Here's my third post about Heinrich Pas' book The One: How An Ancient Idea Holds the Future of Physics, the previous posts being here and here.
In my reading I've reached a sort of interlude in-between the first and last parts of the book, each of which deal fairly directly with a monistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which explains The One title.
But two intervening chapters, "The Struggle for One" and "From One to Science and Beauty," focus on the historic struggle between monism and dualism in Western thought (there's very little mention of Eastern thought, which also has monistic and dualistic aspects).
I don't find these chapters as interesting as the more directly science-oriented ones.
However, reading them still was enjoyable, since I was familiar with most of the names of religiously and philosophically minded people with monistic leanings that either earned them praise or condemnation from the powers-that-be of their time.
Parmenides. Plato. Pythagoras. Plotinus. Dionysius the Areopagite. Eriugena. Meister Eckhart. Nicholas of Cusa. Giordano Bruno. Leonardo da Vinci. Spinoza. Schelling. Hegel. Goethe. Plus others.
Still, I could understand why Pas described how Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and other scientific pioneers arrived at their conceptions of the universe. It was less clear why Pas was describing the tenor of the times in ancient, medieval, renaissance, and other historic periods.
Then I recalled an Einstein quote that I'd included in my book about Plotinus, the Greek Neoplatonist philosopher: "It is the theory which decides what we can observe." The preceding sentence elaborates what Einstein meant: "“Whether or not you can observe a thing depends upon the theory you use."
This helps explain why Pas goes to considerable lengths to examine how monism and dualism have battled for supremacy in the minds of humans. Not that these are strict demarcations, since Plotinus, for example, said about the One: "Therefore he [the One] must fill all things and make all things , not be all the things he makes."
So I think Pas is correct when he asks how it was that the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was so adamant that nothing could be said about the mysterious underlying quantum reality which produced observable results in experiments involving the subatomic realm.
Though Pas doesn't consider that Bohr, Heisenberg, and other pioneers of quantum mechanics were motivated by dualistic Christianity where God is hidden and God's creation is manifest, he does believe that the views of all of us -- scientists and nonscientists alike -- are heavily influenced by how our surrounding culture sees reality.
Of course, it's distinctly possible, and in my view highly probable, that at some level the inner workings of nature are beyond all possible views, at least those capable of being conceived by the human mind.
Even if this true, science is our best means of attaining a worldview that corresponds most closely to the world as it is. For while Einstein may be correct in saying that the theory decides what can be observed (for every observation entails assumptions), science uses observations of various types to confirm or reject theories -- thereby producing a feedback loop that leads to increasingly accurate theories.
Religion is considerably more blind in its worldview. For whether we're speaking of a major religion, a minor sect, a mystical path, a spiritual approach, or whatever, typically some sort of teaching leads to some sort of belief which leads to some sort of experience that fits with the teaching and belief.
Thus a Christian is told that Jesus is loving, which leads to a belief that Jesus loves them, which causes an experience of Jesus' love ("Praise the Lord, I found a parking space!"), which is viewed as proving that the belief was true, even though it really doesn't, because the whole process was circular -- a teaching producing an expectation which produces an experience that supposedly proves the teaching.
Hi Brian
You wrote
"Thus a Christian is told that Jesus is loving, which leads to a belief that Jesus loves them, which causes an experience of Jesus' love ("Praise the Lord, I found a parking space!"),"
That's a wonderful process. How can someone experience joy and happiness simply being told a divine power loves them?
If I told you you could go to other planets, and believing that you did, instantly, what a great, miraculous process that would be!
To see God in an empty parking space? I'd call that a gift, a miracle, the exercise of a wonderful neurological "muscle", the capacity for joy through some volitional process.
On the other hand, putting conditions on our own happiness seems dualistic, even nihilistic. It is one part of the brain crushing another, rather than allowing them to integrate naturally through a system of belief in a greater benevolent power. Even if that power is the belief in reality? Belief in the power of possibility in every silent and empty moment?
I wonder why such practices add years of life to people? The hard sciences have hard evidence of that.
Maybe the brain, in evolving to survive in conditions vastly more complex than our ability to understand, developed mechanisms to find balance, peace, insight, meaning and happiness in the midst of the strife, ignorance and confusion that is the lot of the human brain attempting to process reality.
So then, if strife, conflict, disease and death without purpose and meaning are the lot of the biological birthright of this accident we call our biosphere and its inhabitants, what greater art can there be than, as a product of this accident, consciousness, faith, belief and happiness emerge all of their own?
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 16, 2023 at 05:16 AM
If the reality we perceive is merely a Rorschach test of our own projection, and that delights us, then that is also reality. Einstein hinted as much.
The faces and things we see looking up at clouds might draw us into learning more about clouds. Or more about the things within ourselves that projected them. Any exploration driven by joy, to learn, to grow is a search for truth also, whether within our outside ourselves. To strive to learn and grow is also a natural part of the human condition.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 16, 2023 at 05:37 AM
If these essays are intended as an argument for atheism, they're not very persuasive.
"Science" per se is not a "worldview," whatever that term means precisely. What does "worldview" mean, anyway? Here's one definition:
"A worldview is a collection of attitudes, values, stories and expectations about the world around us, which inform our every thought and action. Worldview is expressed in ethics, religion, philosophy, scientific beliefs and so on." That definition comes from NIH.
In other words, I doubt if anyone really has a worldview that wholly based on science. It hardly seems possible. A textbook on physics doesn't have anything to tell us about love, morality, social order, natural law, or anything else touching on the essential needs of humanity. These are matters quite outside the lab and the observatory.
But OK, maybe there are those who believe otherwise. Those who've concluded that "Science" teaches us that religion is folly, that life has no meaning beyond our material existence, and that whatever views the scientific community may hold on human affairs are to be respected as infallible. Perhaps this offers clues as to why these people believes that the "scientific" castration of children is a good thing.
I'd rather trust the person who trusts Jesus for a parking space, than the person who thinks "science" has proven male and female is an empty social construct.
Posted by: SantMat64 | July 16, 2023 at 06:27 AM
Heh, I’m getting a little bit impatient to get to the punchline!
As I see it, Oneness would essentially mean that reality answers to some wholeness, that no individual portion of it can meaningfully capture. That’s the elephant-and-blind-men thing. No matter how precisely you measure and hypothesize and predict individual body parts, like the tail, or the trunk, or the legs, or the torso; but unless your interpretation of the elephant encompasses the whole elephant, then all of your explanation will be completely wanting, woefully inadequate, even when it comes to those parts. Because no matter how painstaking your analysis of the tusk of the elephant, but that analysis of the tusk, and why it moved just so over some period of time, and whatever else about it, is going to be so very off-base as to be nonsensical, unless you realize it is part of an elephant, and that the elephant is alive. (That analogy is about a live elephant standing there. I suppose it would be less nonsensical, and understanding of the whole less important, if the elephant were dead; but let's stick with the original analogy of the live elephant.)
