For robrecht: Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton and Einstein

[robertb]

Why do you want to stay away from QM?

Because QM blows Aristotle's mind...

Anyway, I prefer to keep causality on a macro scale since I am not sure how to make QM fit with Aristotlian metaphysics, even if such is possible. The goal here is to keep to the framework provided by Aristotilian metaphysics as much as possible.

[robrecht]

So, I think next in line would be efficient and final causality. Oder?

[robrecht]

Because QM blows Aristotle's mind...

Anyway, I prefer to keep causality on a macro scale since I am not sure how to make QM fit with Aristotlian metaphysics, even if such is possible. The goal here is to keep to the framework provided by Aristotilian metaphysics as much as possible.

Why not consider matter (in the Aristotelian sense) to be the quantum vacuum? Or perhaps the zero state field?

[robrecht]

I see matter/energy, dark matter and dark energy (whatever those two are...) as "created" potential relevant to the metaphysical concept we are playing with, (perhaps something akin to Aristotle's prime matter I suppose). "Created" in the sense that, if Guth is correct, matter/energy etc. results from the action, ("free lunch" energy moving the total energy towards 0), of gravity (negative energy) in the expansion (this, for the most part and sorry but I am trying to keep this really really simple both for my own sake and so that we do not get too distracted by really cool theory).

Do you mean 'relative' here, in place of the bolded 'relevant'?

[robertb]

Why not consider matter (in the Aristotelian sense) to be the quantum vacuum? Or perhaps the zero state field?

You could, I suppose, but it is still just potential that is actualized due to gravitational forces during expansion which is kinda what I had earlier stated regarding viewing matter/energy, dark matter and dark energy as prime matter.

[robertb]

Do you mean 'relative' here, in place of the bolded 'relevant'?

I mean relevant to the concept we are discussing. Sorry if that was unclear.

[robertb]

So, I think next in line would be efficient and final causality. Oder?

Yes, those need to be addressed in order to complete our metaphysics. I suppose this includes all four Aristotelian fundamental causes.

[robrecht]

Yes, those need to be addressed in order to complete our metaphysics. I suppose this includes all four Aristotelian fundamental causes.

Perhaps we can dispense with discussing material and formal causes if we agree that the quantum vacuum or the zero state field are prime matter (in the Aristotelian sense) and energy, dark energy (and matter, dark matter, time, and space?) are formal causes. I'm not wedded to this, if you think that's too much of a short cut. The real difficulty is final causality. Some would like to dispense with this altogether, I'm sure. What say you?

[robertb]

Perhaps we can dispense with discussing material and formal causes if we agree that the quantum vacuum or the zero state field are prime matter (in the Aristotelian sense) and energy, dark energy (and matter, dark matter, time, and space?) are formal causes. I'm not wedded to this, if you think that's too much of a short cut. The real difficulty is final causality. Some would like to dispense with this altogether, I'm sure. What say you?

Sure, we can address them as they become necessary.

Regarding final causality, I am kinda stumped. I think efficient causality should not be too difficult, but I have no idea how purpose can be ascribed a priori. Of course, I could happily discard final causality, but I am interested to see if a case for it can really be made.

[robertb]

I wonder if we take the specific Aristotelian view with regards to the concept of divine knowledge we might be able to apply it and, perhaps, address final causality.

[robrecht]

Some purpose can be ascribed a posteriori, for example in the theory of evolution. I am anxious to hear what you have to say about about divine knowledge.

[Soyeong]

I doubt that the idea of equating the "god of classical theism" to something like gravity is orginal to me, though I have not seen a formulation of such an idea myself. It actually occured to me while reading Edward Feser's book 'Aquinas'. I couldn't help but to notice that the arguments Aquinas/Aristotle based their metaphisical concepts on seemed to, in my mind at least, point towards what we would consider fundamental forces of nature, eg. gravity.

This seems to me like this is lot like looking at a proof for the existence of an forest and then stopping to consider that a tree has features in common with the forest, all while missing the forest. If you have Aquinas on hand, then go to page 120 and read what it says on divine attributes. As I've pointed out elsewhere, a being of Pure Act has the power to actualize all potential and gravity is rather limited in this regard. In fact, Aquinas says "the more actual a thing is the more it abounds in active power," so this being must have infinite power, which is in line with the God of classical theism. While gravity can be considered to never run out of power (as long as there is matter), it can't be said that it can do anything power is able to do aka actualize any potential. Furthermore, Aquinas shows in the Fifth way establishes that this being has intellect, and later that it has the highest intellect, a will, is personal, and must be the highest good. This is all far beyond the modern understanding of gravity and is missing the forest for the trees.

[robertb]

Some purpose can be ascribed a posteriori, for example in the theory of evolution. I am anxious to hear what you have to say about about divine knowledge.

Can a posteriori ascribed purposes really be defined as final causes?
I am thinking about the divine knowledge angle.

[robertb]

This seems to me like this is lot like looking at a proof for the existence of an forest and then stopping to consider that a tree has features in common with the forest, all while missing the forest. If you have Aquinas on hand, then go to page 120 and read what it says on divine attributes. As I've pointed out elsewhere, a being of Pure Act has the power to actualize all potential and gravity is rather limited in this regard. In fact, Aquinas says "the more actual a thing is the more it abounds in active power," so this being must have infinite power, which is in line with the God of classical theism. While gravity can be considered to never run out of power (as long as there is matter), it can't be said that it can do anything power is able to do aka actualize any potential. Furthermore, Aquinas shows in the Fifth way establishes that this being has intellect, and later that it has the highest intellect, a will, is personal, and must be the highest good. This is all far beyond the modern understanding of gravity and is missing the forest for the trees.

You may be missing the point here.

Would Aristotle claim that his prime mover can make waffles?

[robrecht]

Can a posteriori ascribed purposes really be defined as final causes?
I am thinking about the divine knowledge angle.

Yes, I think so in a limited sense of a final cause, not the final cause in the sense of the ultimate highest good. I am still anxious to hear what you have to say about about divine knowledge.