Thomas Aquinas, The Unmoved Mover

[tdgesq]

In QED, the example of an efficient cause is the strange quark, because of it’s alternating ability. Scientific American has had some interesting articles on this and it led to an asymmetrical view of the universe. In all other quarks their nature is distinct each from each, positive or negative to varying degrees; but it could be argued that the strange quark, the ability to alternate, is not a combination of the other quarks, but is it’s own distinct efficient cause. Please take my word for this, I don’t want to be led into an endless research project to prove myself to all of you, by digging up historical quotes forever.

None of the six types of quarks have been shown to be their own efficient cause of motion or existence. The same is true of virtual particles. You will just have to take my word for it.

 

[charlescritt]

I don’t. Are you going to tell us?

Your passion for this topic is great. No, the six motions are mentioned in the Organon in The Categories beginning Chapter 14 he says, 'There are six sorts of motion: generation, destruction, increase, diminution, alteration and change of place. More later, scroll down.

 

[charlescritt]

None of the six types of quarks have been shown to be their own efficient cause of motion or existence. The same is true of virtual particles. You will just have to take my word for it.

What about vibration? What makes a quantum of light alternate between particle and wave? I do take your word for it though, no one’s verified it, Like the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, it shows there’s an asymmetry that’s not completely accounted for. But like natural selection in evolution, I’m not going to go out and commit suicide over it. What we tend to conclude is that we’re on a course for destruction, but that never accounts for the good generative aspects of life. Think of all the turmoil David Hume, the philosopher caused.

 

[Betterave]

Here, though, I would disagree. There is a huge difference between creation and causation, as you no doubt know. As you rightly point out, creation is the bringing of something into existence where there was nothing before. That men have muddied the original meaning of the verb, to create, is a shame and I’m sure was done for the specific purpose of confusing the religious-minded.

There’s a big difference between creation and natural causation, but creation is causation. In other words, there is a big difference between ‘first’ causation and secondary causation, but both are kinds of causation - aren’t they?

Your respondee misunderstands the meaning of “end” as used in this context. End, here, means, purpose or reason. The end, purpose, or reason of, or for, the creation of the universe can only be conjectured. But, God did have a purpose in creating the universe, that much we can arrive at logically.

I think you should double check that context.

 

[Petergray]

There’s a big difference between creation and natural causation, but creation is causation. In other words, there is a big difference between ‘first’ causation and secondary causation, but both are kinds of causation - aren’t they?

There will have had to have been a first cause before the second cause. That’s easy maths. So then the first cause will have had to have created itself. This is scientifically possible as electrons can come into and out of existence by themselfs ( Athiests use this as saying the world could have created itself) So if electrons can come into existence on their own accord, a first cause can be made.

OR

The first cause is a more intelligent being than humans (God) and he is infinite and has always been here and always will be, therefore he has always been here and he created the world.

 

[charlescritt]

I really don’t belong on this thread, but I am curious. Have you or anyone else read Aquinas’ Writings on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, Book 2, Distinction 1, Question 1

I am still in the introduction, but I find it fascinating to read how and why philosophy addresses the many issues of God.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the many adventures of the journey.

Yes granny, your always welcome as far as I’m concerned. Peter Lombard’s Sentences were required reading at the University of Paris in the 13th Century. The format was rather legal, where both sides (pro and con) of a question were examined from the Christian core of questions. In order to get your doctorate, you had to record your answers to the questions. And I think St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica replicates the same basic format. A good book to read, which should be made into a movie, is G.K. Chesterton’s short work entitled Thomas Aquinas.

 

[tdgesq]

What about vibration? What makes a quantum of light alternate between particle and wave? I do take your word for it though, no one’s verified it, Like the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, it shows there’s an asymmetry that’s not completely accounted for. But like natural selection in evolution, I’m not going to go out and commit suicide over it. What we tend to conclude is that we’re on a course for destruction, but that never accounts for the good generative aspects of life. Think of all the turmoil David Hume, the philosopher caused.

Fair enough. I assume by your reference to Hume you mean the problem of induction, which similarly destroys causality. There are reasonable (non-suicidal) answers to these questions though. Like Heisenberg, the mistake lies in an inadequate ontological program.

 

[tdgesq]

There will have had to have been a first cause before the second cause. That’s easy maths. So then the first cause will have had to have created itself. This is scientifically possible as electrons can come into and out of existence by themselfs ( Athiests use this as saying the world could have created itself) So if electrons can come into existence on their own accord, a first cause can be made.

I recognize that you are just setting out the two positions here, and I don’t read anymore into it than that. That being said, I think it is more accurate to say that some scientists have claimed that certain quantum particles fall into and out of existence by themselves. There are many reasons to doubt these claims though.