That’s a very bold claim. Sure, it is one way to explain things like quantum superposition; but still, it's still a very bold claim. Not quite woo, but bordering on it. Unless actually backed up with sound science. Which I very much doubt it is, else we’d have heard of it already, not from one lone voice but a whole multitude. On the other hand, given Pas’ solid credentials, one can’t dismiss his ideas out of hand, not without knowing more about them. Net net, the punchline, that’s what I’m impatient to get to.
As for Platonic Oneness? That, to my mind, is far more woo-ish than the elephantine Oneness, if I may call the latter that. To imagine that there’s some kind of unitary thing that is both the root cause of all of reality, as well as in some sense the whole essence of all reality; and that what we ourselves see of ‘higher’ reality is not even a bona fide part of that reality (like an elephant's tusk), but actually only a pale shadow of that ‘higher’ reality: that, I'd say, goes well beyond even the elephant imagery, and frankly sounds completely woo. Or, at any rate, it would be wild speculation, that is not only unproven, but actually unprovable, and therefore completely unscientific. But again, given Heinrich Pas’ apparently impeccable credentials in hard core science, and given how very much taller he is than I am, I can hardly look down my nose at him. So again, the punchline! Is this woo, or isn’t it? Is this speculation plain and simple, and completely unsupported even if not necessarily directly disproved; or is this actually science?
(Take your time, Brian. While it’s true I’m getting impatient, but that only speaks to how compelling is the narrative, and how well you’re discussing the subject matter. We’ll get to the final denouement, when Dalgliesh gathers everyone on the island around and explains each and every thing down to the smallest detail, when we get to it. Meantime, let’s enjoy the gradual unfolding of the plot of the whodunnit!)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 16, 2023 at 06:37 AM
>> As I see it, Oneness would essentially mean that reality answers to some wholeness, that no individual portion of it can meaningfully capture. That’s the elephant-and-blind-men thing. No matter how precisely you measure and hypothesize and predict individual body parts, like the tail, or the trunk, or the legs, or the torso; but unless your interpretation of the elephant encompasses the whole elephant, then all of your explanation will be completely wanting,<<
What if understand a part, means understanding the whole?!
If everything is an unique variation of the same, than the sameness could be known in every unique variation thereof.
It seems to me that only the form, is endless variated, but that what makes everything APPEAR in that uniqueness is the same in everything from stone to human.
Posted by: um | July 16, 2023 at 07:09 AM
Agreed, um. That may be a third way that Oneness might obtain. The first being the elephant thing; the second, the Platonic world of ideals thing, and the Oneness at the back of it all; and yes, what you suggest, that does appear to be a third option.
And what's more, I guess this kind of "oneness" does obtain IRL. If you look at a single human cell, then a detailed genomic mapping of that cell can tell you a great deal about the human being it was taken from. In some sense it can tell you *everything* about that person, depending on how you define "everything". So cool, yes, not only is your option a valid option, separate from the other two; but apparently it does obtain in real life.
But this is all wild speculation, right? The universe might be one single "elephantine" whole; or it could be a Platonic "One", and us its reflections-of-reflections-of-reflections; or it could be, like you suggest, reflected in each of its parts, and in that sense unitary. Or it could be some fourth option we might think up, or a fifth, or a 5,432nd. Speculating's fun, but all it is is speculating. What makes speculation truth, is if the evidence bears if out, if it's backed by science. Is any of this backed by science? That is the question, isn't it?
(I personally doubt it, to be frank. But let's see what Heinrich Pas has to say about it.)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 16, 2023 at 08:47 AM
By the way, um, just looked up the Namdharis. (This belongs in the Open Thread, actually, but since I'm already talking to you here, perhaps a single brief comment won't matter!)
Like I was saying, I looked up the wiki on the Namdharis. Which led me to the wiki entry on the Nirankaris. It was the Nirankaris I'd heard of, and was thinking of. Not the Namdharis. Them I've never actually heard of before. I was mistaking the one for the other.
And it was interesting reading about them. Apparently the Namdharis are actually a straight lineage straight from Nanak. Arguably, then, they are the true Sikhs. (Because even if you accept that the Sikh Gurus are a thing, I mean that's nonsensical but if you do accept it for the sake of argument, even then it's completely random to claim that that lineage has irrevocably come to an end, and the "spirit" of the Guru gone away for good, after Guru Gobind. Much more reasonable --- given this weird-ass premise, I mean to say --- that it would have continued on, further on to Balak, and so forth. )
.......That last was just me thinking aloud, but either way, that is to say regardless of who might be the true Sikhs (which in a non-legal sense is probably a nonsensical question anyway), it's very cool, that is straight-on lineage of the Sikh Gurus. I hadn't known about this, hadn't ever heard of this! Very interesting.
Thanks for pointing me in that direction, um!
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 16, 2023 at 08:56 AM
@AR
>> What makes speculation truth, is if the evidence bears if out, if it's backed by science. Is any of this backed by science? That is the question, isn't it?<<
For those that know it to be true, others are irrelevant.
Moreover
How could such a thing be proved, besides direct knowledge?
It would be meaningless to everybody.
Proving in the scientific way is "making a thing seen" to others and in a particular way.
As far as i understand theoretical mathematicians are searching for an all and everything encompassing theory, I feel that such a thing is impossible and that impossibility is include in the saying of Einstein about the reation between theory and reality ...but .. this brings be much to far out of my comfort zone ... hahaha .
Posted by: um | July 16, 2023 at 09:27 AM
It reminds me of the old Irish joke.
Paddy's desperate for parking and prays for a spot, vowing to give up whiskey and go back to church. Just then someone pulls out. "Nevermind, Jesus, I found one on me own."
Posted by: umami | July 16, 2023 at 09:34 AM
@ AR
If you search the internet you might find images of the installation of several RSSB guru's and on all of them there are Namdharis representatives to see.
But let me add this ...
The summary of "my submission" written by one of the RSSB teachers starts with:
Man came first.
Religions were instituted later for their evolution.
These sentenses are in my opion sutra's , formulas or linguistic multi functional tools
Nature came first
Culture was instituted later .
Experience came first
the schools later.
There are many that have experiences of the level that makes others develop a school.in which they are teachers or become seen as founders.
Although the difference in experience might be nil, the difference between the experiencer as such and the teacher are enormous.
Teaching is not .. read again ... NOT ... related to the experience at all. Teaching is a relationship between a person and others.
It might even be possible that a person having such an experience is not able to understand or know what has pappened and unable or unwilling to attribute meaning and value to it in the compagny of others.
If you read what happened to Yolande Duran Serrano you might understand. She had no previous knowledge or interest in the spiritual and was faced all of an sudden with an experience that altered her whole existence. She tried to understand what was happening to her and as far as I know she gave up as her ongoing experience or state was more than enough for her. And since the lst 10 years or so she has completely disappeared from the stage....and .. i guess ... because she was able to TALK about her experience to a certain degree, but otherwise she had nothing to offer in terms of a practice that would allow others to experience the same.... she was not a master, guru, teacher or whatever.
