is valid, you cannot logically address a Multiverse containing within it non interacting portions. Frankly, it does violate the Copenhagen conference and that Cat of Shroedinger’s.

As for ‘imaginary numbers’, yeah. I used imaginary numbers in everyday calculations as a Nuclear Tech whilst in the navy… Turns out their not so imaginary…

I did not say that the Multiverse does not exist. The idea of the Multiverse cannot be verified or refuted. And besides, nothing in this idea suggests that the conservation laws may be incorrect in another possible universe - at least to the best of my knowledge.

Finally, there is lots to suggest this.

 

[wussup]

No blame; no fault. I would like to know more about it. If you can lead me to a publication describing it, I would be grateful.

AAAAAARGHHHH:hammering: I have been looking for this document for two weeks for another colleague. I used to have the schematic on my computer screen as a background. When I find it I will post it.

Aquinas recognized simultaneous causing 500 years ago. Most people don’t recognize it today.

See! This is what I mean by little nuggets of truth stuck in the most obscure places. It encourages me to look more.

Hmmm. Need to think that through a bit. If that were the case, then why does it take light from the sun 8 minutes to reach earth? That’s not “simultaneity”. But, I understand what you’re saying.

Great question. To us it takes light time to travel from x → y; but to the light, it is not only not yet made it, it has already made it, and is already there. Furthermore, to light the distance is virtually nil because distance shortens. It is a very difficult concept to grasp in the mind.

This was the point that I was trying to make. If it can be sensibly said, and understood, that motion takes time, then motion and time cannot be the same things. Motion and time are correlative, but, only motion is real. Time is real only if there is motion. If the universe stopped, there would be no motion to measure; no clocks ticking.

EXACTLY! The one point you left out is the paradox that if the universe is stopped, it is because the being is traveling at the speed of light. This is the General Theory of Relativity. NASA has an answer man who addressed this succinctly,

This is not just a theory… these effects have been observed in experiments. According to Einstein’s equations, it is impossible for anything with mass to reach the speed of light. So the answer to the first question is that you couldn’t be traveling at the speed of light, but even if you were traveling at close to the speed of light, you would still be able to illuminate your console and shine a light on a target outside. What happens is that as you travel faster and approach the speed of light, distances shorten and time slows down so that light still travels at 300000 km/s relative to you.