Unmoved mover

[Matthias123]

Summa Contra Gentiles:

Everything that is in motion is put and kept in motion by some other thing. It is evident to sense that there are beings in motion. A thing is in motion because something else puts and keeps it in motion. That mover therefore either is itself in motion or not. If it is not in motion, our point is gained which we proposed to prove, namely, that we must posit something which moves other things without being itself in motion, and this we call God. But if the mover is itself in motion, then it is moved by some other mover. Either then we have to go on to infinity, or we must come to some mover which is motionless; but it is impossible to go on to infinity, therefore we must posit some motionless prime mover. In this argument there are two propositions to be proved: that everything which is in motion is put and kept in motion by something else; and that in the series of movers and things moved it is impossible to go on to infinity

Motion means metaphysical motion, which is any change whatsoever. It does not require time. Also the mover that moves the objects also sustains the motion.

Before “Just Lurking” starts going on about infinity, let me say that I know actual infinity can be used in mathematics as a useful tool, but it does not exist in the REAL world.

Also before someone brings it up, Zeno’s paradox does NOT demonstrate actual infinity:

“Greater cannot come from less, because the later is incapable of producing that affect.” Therefore an infinite cannot come from finite. So no matter how many times you divide a finite number by a finite number, you will never get an actually infinite number, only a potentially infinite number. That is why Zeno’s paradox is not an actually infinity.

{…1\16,1\8,1\4,1\2,1}

This is a potential infinity.

Now how does motion work then? It is evident that between any two points in space, there does not need to be another point. We are not going to make stuff up, like saying this paradox demonstrates actual infinity in order to get around this.

Objections?

 

[hatsoff]

Summa Contra Gentiles:

Either then we have to go on to infinity, or we must come to some mover which is motionless; but it is impossible to go on to infinity, therefore we must posit some motionless prime mover. In this argument there are two propositions to be proved: that everything which is in motion is put and kept in motion by something else; and that in the series of movers and things moved it is impossible to go on to infinity

I take this as a roundabout way of saying that time is finite. Okay, but why is it impossible for time to extend infinitely into the past? Because Aquinas says so?

Motion means metaphysical motion, which is any change whatsoever. It does not require time.

What exactly is metaphysical change which does not require time? The only change I know about is physical change across a nonzero time interval.

Before “Just Lurking” starts going on about infinity, let me say that I know actual infinity can be used in mathematics as a useful tool, but it does not exist in the REAL world.

No math concept exists in the physical world except insofar as physical brains may conceive them and think about them. But so what? How does that prevent time from extending infinitely into the past?

 

[Matthias123]

I take this as a roundabout way of saying that time is finite. Okay, but why is it impossible for time to extend infinitely into the past? Because Aquinas says so?

This has nothing to do with time. No not being Aquinas said so that would be an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. It is not possible because an actually infinity cannot exist in the real world.

This motion is a metaphysical motion, which is change of any kind. The motion from something here to over there, or the motion from this time to that time, or the motion from non-being to being.

Unfortunately you deny the existence of this motion. So until you are willing to accept that things change, and this change itself actually exists, I doubt you are going to find this argument very compelling.

The fact is, that things change, and this change is also objectively exists, not just subjectively in our minds. If this were not true, things would not change. We know things change, therefore there is actually existing metaphysical motion.

 

[Matthias123]

No math concept exists in the physical world except insofar as physical brains may conceive them and think about them. But so what? How does that prevent time from extending infinitely into the past?

You said in another thread that logic does not exist outside of our minds. If that is true, math concepts would not be able to exist in the physical world because math is built upon logic.

For example this is how you actually count to 2.

1. 0
2. 01
3. 10

You count with boolean logic. So which is it? Does it exist inside our minds or outside our minds?

 

[Matthias123]

G nB -----------------> B
|_____–> M

nB = non-being
B = being

G= mover
nB = moved
M = motion
B = result of the motion

I know this is a bad diagram, but I want to illustrate the concept for you.

 

[hatsoff]

This has nothing to do with time. No not being Aquinas said so that would be an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. It is not possible because an actually infinity cannot exist in the real world.

Again–so what?

This motion is a metaphysical motion, which is change of any kind. The motion from something here to over there, or the motion from this time to that time, or the motion from non-being to being.

Unfortunately you deny the existence of this motion. So until you are willing to accept that things change, and this change itself actually exists, I doubt you are going to find this argument very compelling.