The compagny of a teacher is a great gift.
Posted by: um | July 16, 2023 at 09:53 AM
@ AR
Withou a "NEED" there would never be a school.
Schools of any sort are kind of shops.
They only exist on the need of customers.
And if the need is not there it has to be created.
Animals have no "shops".
Humans are made and have allowed themselves to be made into customers, consumers.and in doing so they lose their autonomy, their freedom, their rights, in fact everything ... they become losers
He was right when he said to me about priests and counselors, ... they have nothing to share of themselves with you ... maybe he should have added the scientist and the mystic.
Posted by: um | July 16, 2023 at 10:23 AM
With regards to all of the names cited in the post - Parmenides , Pythagoras , Plotinus, Dionysius, Eriugena, the Good Meister, Bruno, Da Vinci, Spinoza, Hegel, Goethe, Schelling ... we could add Aquinas , Bonaventure, Whitehead , Schopenhauer and keep on going almost indefinitely - It seems to me that all of these thinkers would probably reject philosophical materialism.
Posted by: Cassiodorus | July 16, 2023 at 01:39 PM
Which isn't surprising, given they predate science, and knew nothing of its methods.
Plato was brilliant, wise even; and no blame can attach to him for not knowing what wouldn't be discovered for millennia. But those who parrot his long outdated ideas today are anything but.
As for Aquinas, given the logical principles he employed were already as old as the hills, even during his lifetime, his blatant illogic was inexcusable. He was a charlatan and a fool, even when he lived. And those who parrot him today, today when the benefit of a scientific wodview is so easily available, are ...let's just say, far stupider than Aquinas himself was, and/or even more disingenuous.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 16, 2023 at 10:07 PM
>> ..... a scientific worldview is so easily available<<
?????
Which scientist and what science????
Posted by: um | July 17, 2023 at 12:16 AM
What discovery in science has demonstrated that physicalism is true ?
Science is a methodology , not an ontology . Methodological naturalism is a convention . Turning the methods of science into a metaphysic is in danger of becoming scientism .
Modern experimental science emerged in the milieu of western Christendom . Not a coincidence . It has been well documented that theistic theological ideas had a significant impact of the formation and foundation of modern science .
All of these scientists rejected materialism - some who are relevant to this post on quantum mechanics :
Isaac Newton , Robert Boyle , Michael Faraday , James Clark Maxwell, Gregor Mendel , George Lemaitre, Alessandro Volta , Blaise Pascal , Charles Babbage, Alfred North Whitehead, Werner Heisenberg , Arthur Edington , Niels Bohr , Max Planck , Samual Morse, Francis Collins ….
And the list goes on and on .
Aquinas is regarded as one of the greatest minds that ever lived and an intellectual descendent of Plato . He was an Aristotelian - the star pupil of Plato. Moreover , other than Aristotle , his two other major influences were Dionysius the Aeropagite and Augustine of Hippo- both of whom were Neoplatonists. So it’s weird to claim that Aquinas was stupid and Plato was brilliant .
Posted by: Cassioudorus | July 17, 2023 at 06:37 AM
Not sure what you mean by asking that, um. Why on earth should a scientific worldview be limited to some particular scientist, or some particular specialization within science? And further, not sure at all what exactly that collection of question marks might indicate!
Still, coming from you, um, I'll take the question at face value, and try to present as complete an answer as I can:
And the answer is: A general scientific worldview. Not limited to some particular branch of science, or some particular scientist. …And, as to how that relates to Aquinas, here’s a for-instance:
-----
The first of Aquinas’s "arguments" is the Prime Mover thing. Which, from memory, goes something like this: The normal state of things is to be stationery. However, we observe that there are things in motion. How would a stationery object start moving? Only something that’s already moving can get something that is stationery to move. But the thing that’s moving, and that got some stationery object to move, that in turn must at one time have been stationery, and must have started moving when acted on by some other moving body. That suggests a whole line of causality. But that line of causality cannot go on forever, it needs to stop someplace. And that “someplace” is the Prime Mover. And that Prime Mover is God. Something like that. Basically he's arguing in detail here here that you can infer from the existence of moving bodies that there's a Prime Mover, and that that Prime Mover is God.
Logically that’s a complete mess. There’s no reason, at all, why that causal sequence shouldn’t go on indefinitely. There’s no reason for it to stop someplace. And even should it stop someplace, it doesn’t follow, at all, that that should be just the one thing. Even should there be Prime Movers, there’s nothing in that reasoning that shows that there’s just the one Prime Mover: there may well be two, or ten, or a hundred thousand. And finally, even should there be just the one Prime Mover, even then there’s zero connection between that entity and what we commonly know of as “God” --- and to claim that is to take a compete gravity-defying flying leap. (Let’s not forget he’s basically arguing for the Christian God here. When he presents similarly lame arguments about …Perfection, for instance, then again that font of Perfection is, as he argues, “God” --- without explaining why the Prime Mover should be the same entity as the Perfect Thing (even granting him these cross-eyed ideas about the Prime Mover and the Perfect Thing).
-----
That’s the logic part of it. Not so much logic as illogic, actually. And the mile-wide flaws in his logic are enough to reject his absurd "argument" out of hand.
But we needn't stop at that. That horse is dead already, but we can go in beating it some more if we want. Here’s how a scientific worldview FURTHER demolishes Aquinas’s pathetic “arguments”:
Going back to our same example, about the Prime Mover argument:
It is completely erroneous that the stationery state is the “normal”, starting state of every body. That’s completely wrong. A body that’s at rest continues to be at rest, and a body that’s in motion continues to be in motion. That’s Gravity 101, that’s Isaac Newton 101. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be bodies eternally moving: that’s what a moving body does, it keeps moving. That’s what inertia means. Aquinas’s “argument” falls flat right at the get-go.
Not to forget Relativity. Not only is the stationery state not the normal starting point for every body; but there’s no such thing, in absolute terms, as body-at-rest and body-in-motion. And given that there's no absolute reference frame, therefore the whole idea of a Prime Mover itself becomes completely nonsensical. That's Albert Einstein 101.
-----
Aquinas was wrong both on logical grounds, as well as scientific grounds. But, to be fair to him, while he is certainly to blame for his flawed logic, but no blame can possibly attach to him for his ignorance about inertia and relativity, both of which were discovered centuries after he was dead and gone.
Still, fact remains that he was completely wrong. Wrong logically, and wrong scientifically as well. And those who continue, in this day and age, to swallow Aquinas's claptrap can certainly be blamed not only for the flawed logic, but also for their flawed science, given that that's just basic science, and given that a scientific worldview is accessible to most of us today.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 17, 2023 at 07:00 AM
Cassiodorus, see my comment just prior, in response to um.
