Aquinas's argument from Contingency revisited

[technomage]

If I am understanding you correctly, either a known cause or discovery of hidden variables would expand or change QM empirically.

THat, right there, is a problem. All known causes have been eliminated. All hidden variables have been empirically eliminated.

There is no known cause. There is no unknown cause.

QED. There is no cause. Classic causality is broken--still useful on many scales, but broken at this fundamental level.

[GioD]

THat, right there, is a problem. All known causes have been eliminated. All hidden variables have been empirically eliminated.

There is no known cause. There is no unknown cause.

QED. There is no cause. Classic causality is broken--still useful on many scales, but broken at this fundamental level.

"Empirical" is what destroys your case. Just because there is no empirical reference to the cause does not by any means entail there is no cause. Simply because no cause is observed or referenced does not entail there is no cause. This is a complete non-sequitur even granting there can be no empirical expansions on QM. This behavior can be and has been explained causally without the addition of any empirical elements.

[technomage]

"Empirical" is what destroys your case. Just because there is no empirical reference to the cause does not by any means entail there is no cause.

Excuse me, but you do not understand the physics. I did not say there was "no empirical reference," I said hidden variables were empirically verified to not be involved. (I also realize that I did not explicitly say this, but known forces were also empirically eliminated).

I am not claiming an absence of evidence--I am citing the evidence of absence. There is a difference.

[GioD]

Excuse me, but you do not understand the physics. I did not say there was "no empirical reference," I said hidden variables were empirically verified to not be involved. (I also realize that I did not explicitly say this, but known forces were also empirically eliminated).

I am not claiming an absence of evidence--I am citing the evidence of absence. There is a difference.

My point still stands that none of this has to do with empirical observations to begin with. Even though hidden variables may in principle be ruled out, this does not refute the PoC because of the fact (among other facts) the PoC does not restrict causation to act in a law-like or deterministic manner.

[technomage]

PoC does not restrict causation to act in a law-like or deterministic manner.

I never claimed that it did. Nor do the scientists that have discovered and worked with QM. You are making a straw-man argument.

Giod, the crux of the issue is this: Aristotle was an intelligent man, but he was not the acme of human knowledge. He has been wrong in other areas (one of the most amusing being the number of teeth in human males as compared to human females), his science is hopelessly inadequate (largely because of his lack of a quantitative approach, and his complete lack of understanding of certain basic concepts). In places, he goes too far in establishing "laws of the universe." In many ways he was right when he had no hope to be (such as his surmise that the sun was lager than the earth, or that the stars were exceedingly far away), but in the end, he was just a man--and in many areas, he was wrong.

Why do you stand on this issue so strongly? Dear heavens, I have seen Christians confronted by skeptics of the resurrection who could think more flexibly than this!

[shunyadragon]

Excuse me, but you are quite incorrect in this one regard: the universe most certainly had a beginning in the Big Bang, and there is considerable evidence for this. More to the point, the big bang was also the origin of space and time. All available evidence points to the assertion that there is no "eternal" component of our universe.

Excuse me!!!!!!!!

It is not the universe that is the question as to whether there is evidence of a beginning. Our universe began with expansion and our relative time/space continuum began at that time from preexisting matter and energy. This would be true of all possible universes. The beginning of the relative space/time of our universe does not represent the beginning of absolute time.I do not know of on physicist or cosmologist that suggests this is the absolute beginning of our physical existence.

Craig's misrepresentation of Velinkin's is an example of the problem many Christian's have understanding physics and cosmology as it is know today. There is absolutely no evidence that the beginning of expansion of our universe represents an absolute beginning.

I don't know about "a contingent thing ," but below the quantum scale (and under relativistic conditions), you most certainly can have things actualize themselves into existence. At that scale, and under those conditions, causality is largely out the window.

Causality is out the window, but no we have no evidence of anything self actualizing itself at the Quantum level. We have particles arising for a zero-state field of existing matter and energy that has the potential to be particles.

[Soyeong]

Some things are moved.
Motion:

Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call Gravity.

Not all change it caused by gravity, so it'd be a mistake to claim that gravity is what encompasses the first mover.

Causation

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call Gravity.

Gravity is a property of matter, so it would be a mistake to call this the first cause.

Contingency

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is called Gravity.

Gravity is contingent on matter, sorry.

[technomage]

The beginning of the relative space/time of our universe does not represent the beginning of absolute time.