1. No one has “seen” an electron come into existence or go out of existence on its own. In fact, no one has seen an electron, period. We can see the effects of electrons using certain instruments and testing equipment.
2. While we have a lot of empriometric data concerning particles, this data is largely limited to measurements involving extension ie. momentum, spin, position.
3. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that the more exact a measurement of the position of a particle, the less certain we are of its momentum. So we are further limited in knowing these aspects of a certain particle simultaneously.
4. To say that an electron can come into existence (change) and go out of existence (change) by itself is a violation of the logical law of identity. It is to say that something can be one thing and not be that thing at the same time and in the same way.

The first cause is a more intelligent being than humans (God) and he is infinite and has always been here and always will be, therefore he has always been here and he created the world.

True. And God is immaterial.

 

[grannymh]

Fair enough. I assume by your reference to Hume you mean the problem of induction, which similarly destroys causality. There are reasonable (non-suicidal) answers to these questions though. Like Heisenberg, the mistake lies in an inadequate ontological program.

Apparently, Hume is one of the philosophers I spaced out. Even so, how would the induction method destroy causality?

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[grannymh]

Yes granny, your always welcome as far as I’m concerned. Peter Lombard’s Sentences were required reading at the University of Paris in the 13th Century. The format was rather legal, where both sides (pro and con) of a question were examined from the Christian core of questions. In order to get your doctorate, you had to record your answers to the questions. And I think St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica replicates the same basic format. A good book to read, which should be made into a movie, is G.K. Chesterton’s short work entitled Thomas Aquinas.

I seem to be more interested in Thomas as a person than I am in his writings. Nonetheless, learning background history is my way of better understanding any kind of writing.

My apology. I did not give the citation for the book I am reading. It is: *Aquinas on Creation, *Writings on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, Book 2, Distinction 1, Question 1, translated with an introduction and notes by Steven E. Baldner & William E. Carroll, ISBN 0-88844-285-8, printed in Canada.

I am adding G.K. Chesterton’s Thomas Aquinas to my list because I like Chesterton’s style within the quotes I have read.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for eternal life beckons.

 

[JDaniel]

I’ve been half- heartedly paying attention to this thread and while I have some other things to attend to, next week I’ll really participate. Not that I’m a genius, but I have been reading Aquinas with some attentiveness over the past 25 years and I also get Scientific American on a monthly basis. The petitio principii references really got under my skin, because if I was a betting man, I’d bet that not a one of you know Aristotle’s six motions. They were so important that men of honor knew better than to refer to them. Now if you do not know what they are, you cannot even begin to make an honorable argument about the unmoved mover or the proper nature of those hierarchies they spoke of. With out their study, you cannot even know the rules they agreed to argue by. Natural selection can only represent one of the possible six motions and since these motions were so vital to all else and so vital to modern science, it was assumed that the players of their time, unlike the players of our time, knew some thing about them. They could tell how a person argued a point, whether or not he knew the six motions. But please, does anyone know what the six motions are and where do you find them in the literature? It is vital, to understand the terms you are slinging around and to know where to go with them. Anyone?

Charlescritt:

This is very interesting! I think I know three right off the bat: (1) qualitative, (2) quantitative, and (3) local change. I am familiar with all six, but, they have fallen into disuse. But, please, don’t wait for me!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Since God hasn’t changed, what has modernism have to do with anything?

Davidv:

Perfect point!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Some detail of issues with the unmoved mover argument are earlier in the thread; Aristotle’s logic basically assumes existence. (This flaw is what leads to the famous barber paradox.) The change in how logic is understood allows a better understanding of contradictions which in turn allows a better understanding of existence which in turn allows the discovery of examples that contradict what Aquinas proposes.

My deepest apologies, Kbachler, but I can no longer stay on the sidelines. The “[in]famous barber paradox” is relative how?

The unmoved mover argument, though, has several flaws:

1. Aquinas uses Aristotle’s potentiality argument for motion. This argument is intended to not be temporal (but rather hierarchical), but actual motion by nature is temporal, so the argument is fundamentally not self-consistent. Our concept of an unmoved mover today is fundamentally different (and more robust) than the concept in Aquinas’ time.

This is where you simply do not understand St. Thomas’ argument. St. Thomas is NOT referring to causation-outside-of-time. He is talking about simultaneous causation in series: the shoulder moving the upper arm, the upper arm moving the lower arm, the lower arm moving the hand, the hand moving the stick, the stick moving the ball (without breaching the constancy of the connection between the stick and the ball). Or, the virtually instantaneous, simultaneous flow of electricity through a TV set that generates picture and sound.

(Have you ever read any commentaries on Aquinas?)

1. “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another,…”. The mathematics of motion is much superior today than in Aquinas’ time, when it was basically nonexistent. This statement by Aquinas is demonstrably false via mathematics.