Neither Plato nor Aquinas can be blamed for being ignorant of specific facts proven by science today, obviously, given that they both lived centuries before these discoveries, and indeed centuries before the scientific method itself was properly formulated.
But Aquinas can certainly be blamed for his ludicrous logic. That's what his "arguments" were, exercises in logic. Based on logical principles established many centuries before his time.
Aquinas should have known better than to peddle that nonsense. Either he was a fool, who couldn't think straight. Or else he was a cunning rogue who could indeed think clearly, but who's deliberately presented flawed arguments knowing that his mostly ignorant audience wouldn't have the wits to figure that out, in which latter case he was a charlatan.
Again, I'm not blaming Aquinas for his lack of scientific knowledge, any more than Plato.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 17, 2023 at 07:09 AM
@ AR
BEFORE ... before I continue reading AR, I do not consider philosophy a science.
Posted by: um | July 17, 2023 at 07:11 AM
How can an intellect bent on dissection understand wholeness? LOL
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 17, 2023 at 07:17 AM
@AR
I wrote something but I do not want to send it.
Instead something else.
Yesterday I listen to an documentary about Oppenheimer, the construction of the first nuclear bomb and their complete ignorance ... would it work and if it works what will be the consequences. It was shocking to hear that they even considered the possibility of destroying the earth .... and yet AR ... they pushed the button
What world view was at stake AR
One thing is clear and that is all material is holding together based on that CONSTANT in Einsteins formula. ... they have no idea what that constant is or how it came into being ... they will be forever stopped at the door of BIG BANG .. they will be forever convicted to study what came AFTER the BEFORE
The humam brain is given as an tool to stay alive in changing circumstances. No other creature has that gift or needs such a tool. The brain is an tool to deliver a narrative and a narrative is an understanding of life in an environment in order to survive.
It is an information processor needed to make decissions and, perception psychologist can explain you what that brain does with ambiguous information ... it will CREATE and narrative if it is not directly visible.
To me all political systems, sciences and also spiritual teachings of ALL schools are just narratives.... they have no existence of their own.
They are like ... planning a holliday ... or ...practice of making coffee.
I would I could write in the same lofty way as you all gentlemen in this form do.
Posted by: um | July 17, 2023 at 07:56 AM
Acquinas wrote some very helpful things in distinguishing the multitude of things we see around us and the One that caused them all:
"...Every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regards to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."
In short, if everything has its cause, and arises out of a condition of necessity, then it can't be said there is no cause to anything, and to argue "infinity" is simply to escape the fact that as far back as one wishes to go, there will be a cause.
Modern Physics already has proven that time only came about when matter came into existence. Time is a property of matter. Therefore the presumption of infinite time has no evidence, and indeed, evidence to the contrary.
This isn't a proof of God, but rather a respect for the solid logic Aquinas employs, which holds still to today. He makes it plain that this logic, like all logic, depends upon premises that are pre-conditions, pre-established by belief. Logic can only be built upon a priori premises. He further makes plain that God is a pre-condition, a priori, a hypothesis that can only be proven indirectly by the effects of God's work. But he argues that it is not unreasonable to hold such faith...
"In demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God"
.... We can only know God as an intermediary term in this way. But Aquinas points out this depends entirely on our understanding of those effects...the world around us. And as we understand this world better, we will come to understand "God"...at least the term used to describe the cause, better.
..."It is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects..."
..."And so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence."
That would be a direct experience, of the One, whatever that is, not an indirect one of the effects, perceptions, brain creations, etc. Trying to prove God from their effects is possible, says Aquinas, but only if you accept that you are proving an intermediary term "God" that we cannot fully understand in this way. That is a placeholder for the cause we do not yet know.
"When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us..."
Simply put, as science proceeds and we understand reality better, so we will understand the cause better.
In this way Aquinas honors the path of science as a path to understanding God, by understanding the causes we see. And he says we can only thus refer to God as an intermediary word, and not the essence, the One, looking at the effects. But as we learn more about the effects, so too grows our understanding of the causes, and indirectly, the primary cause or mover. That can never be fully understood because, as Aquinas wrote, and every astrophysicist struggles with, the a priori conditions of this creation are not the conditions that took shape and caused everything else.
Posted by: spence tepper | July 17, 2023 at 08:18 AM
@ Spence
>> In this way Aquinas honors the path of science as a path to understanding God, by understanding the causes we see<<
In doing so we learn about our selves and nothing about god.
Humans cannot know god.
Whatever we no about god has come to us by people having inner experiences and philosophers, ATTRIBUTING, meaning and value to what they experience.
Like we can only know what instruments allows us to know, we only understand what the mind, brain allows us to understand.
As humans have free choice and are able to determine the consequences of such an choice, they have vreated themselves laws of cause and effect and a universal "actor""
They created god ik their HUMAN image. .. there is no escape to that.
And projecting it outside himself he will be forever doomed.to search, argue etc etc.
Evrything to be found is allready there ... it must be INSIDE the house
Posted by: um | July 17, 2023 at 08:28 AM
Hi Um:
You wrote:
"Humans cannot know god."
I think you need to take a closer look at what Aquinas stated. We cannot know God in God's essence by understanding the effects we see around and within us. But in looking carefully at those effects, we can indeed understand more about the causes that led to them, whether they are inside or outside. ...in this way we can understand a little more about "God" in terms of the intermediary of causes...depending upon how well we can learn to see and understand the effects around and within ourselves. Aquinas doesn't distinguish outer from inner at all. They are all subjects for greater understanding.
If the "You" that is more mindful to what is around you becomes more aware, that mindfulness is both greater outer and inner awareness.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 17, 2023 at 08:45 AM
@ Spence
That is a suggestion of a god based upon the human ..."I am the doer"
There is no need to know god to live
Posted by: um | July 17, 2023 at 08:57 AM
Hi Um:
Whether there is a need for a person to know God or not really depends upon the definition of the person. If the person is a construction of the brain, then, of course, that persona is whatever is put into it, beliefs, experiences, etc.
If the person is the individual, they are inseparable from their environment, body and brain...these are all connected and parts of one another, just as the cause is always connected to the effect. In this way body, brain, unconscious and the entire creation are already connected. When does the person become conscious of this? In stages, As our awareness of them grows. As we become more self-aware.
Aquinas used the word "God" in this sense of what we can know, as an intermediary term, not the actual "God" in their essence. But that understanding is also a reflection of the real.
The idea is to expand upon that mindful awareness, to develop it, and so the causal connection goes right back to its source..
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 17, 2023 at 09:04 AM
@ Spence
If children were not told, indoctrinated, conditioned etc no one would have any nothion of an god.
We know that we exists and that is all.
We are endowed with a problem solving tool to stay alive.
That tool is used to always more and more refined causes and solutions.