Your phrase "absolute time" is meaningless within science--it most certainly has semantic content outside of that realm (and can be quite important in some fields, including religion), but to attempt to inject it into a science conversation is ... distracting.

Come now, friend, I'm not chiding you as a person. Your arguments in this area are well-intended, but unfortunately they detract from the discussion and yield only confusion.

[technomage]

we have no evidence of anything self actualizing itself at the Quantum level.

I am not necessarily referring to particles, but to phenomena. Case in point--in quantum entanglement, if you have two particles that are entangled, you can separate them by any arbitrary difference, cause a change of state in one particle, and the other particle will change its state at the precise same time. No speed of light delay, so no transfer of information. We may imprecisely state that changing the state on the first particle "caused" the second to change state, but there is no mechanism for that cause, and all available mechanisms would require the speed-of-light delay.

[robertb]

Not all change it caused by gravity, so it'd be a mistake to claim that gravity is what encompasses the first mover.



Gravity is a property of matter, so it would be a mistake to call this the first cause.


Gravity is contingent on matter, sorry.

You might want to think about this a bit. Gravity actualizes matter and energy, it is not contingent upon them.

[GioD]

Giod, the crux of the issue is this: Aristotle was an intelligent man, but he was not the acme of human knowledge. He has been wrong in other areas (one of the most amusing being the number of teeth in human males as compared to human females), his science is hopelessly inadequate (largely because of his lack of a quantitative approach, and his complete lack of understanding of certain basic concepts). In places, he goes too far in establishing "laws of the universe." In many ways he was right when he had no hope to be (such as his surmise that the sun was lager than the earth, or that the stars were exceedingly far away), but in the end, he was just a man--and in many areas, he was wrong.

How does this effect his metaphysics at all? His metaphysics and logic were developed independently of his work on natural sciences, being wrong about the latter entails nothing about the former.

Why do you stand on this issue so strongly?

Because the evidence supports it.

[technomage]

How does this effect his metaphysics at all?

Because, as I said before, when metaphysics (or logic) conflict with the real world, metaphysics must yield.

The purpose of science is to describe natural events. If the natural event being described falsifies a previously held a priori belief, the belief must yield. That's how science works.

Because the evidence supports it.

I've given you evidence that contradicts it.

What evidence do you have that supports the contention that the PoC is a universal law? Better yet, why do you contest that, when the universe does not match the law (however logical the law may seem), the law still stands?

[Soyeong]

You might want to think about this a bit. Gravity actualizes matter and energy, it is not contingent upon them.

Without matter, there would be no gravity.

[technomage]

Without matter, there would be no gravity.

No, gravity would still exist (as a fundamental force). It just wouldn't have any matter to work on.

[shunyadragon]

Your phrase "absolute time" is meaningless within science--it most certainly has semantic content outside of that realm (and can be quite important in some fields, including religion), but to attempt to inject it into a science conversation is ... distracting.

Come now, friend, I'm not chiding you as a person. Your arguments in this area are well-intended, but unfortunately they detract from the discussion and yield only confusion.

Absolute time is not meaningless in science. First, you need to Read - Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Rucker to put different concepts of infinity and time in Perspective including absolute infinities.

The concept of absolute time was first proposed by Isaac Newton to apply to the cosmos beyond the influence of gravity and other factors. It fell out of favor with the 20th century work of Einstein and others with the advent of relative space time concept. In recent years physicists and cosmologists have developed a dual time-independent absolute time concept separate from the relative space time relationship of our universe. The following is reference that discusses this. This reference describes time-independent absolute time as more fundamental to the nature of our physical existence than the time-dependent relationship in the relative time/space relationship our universe.

http://www.voting.ukscientists.com/barbour3.html

Julian Barbour's idea of a timeless universe has to do with turning Scrödinger's quantum mechanics into a quantum cosmology. But to do that, he first has to relativise the remaining classical absolute time and space frame-work, within which Schrödinger's equation is expressed. Barbour's popular explanation of all this gives non-physicists a new insight into these mysteries.

. . .

The Schrödinger equation comes in a time-dependent and a time-independent form. Barbour suggests, contrary to conventional wisdom, that the latter is the more fundamental. The wave equation, that finds all the possible stationary states of a system, hints at a universal state of affairs in which super-positions of stationary waves create a variation in time of the probability density.

© source where applicable

I can provide more references if it is of help to you.