Indeed not.

I will “accept” that timeless metaphysical change exists as soon as you explain what you mean by it, and provide evidence that your claim is true. As it stands, I can find no coherent meaning at all in your words.

The fact is, that things change, and this change is also objectively exists, not just subjectively in our minds. If this were not true, things would not change. We know things change, therefore there is actually existing metaphysical motion.

You keep saying that if X was not true, then Y could not be true, for various X,Y. I do not find these claims believable. If you want to construct a convincing argument, you’re going to have to meaningfully define your terms, and provide good reasons for inferring your claim from available data. I do not believe you have accomplished either task in this case.

You said in another thread that logic does not exist outside of our minds. If that is true, math concepts would not be able to exist in the physical world because math is built upon logic.

In addition to human minds, certain machines (computers) can also perform math operations of a sort. You might say that logic exists in that sense, as well. Perhaps that is what you’re getting at, here…

For example this is how you actually count to 2.

1. 0
2. 01
3. 10

You count with boolean logic. So which is it? Does it exist inside our minds or outside our minds?

But even in this case, logic does not “exist” except insofar as we have a physical machine performing physical operations.

I should also remind you that I prefer not to say logic exists at all, inside or outside the mind. I’m only using this terminology because you seem to demand it.

 

[Matthias123]

The fact is, that things change, and this change is also objectively exists, not just subjectively in our minds. If this were not true, things would not change. We know things change, therefore there is actually existing metaphysical motion.

1. Things Change
2. Change can be objective
3. If change could not objective, Then change in objective reality would not exist.
4. Change in objective reality exists.
5. Therefore things change and change can be in objective reality.
6. Things come into being from non-being
7. This is an objective change.
8. Therefore this change exists in objective reality.

Change is synonymous with motion in this case.

 

[JDaniel]

I take this as a roundabout way of saying that time is finite. Okay, but why is it impossible for time to extend infinitely into the past? Because Aquinas says so?

When someone shows such little respect for our venerable Saint Thomas, it is more than reasonable to presume that that someone has motives for being so disrespectful. I would reasonably presume that such motives would not be very Christian motives either. Would you mind sharing them with us?

If you were just being snooty and really didn’t realize that you were being egregiously disrespectful, accept my apologies and let’s move on.

So, out of respect, I’ll give you time to answer. . . .

jd

 

[geometer]

Zeno’s paradox is false, not because there is no infinity. It does not matter how many distances and times that you propose between two points, as the paradox states the velocity is constant.

A car travels sixty miles from point A to point B at sixty miles an hour.

half the distance is 30 miles which takes 1/2 an hour, dividing the distance by the time gives 60 M/H

half the remaing distance is 15 miles which takes, 1/4 hour, 15/0.25 =60 M/H

etc…

Zeno confused the ancients because they thought that an infinite number of things could not be added up. We know now that they can. This is what the calculus is about.

 

[hatsoff]

When someone shows such little respect for our venerable Saint Thomas, it is more than reasonable to presume that that someone has motives for being so disrespectful. I would reasonably presume that such motives would not be very Christian motives either. Would you mind sharing them with us?

If you were just being snooty and really didn’t realize that you were being egregiously disrespectful, accept my apologies and let’s move on.

So, out of respect, I’ll give you time to answer. . . .

I do not believe I was being “snooty” or disrespectful. I never knew Aquinas. I have read only snippets of his work.

I merely disagree with his conclusions, and regard his reasoning as unsound.

 

[Matthias123]

I do not believe I was being “snooty” or disrespectful. I never knew Aquinas. I have read only snippets of his work.

I merely disagree with his conclusions, and regard his reasoning as unsound.

Well, that is your choice. Anyone else wanna rumble with the Angelic Doctor?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do not believe I was being “snooty” or disrespectful. I never knew Aquinas. I have read only snippets of his work.

I merely disagree with his conclusions, and regard his reasoning as unsound.

if youve read only snippets, its no surprise that you find his reasoning unsound. specifically what do you find unsound?

 

[hatsoff]

if youve read only snippets, its no surprise that you find his reasoning unsound. specifically what do you find unsound?

In the quote from the OP, Aquinas appears to be posing the cosmological argument, which is unsound in every form I have encountered. He writes, “we must posit something which moves other things without being itself in motion, and this we call God” (as quoted in the OP). This is incorrect.