God, stahes in the inner world etc are like democartcy in vented tools to survive and make life comfortable according OUR limited idea... limited as it is part of the make up that is in nobodies hand
To drink coffe, no democracy is needed , nor a god.
Nor do I have to know why I exist.
Posted by: um | July 17, 2023 at 09:14 AM
Hi Um
Let's consider your statements:
"If children were not told, indoctrinated, conditioned etc no one would have any nothion of an god."
How can we know? It's true parents teach their children about their own beliefs in God. But kids also question, and some may leave their parent's beliefs for other beliefs that they themselves arrive at. Parents that teach their children to be aware and make their own decisions may help their own children become more aware of the reality within themselves, even if that takes them beyond their parent's understanding. Happens all the time. Some children of Atheists find Christ. And some children of Christians find Atheism.
You wrote:
"We know that we exists and that is all."
We have a sensory experience conditioned by genetics, biology and social conditioning. But what that experience is, and how far we can deepen and expand upon it, is a matter of our own development. And that can be different for different people. Do we actually exist? depends upon your cultural conditioning.
"We are endowed with a problem solving tool to stay alive.
That tool is used to always more and more refined causes and solutions.
God, stahes in the inner world etc are like democartcy in vented tools to survive and make life comfortable according OUR limited idea... limited as it is part of the make up that is in nobodies hand"
Our limited ideas may become informed by the experiential and physical realities as they impinge upon us.
All we need to do to understand better who and what we are is to dispassionately become better observers.
You wrote:
"To drink coffe, no democracy is needed , nor a god."
It's still a decision, and that means a divided set of priorities and options. So, yes, there is a democracy that takes a vote in our tiny brains, and the noisiest most emotional politician in there generally gets their way. Unless we are taught to give every representative, loud or quiet, their time at the podium to present their case.
That they exist, each one, establishes de facto their legitimacy.
You wrote:
"Nor do I have to know why I exist."
It can't be helped, you will learn more about yourself, including those intermediary causes some folks call "God", if you are listening and looking. It's built in.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 17, 2023 at 09:29 AM
@ Spence
If something befalls a person, he can consult a doctor, he need not
If he does not accept what happens he or somebody else do it for him to come up with a diagnosis
He can also accept it as it is ....
You do not understand ... how cruel it would be if humans would be made with the need to know something, he is not avowed with when born.
You have no idea how cruel that is ... fortunately ... whatever lives is endowed with everything it needs to live a life .. have a look at the crows
and ...although it doesn't matter ... hear upon christ saying about the birds in the field
Posted by: um | July 17, 2023 at 09:40 AM
Hi Um:
You wrote:
"If something befalls a person, he can consult a doctor, [otherwise] he need not."
Yes, no one searches for God without something within pushing them forward, whether bliss or catastrophic pain...
Just as no one admits they are mistaken unless and until they have no choice but to do otherwise. Sometimes it's their conscience that pushes them. But quite often movement waits for external forces to do so.
What is sad is when those nagging voices within and those external realities are not connected and understood as the call to action.
That is a tragedy that plays out daily.
But the greatest tragedy is to find that all that food was already there, provided, just like the food the crows find, and the care that God takes for they and their children.
And what incredible grace to see it!
"Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment? 26 Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto [a]the measure of his life? 28 And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31 Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. "
Matthew 6: 25-33
Here Christ says we should actually seek God, seek his kingdom, and not worry so much about the little things, as they will be added. He is speaking of having faith, not complacency.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 17, 2023 at 09:49 AM
To seek God, as Aquinas wrote, can be nothing more or less than to be a better scientist.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 17, 2023 at 09:50 AM
@ Spence
Christ spoke to people!! ... there and then!!
People that had a problem.
He did not tell them to seek god.
He gave them a way out for their complaint being under roman occupation
he said .. you cannot get rid of them, you cannot have a kingdom of your own, outside in the world as that is in the hands of the romans, but ... you can have your own kingdom inside.
We are not born with an intrinsic desire to find god .. THEY, made us believe that.
Live is always made miserable by idealists, selling their mental drugs to the world.
Posted by: um | July 17, 2023 at 10:06 AM
And speaking of science, and the possibility of bamboozlement by propaganda and our assumptions:
I find it interesting that there's a extremely large worldwide uptick in sudden death, and it began right at the time that, out of fear and coercion, governments told everyone that getting the covid vax was an imperative moral act.
In India, sudden death by cardiac arrest is up 20%. Many of those dying are young people with no history of cardiac problems.
Scientists have no explanation for this dramatic increase in deaths. Oh wait, yes they do: "Covid did it!" It can't be that it the rushed out in a hurry vaccine is the actual cause of these thousands of deaths. And don't you dare say that it was.
I didn't get the jab. And boy am I glad. And I'm sincerely sorry to say that this current death toll, and miscarriage toll, and sudden autism toll is just the beginning.
So I will agree that it pays, to be aware, when you're being played.
By the way, both the major Sant Mat gurus Gurinder and Rajinder were bigtime vax advocates. Both had a no jab, no darshan policy. They sided with the government and pressured their followers to take an unproven drug.
Posted by: SantMat64 | July 17, 2023 at 10:22 AM
Hi Um:
You wrote:
"He did not tell them to seek god."
I think, actually, he did, at least in the writings attributed to him:
"But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."
Matthew 6:33
Seek. That's not "Trust me, go no further." It's "Trust in what I teach, that you should seek..." that's search diligently, with the faith that the destination is there.
Every teacher offers a destination, the mastery of the skills they teach.
No teacher can be faulted for offering what they have. It's a virtue.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 17, 2023 at 11:12 AM
@ Spence
I do understand your point of view but I doubt you understand mine .. and .. there is no reason you should.
What you write is the common shared understanding, an understanding you use to make a personal point.
Your point is related to a way of thinking that is rooted in tradition,and it has served mankind well.
What I write is just what I make from what I see changing around me, in the time we live and where we live.
It is there that I see crumbling the interest in the divine almost to the point of complete extinction ...the age of "god is dead". In the last decade one monastery of this or that meditative order after another had to close,. Seminaries had close due to lack of youngsters with a calling to become priest etc etc Churches are transformed into cultural centers and otherwise there is some "new age style" in religious ceremonies, let us call it "mental fitness and spa centres" .. or "tik-tok" spirituality.
At the same time he asian movement is undergoing the same fate. Yes they are fight on youtibe, these linguistic swordsmen, to the bigger honor of themselves; people that present themselves as "the spiritual influencers" of the day.
The globalization, has ended the regional way of thinking, religious beliefs etc and a global alternative has not been found and probably will not
It has been my understanding the last years, that everything is related to survival ...everything ... everyting humans do, think and feel and that they are literally up-rooting their own culural background their own traditions.
what has served them wel, what was born hundreds of years ago and served mankind for hundreds of years has now become obsolete.
Religion was part of that tradition, part of their coping with the odds of life, fate or whatever, it has no longer anything to offer to the masses and the problems they have.