This is not one jot different than asserting that a cartoon character can step out of a cartoon to fix physical problems in the real world. Mathematics is in the imagination.

1. “But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.” This statement is also demonstrably false via mathematics.

Cartoon character omnipotence.

1. “Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.” This statement is demonstrably false as it does not allow for degrees of potentiality, and as it does not allow for “strange situations” now known to be normal in the universe. A thing is a wave and a particle at the same time - to Aquinas (and Aristotle) this would be impossible.

Your commentary is false. Of course he would account for degrees of heat. But, at maximum burn, hot is hot, purely and simply. Degrees of heat are irrelevant. As to your second part, I’m not as nice as Betterave: I call them naked assertions.

1. “It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.” This statement is by mathematics and QED examples, demonstrably false.

OK: let’s apply your imaginary mathematics to a billiard ball at rest on a perfectly level billiard table. I would like to see your mathematics actually get the billiard ball to move itself.

1. “Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.” As 5. is false, this conclusion is false.

This conclusion is false. Patently false!

1. “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover;” Assumed, but for no reason. There’s no reason why there MUST BE a first mover.

He has proven this in his description of “infinity.”

Functions sometimes extend indefinitely.

“Indefinitely” is similar to “infinity,” but, not quite the same. That is an error of equivocation, on your part.

This also basically creates petitio principii, because at this point he has assumed what he sets out to prove. The reason why he feels he can? “…consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover;” So in otherwords, there must be a first mover to put everything in motion because otherwise the subsequent movers wouldn’t be put in motion because the first mover puts them in motion. That’s circular.

How is that “circular?” (BTW: it is not.)

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That is a good question. I suppose if we had observed examples of uncaused or purely self-caused events, whether at the quantum level or not, then it may be reasonable to conclude that there is no necessity for some other unmoved mover (God). I don’t know of any such instance. Mathematicians use the concept of infinity (lack of a bound) frequently and successfully to predict events in the real world, but this does give infinity ontological status. In fact, when an actual existing infinite is postulated it leads to numerous absurd (contradictory) results, Hilbert’s Hotel being a prime example. Despite advances in mathematics and the other specialized sciences, I still believe Aquinas’ cosmological argument to be valid.

Tdgesq:

I quite agree.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Or if we had observed examples of a first mover, then maybe there would be a reason to assume the existence of one? But all of our examples are really of intermediate movers, correct? And so we’ve only seen an intermediate mover start a mover - NEVER a first mover.

Ergo: all there is is secondary movers? Ad infinitum? And, we can just jump in where and when we want?

Hilbert’s Hotel is not really a paradox; it is an illustration of Cantor’s pairing method to demonstrate the principles involved in showing that there are hierarchies of infinities. While it is odd, to us, it is logical.

Cartoon characters, again?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You two seem to have found the adversarial moment, but you can have both. For different sizes of infinity consider the domains of the different angels and for the absolute in their midst consider the source i.e. God. Also see my post on Aristotle’s six motions.

Charles:

But these are not infinities of the physical universe. And, we really don’t know that they are not simply one exigency with boundaries, and not separate infinities.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Or if we had observed examples of a first mover, then maybe there would be a reason to assume the existence of one? But all of our examples are really of intermediate movers, correct? And so we’ve only seen an intermediate mover start a mover - NEVER a first mover.

The quest for eternal life beckons.

 

[grannymh]

Or if we had observed examples of a first mover, then maybe there would be a reason to assume the existence of one? But all of our examples are really of intermediate movers, correct? And so we’ve only seen an intermediate mover start a mover - NEVER a first mover.

What do all the examples of intermediate movers consist of?
And are there various restrictions or limitations inherent in these intermediate movers?

I am interested in Thomas Aquinas, but I am a direct descendent of the other Thomas, the one who is an Apostle. I need to put my hand on these intermediate movers.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for eternal life beckons.

 

[JDaniel]

In QED, the example of an efficient cause is the strange quark, because of it’s alternating ability. Scientific American has had some interesting articles on this and it led to an asymmetrical view of the universe. In all other quarks their nature is distinct each from each, positive or negative to varying degrees; but it could be argued that the strange quark, the ability to alternate, is not a combination of the other quarks, but is it’s own distinct efficient cause. Please take my word for this, I don’t want to be led into an endless research project to prove myself to all of you, by digging up historical quotes forever.

Charles:

The only problem I have with your description of it is the ascription of it as a stand-alone, self-instantiating efficient cause. We do not yet have an exhaustive comprehension of it.

God bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Isn’t something being its own cause the same thing as being logically necessary? Can we conceive of a world where a strange quark does not exist? I can conceive of such a world. It would seem then that we can dismiss the strange quark as not logically necessary and therefore not its own cause either.