 

[tonyrey]

He writes, “we must posit something which moves other things without being itself in motion, and this we call God” (as quoted in the OP). This is incorrect.

Why is it incorrect?

 

[hatsoff]

Why is it incorrect?

Are you asking why it is the case that God does not exist? That’s just the way it is. Or are you asking how it is that I have arrived at the conclusion that God does not exist? That would be due to a conspicuous lack of evidence for his existence.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you asking why it is the case that God does not exist? That’s just the way it is. Or are you asking how it is that I have arrived at the conclusion that God does not exist? That would be due to a conspicuous lack of evidence for his existence.

You stated:

He writes, “we must posit something which moves other things without being itself in motion, and this we call God” (as quoted in the OP). This is incorrect.

So it seems as “This” refers to his argument.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In the quote from the OP, Aquinas appears to be posing the cosmological argument, which is unsound in every form I have encountered. He writes, “we must posit something which moves other things without being itself in motion, and this we call God” (as quoted in the OP). This is incorrect.

why is this statement incorrect? i mean the specific grounds on which you reject the qouted statement?

 

[Matthias123]

why is this statement incorrect? i mean the specific grounds on which you reject the qouted statement?

I also want to know why it is incorrect.

 

[Matthias123]

Zeno’s paradox is false, not because there is no infinity. It does not matter how many distances and times that you propose between two points, as the paradox states the velocity is constant.

A car travels sixty miles from point A to point B at sixty miles an hour.

half the distance is 30 miles which takes 1/2 an hour, dividing the distance by the time gives 60 M/H

half the remaing distance is 15 miles which takes, 1/4 hour, 15/0.25 =60 M/H

etc…

Zeno confused the ancients because they thought that an infinite number of things could not be added up. We know now that they can. This is what the calculus is about.

I still don’t understand. The distance is going to get smaller and smaller until infinity. (this is a potential infinity) However it cannot actually reach infinity and form a set. Calculus can make use of actual infinities, but it doesn’t suggest that they exist in the real world.

 

[JDaniel]

Motion means metaphysical motion, which is any change whatsoever. It does not require time. Also the mover that moves the objects also sustains the motion.

Before “Just Lurking” starts going on about infinity, let me say that I know actual infinity can be used in mathematics as a useful tool, but it does not exist in the REAL world.

Also before someone brings it up, Zeno’s paradox does NOT demonstrate actual infinity:

“Greater cannot come from less, because the later is incapable of producing that affect.” Therefore an infinite cannot come from finite. So no matter how many times you divide a finite number by a finite number, you will never get an actually infinite number, only a potentially infinite number. That is why Zeno’s paradox is not an actually infinity.

{…1\16,1\8,1\4,1\2,1}

This is a potential infinity.

Now how does motion work then? It is evident that between any two points in space, there does not need to be another point. We are not going to make stuff up, like saying this paradox demonstrates actual infinity in order to get around this.

Objections?

Aquinas explained change of motion as either substantial or accidental. Substantial change is when something changes from one form of being or, existence, to another. For example, when wood burns, a change occurs at the moment the wood goes out of existence and is replaced by a new substance, the ash. By that, Aquinas does not mean when an entire log becomes ash instantaneously, rather, he means the precise moment when that which was wood changes its form of existence. A log has the properties of magnitude, compression of its matter, and retained moisture content. So, an entire log changes over time. But, that is due to the properties of fire, that it cannot get to all of the wood in the first instant. Thus, due to the individual natures of fire and the wood, the whole log must be affected in time.

The actual change, from wood to ash, occurs rather instantaneously. If one considers the instant of change, one can almost witness the occurrence as the cool, brown wood becomes black and hot, in that moment.

Accidental change is change where the substance of the subject undergoing change remains the same, but, some accidental attribute is possessed by the subject at the end of the change that was not possessed before the change. Most motion, or change, is accidental change. An example of this type occurs when a man becomes a musician.

Accidental change requires a subject and two contraries. Substantial change requires a primary subject and two first contraries.

Now, when a Prime Mover starts the first change or, motion, it must itself be unmoved. If it is not unmoved but, instead, it too is moved, then it is not the Prime Mover and we must scan in reverse to either come to that which is the Prime Mover, or, keep going back ad infinitum. But, we can’t keep regressing ad infinitum as an actual infinity does not exist. If an infinite time continuum actually existed then we are here by miracle, either way.

jd