You see Spence for a human being to be raised on the shield as Messiah was "easy" and possible in older days when the problems were regional. at the level of humans.
There might come a new messiah but that is beyond my understanding as I do not see any human being able to face global problems.
You see Spence I am a coffee drinker and the reach of humans has not evolved over time and the means he has developed are, however clever, miserable imitations. Our tools, being senses, legs and arms, our brains are made to handle a small area, in the sense that each creature as a certain limited territory in which to survive,
We are not made to be global beings .. and the devastating consequences of people that think the opposite is to be seen everyday on TV
For the time being GPT is the new almighty god
And .. I understand that what I write can not be your liking. Fortunately it is just the opinion of one human being without power hahahah or interest in power or drive to change things for the better
Posted by: um | July 17, 2023 at 12:03 PM
What scientific discovery demonstrates that physicalism is true?
If science proves physicalism , why did it emerge among supernaturalists? If anything , the impetus for scientific discovery was fueled by theistic presuppositions .
AR , I am no expert on Thomism , but I know enough to see that you fundamentally misunderstand the First Way of Aquinas . "Motion" in the context of the argument means the actualization of a potential , and applies to all kinds of change having nothing necessarily to do with local motion in particular . You seem to assume the argument has to do with physics; in fact, it has to do with metaphysics, specifically the philosophy of nature .
Posted by: Cassiodorus | July 17, 2023 at 03:57 PM
Physicalism isn't "true", Cassiodorus. Nor is gravity. It is simply the most parsimonious explanation that adequately explains what we observe. Much like gravity was more parsimonious than celestial spheres, back in the day.
And I hope you're not going to claim Aquinas was being metaphorical, much like people sometimes claim today, in attempting to defend the indefensible, that everything in the Bible, from Genesis to genocide, was metaphorical? I won't comment on the rest of Aquinas, that may or may not have been truly wise; but what he's best known for are his "cosmological arguments", those four or five "proofs" of God. Those I've read, and their meaning is crystal clear. They are meant literally, without any doubt. And they are exercises in logic, pure and simple; and can and should be evaluated in those terms; and I've done just that, and they come up short.
I'm disappointed to see no evidence of that intellectual disinterestedness you spoke of back there. Oh well.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 17, 2023 at 05:36 PM
To be true is to be in accordance with fact or reality . So , your position is that physicalism is not in accordance with realty? I must admit I’m surprised that you’d make that admission . But , I agree .
You also claim that gravity is not in accordance with fact or reality . For someone who holds science in such high regard , that’s a rather bizarre position to take . I disagree .
The Five Ways of Aquinas have nothing directly to do with Bible . The Five Ways are clearly not metaphorical . Weird that you would say that . And I really am puzzled as to why you think Plato was brilliant and Aquinas was a charlatan . His Aristotelian arguments were a species of Platonic thought - as most of the classical theistic Tradition was .
And this demonstrates that I’m not disinterested ? Uh , ok . I guess your entitled to your groundless opinion .
Posted by: Cassioudorus | July 17, 2023 at 07:56 PM
One last attempt, assuming honest intentionality on your part. I won't after this, if I see otherwise.
Nothing in science is "true". Nothing. Science does not deal in immutable truth, but in best-fit models. Immutable truth is fiction, and/or wishful thinking. Best-fit models are the best we can have. And one criterion that makes a model 'good' is parsimony. Explaining all observations adequately, and doing that parsimoniously, is what makes a model good (as opposed to a more extravagant one). Gravity presented a better-fit and more parsimonious explanation of how the planets move, than the celestial orbs idea. Yes, gravity is " true"; but only in the sense that it is provisionally the best-fit model of what we see.
----------
As for Aquinas:
I just reread your comment, and, while this may be incidental, but you may be mistaken about the chronology. Aquinas was born well over a millennium after Plato. Maybe you know this, but your comment suggests you may not. Which is cool, no one gets Internet points for knowing when long dead philosophers were born. Just pointed this out, as something of interest is all, with nothing more implied as far as this paragraph than just pointing that out.
And, to clearly answer your question about why I criticize Aquinas and not Plato: that's basis the content of what they taught. Plato's times were before classical logic was formalized; while Aquinas's was well after. And Aquinas's ludicrous logic stands out precisely because his "cosmological arguments" were an exercise in logic, except laughably badly done, done either by a fool, or else done for consumption by fools.
You speak of scientism. You know what scientism amounts to? Sciency words being thrown around, with no other intention than merely to present an impression, a facade, of being in step with science; and then presenting one's a priori conclusions as if they follow from those words, when in fact they don't. ...And that ...cargo-cult approach to evidence and to discussions, is what I had pointed out to you in that other thread, in some detail. And what you see in Aquinas is exactly that. Logicism, you might call it, a la scientism. Basically, apparently abstruse profound deep wise logical arguments are presented, the kind people otherwise innocent of all these may have seen wise people do without actually understanding what they saw; but which are actually literally nonsensical. Aquinas, he's not simply wrong, anyone can be wrong; Aquinas is completely nonsensical. He's someone who knows nothing about logic other than its outer form and presentation, trying simply to sound logicky. Or else he's someone brazenly trying to fool a bunch of ignorant rubes into believing his own a priori conclusions he's trying to preach.
Reread my comment to um. Just see the extent of error there, in that example. Which is why I'm not saying he's simply wrong, like anyone can be wrong, but ...those other things I said.
Again, this does not speak to the rest of what he said and taught. I'm not into "Thomism" either, and in fact that's the first I heard that term, Thomism. But you don't need Thomism to judge his cosmological arguments. Simply reading what he's said makes very clear, beyond doubt, what he meant to convey. The only doubt is over why: whether ignorance and stupidity trying to sound clever, or dishonest intent to fool others, the "lying for Jesus" thing. That why may well be addressed via a wider perusal of his work.
(And again, neither Plato nor Aquinas I blame for not knowing present-day science, how could they. But present day readers can and should know better, as far as the science.)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 17, 2023 at 09:05 PM
@ AR
>>(And again, neither Plato nor Aquinas I blame for not knowing present-day science, how could they. But present day readers can and should know better, as far as the science.)<<
If I understand you correctly we can never know for sure as science is always moving "forward"from one level of explanation to yet another..
If that is true, all explanations are relative both "correct and incorrect" in time.
That would mean that all explanations are of equal quality and none stands out as "better than".
If I remember well from what was explained to me is that each step forward in mathematical sciences, physics etc, must INCLUDE and explain the previous level.
In that case what we have now is just a refinement of the same old position of yore when people did not have the same instruments etc as we have now
And ...
a quick glance at the new blog entry on Pás made me laugh a little as it seems that he leaves the "outward form understanding" to get hold of the "inward forming understating" and than demanding that his vision, his theory will be proved by measuring alterations in the form interaction.
In my simplistic way of looking at the world that would mean that "the essence of car-dom" has to be explained and proved by showing that a Ford has that essence.
My goodness AR what befalls us ...what are we doing, when we are discussing with one another these things? When I look up and turn my head I see a tree, now without the regular visiting birds. Then I ask myself again why for heavens sake are these discussions so important that they go on and on. They must serve a psychological purpose, kind of distraction from something else, something more important ....yet I fail to have an answer although THAT answer, to me, is more important than what plato and Aquinas wrote and what the understanding is of people these days.
People seem to be trying to prove something to themselves and others. Unfortunately I have no idea what that "something" is al about and even more important WHY.
Peace of mind is far away it seems.
Posted by: um | July 18, 2023 at 01:38 AM
More from Aquinas about the One that is God, and our limited capacity to understand except by conceptual proofs by example, and disproof of common arguments against God, which are equally limited to a conceptual understanding.
"Now because we do not know the essence of God, the preposition [that God is self-evident] is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature-namely, by effects."
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological I, First Article
This is actually the foundation for all scientific proof. Aquinas writes that we do not understand the whole, the One, directly, but indirectly, from a better understanding of the parts. A conceptual understanding only.
" Perhaps not everyone who hears this word ' God' understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word ' God' is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies actually exists, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this is precisely not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist. "
Ibid
Aquinas makes three important points. 1. We can only understand God, in discussion, as a concept.2. But that requires an priori understanding / agreement / assumption in the premise that whatever God is, there is nothing greater that the human mind can conceive. 3. Atheists simply do not accept this premise. Believers do.
Acquinas then goes on to write that demonstration, not proof, can be made of the existence of God. He argues the same case that supports modern science, that what is unseen, the cause, is often understood by a logical understanding of what is seen, the effects. And as that understanding is refined through measurement, so too is our comprehension of the unseen.
"Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called a priori, and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration a posteriori; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to a knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon it's cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us. "
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological I, Second Article
Aquinas argues that every seen effect has a cause, and from these effects a better understanding of their cause can be made.
In the third article of the Summa Theologica I, Aquinas acknowledges the common argument that these things can be explained by other causes without reference to God, but then dismantles this argument by pointing out that those explanations can only be intermediary and do not explain the first cause, the prime mover.
He proposes five simple arguments, the first of which is the argument of the primr mover: whatever we see moving was pushed. Before it was pushed, it wasn't moving. Everything in motion begins stationary, as potential energy, and is put into motion by another force. What pushed it? Whatever pushed it was also pushed. You can argue that this is an infinite process, but Aquinas very cleverly points out that doing so is tantamount to arguing there was no initial movement, no push, and if that were true no movement could take place at all.
He offers the common objective among Atheists still used today:
"But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist."
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological I, Third Article
Aquinas dismantles this view as merely intermediary and not a logical statement about the actual cause behind the others.He uses this to argue that therefore there must be an initial mover that is beyond these other things. He doesn't say this is proof of God, only that this primary mover and cause must exist for anything else to exist and people label that God.
"Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality [what Newton would later Term correctly as potential energy], to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. 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 [burning wood for example] cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold [what is now hot can become, potentially, cold as it burns out] . It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved [at the same point of time it cannot be both] , i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is in motion be itself in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only insomuch as they are put into motion by the first move; as the staff moves only because it is put into motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. "
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological I, Third Article
You may argue that God doesn't exist, but then you must admit you cannot explain the first mover, the primary cause. You can only explain intermediary causes and that cannot be used to fill the role of the true original cause that must exist for any other cause to exist. Therefore the argument that God can be explained by other known things is false, if you accept the definition of the concept of God as the greatest good that can be thought, and as the primary mover and cause of all things.
The logic is perfect.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 18, 2023 at 07:28 AM
Hi Um
You wrote
"It is there that I see crumbling the interest in the divine almost to the point of complete extinction ...the age of "god is dead". In the last decade one monastery of this or that meditative order after another had to close,. Seminaries had close due to lack of youngsters with a calling to become priest etc etc Churches are transformed into cultural centers and otherwise there is some "new age style" in religious ceremonies, let us call it "mental fitness and spa centres" .. or "tik-tok" spirituality.
"At the same time he asian movement is undergoing the same fate. Yes they are fight on youtibe, these linguistic swordsmen, to the bigger honor of themselves; people that present themselves as "the spiritual influencers" of the day.
"The globalization, has ended the regional way of thinking, religious beliefs etc and a global alternative has not been found and probably will not
" It has been my understanding the last years, that everything is related to survival ...everything ... everyting humans do, think and feel and that they are literally up-rooting their own culural background their own traditions.
" what has served them wel, what was born hundreds of years ago and served mankind for hundreds of years has now become obsolete."
If you take a closer look at the very things you write about, you will see that in the midst of the destruction of the old and arguably ignorant and corrupt cultures are new ones.
And within these are strengths and weaknesses. In the midst of a new enlightenment, education and greater equality one also sees a new level of ignorance, and the re-emergence of bigotry.
When it comes to humanity, the rocks come with the farm.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 18, 2023 at 07:47 AM
64,
I think you might be mistaken on Covid vaccinations.
Deaths...
Please draw your attention to some scientific graphs. Here's one showing world excess mortality during the pandemic. Excess mortality means death count above the norm.
https://healthfeedback.org/what-can-explain-the-excess-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-europe-in-2022/
Note the big spike from about May to June of 2021.
Now, please, look at this graph of total Covid vaccine doses administered.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccination-doses-per-capita
In May to June of 2021 relatively few people had been vaccinated. Vaccines were scarce at first. I checked city and state websites for weeks before snagging appointments for my initial series March/April of 2021.
How strange! So many people dying worldwide at that time but so few vaccinated!
Even stranger! More and more jabs as the pandemic rolled on, fewer and fewer deaths!
Miscarriage...
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230219/Can-COVID-19-vaccinations-cause-miscarriage-in-pregnant-women.aspx
"No apparent elevated risk of miscarriage was observed among pregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine. This rate was consistent with the miscarriage rate in the general population before the COVID-19 pandemic."
India, sudden death by cardiac arrest...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27924759/
Already a concern in 2016.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860813/#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20SCD%20contributed,age%20group%2050%E2%80%9370%20years.
Already a concern in 2012.
Autism...
I won't bother.
Posted by: umami | July 18, 2023 at 08:51 AM
Haha, um, that’s a great comment. A great opening for an interesting discussion. Will make for a good talk over coffee, eh? Even if we must have our mugs separated by distance and time zones.
I’ll take up individual portions of your comment, and address them as best I can:
-----
“If I understand you correctly we can never know for sure as science is always moving "forward"from one level of explanation to yet another..
If that is true, all explanations are relative both "correct and incorrect" in time.
That would mean that all explanations are of equal quality and none stands out as "better than".”
…..I’d say, um, that that first sentence is “kinda-sorta” true. Likewise the second. While the conclusion you draw, which would be the third sentence, does not actually follow from the first two; and that third sentence is in fact not true at all.
Yes, science is always moving forward. (Which is a wonderful thing, isn’t it!) Yes, it is good to always realize that everything we know about everything is, at the end of the day, provisional. That humility, as well as that openness to having one’s worldview upended by new discoveries, those are completely essential for a truly scientific worldview, for a truly scientific temper.
But no, that does not mean that no explanation, no narrative, is better than another, absolutely not! While always aware that all narratives and explanations are provisional, nevertheless the narratives and explanations that are currently borne out by science, those we take to be true; and the rest are discarded.
That humility I spoke of, and that openness, they are not the same not seeing the difference between right and wrong, correct and incorrect. I forget who it was said this, it may have been Carl Sagan, something that goes: “It is good to keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out!”.
Absolutely, we adhere by what we currently know to be the truth. And we reject what we currently have no reason to think is true. But isn’t it wonderful, the humility of knowing the limitations of human knowledge, and the openness to new advances and change in knowledge, that is necessary for a truly scientific temper, and for maintaining a truly scientific worldview?
-----
“If I remember well from what was explained to me is that each step forward in mathematical sciences, physics etc, must INCLUDE and explain the previous level.
In that case what we have now is just a refinement of the same old position of yore when people did not have the same instruments etc as we have now”
…..Indeed. Think of it this way: Einstein’s explanation of gravity is a step forward, that does incorporate everything in Newton’s explanation. Newton’s explanation turns out to be a specific case, a specific instance, of the more general Einsteinian explanation for gravity. To that extent, Einstein does incorporate and include Newton.
But of course, sometimes new advances completely reject past paradigms. Like Newtonian gravity completely threw aside the celestial orbs idea.
So, I guess, sometimes new advances on some subject reject past ideas around that subject; sometimes they build incrementally on past ideas; and sometimes new advances offer a radically different understanding of the subject, that subsumes within itself the earlier understanding and in fact ends up throwing better light on the past understanding, without throwing aside that past understanding.
-----
“My goodness AR what befalls us ...what are we doing, when we are discussing with one another these things? When I look up and turn my head I see a tree, now without the regular visiting birds. Then I ask myself again why for heavens sake are these discussions so important that they go on and on. They must serve a psychological purpose, kind of distraction from something else, something more important ....yet I fail to have an answer although THAT answer, to me, is more important than what plato and Aquinas wrote and what the understanding is of people these days.
People seem to be trying to prove something to themselves and others. Unfortunately I have no idea what that "something" is al about and even more important WHY.
Peace of mind is far away it seems.”
…..Haha, well, think of the Socratic injunction, that tells us that the unexamined life is not worth living. Well, that’s what we’re doing, examining ourselves, examining life, examining the world around us.
At the end of the day, I guess it’s a question of how we’re constituted. If we’re content to eat and copulate and drink our days away, then that’s fine too if that makes us happy. If we’re content to do the above, while occasionally distracting ourselves with some cursory dabbling with the larger questions, well then that’s fine too, why not. And if we’re drawn to arrive at the best answer that we can to “life, the universe, and everything”, well then that’s completely cool too. Heh, nothing hard and fast about it, right?
But seen larger picture, it is kind of important to properly address these larger questions. It is attending to the more than strictly necessary that kind of makes us what we are, us humans, as different than (other) animals that are largely content to just attend to their instinctual, immediate needs. Individually it’s not a question of better or worse, it’s a question of how and what we are. But collectively, I’d say it is this …attending to the larger questions, that makes for progress. (But again, as individuals, I suppose it is more a question of what makes us happy and fulfilled, which in turns ties back to how we as individuals are constituted.)
…Heh, enough to chew over here, to last us through a large leisurely mug of coffee! Fun talking, cheers!
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 18, 2023 at 11:31 AM
Cool comment, umami.
Good of you take the trouble to dig up those reports, and to set the record straight.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 18, 2023 at 11:40 AM
Thanks, AR. My latest hearts and minds campaign!
Posted by: umami | July 18, 2023 at 12:21 PM
@ Ar
I can get not word out AR ...maybe due to the switch of coffee brand.
Posted by: um | July 18, 2023 at 01:34 PM
Hi AR,
"assuming honest intentionality on your part " ?
So, if I disagree with you , then you will conclude I'm dishonest ? Wow.
"Immutable truth is fiction "
You might want to brush up on your logic before you criticize folks (like one of the greatest thinkers that ever lived) for using bad logic . If truth is fiction, than the claim that "truth is fiction" is also a fiction - a performative contradiction. If I were to be more charitable , I presume you were trying to say that sometimes and in some situations, we cannot be absolutely certain that some things are true . That seems more reasonable to me .
With regards to Aquinas , I'm not really sure why you might have thought I got the chronology wrong . Plato was Socrates student ; Aristotle was Plato's student and Aquinas was an Aristotelian of the High Middle Ages well over a millennia later . Pretty clear on that . You seemed to suggest that Aquinas was a dope because he had the benefit of formal logic and Plato did not - which should have disabused Aquinas of making such foolish cosmological arguments . That holds no water because it was Aristotle who started the formalization of logic AND it was Aristotle himself who first formulated the argument for the Unmoved Mover , or more accurately stated the Unchanged Changer ( if you actually understand the argument).
"Aquinas is completely nonsensical " Oy vey !
You say that Scientism is "sciency words being thrown around with no other intention than merely to present an impression, a facade, of being in step with science; and then presenting one's a prior conclusions as if they follow from those words , when if fact they don't "
I must admit , I have never come across a description of scientism like that . Much less concerning than the real "scientism" which plainly stated is :
"The view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge - that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science " That pov is quite problematic to say the least .
Posted by: Cassiodorus | July 18, 2023 at 03:30 PM
Cassiodorus, are you aware that you haven't actually addressed anything of substance from my posts here? And there was demonstrably a great deal of substance in what I'd said, that from your comments it's clear you weren't aware of, about both science in general, and Aquinas's cosmological arguments as well. That's exactly what I'd meant, about intentionality.
It certainly isn't mine to engage in Internet gladiator games. Agree substantially, or disagree substantially, or simply add substantial tangents: and this may have led to interesting and ...heh, substantial, discussions. That might have been enlightening, and fun as well. For both you and I. As it stands, it will be neither, to neither. It's not that you've lost and I've won, or you're this that and the other, or any such shit. This space is no more mine than it is yours. Since neither you nor I will derive either substance or pleasure from this exercise, we'll just ...not do it, for now at any rate, is all I meant.
No issues. And no reason, I hope, for ill feeling over this. Cheers.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 18, 2023 at 06:48 PM
Hi AR,
I appreciate the no ill feelings closer in your last comment . No worries - I hope you’re cool with a littler sparring . But honestly , I’m not sure why you said that I didn’t address anything of substance from your posts . I would much rather have a meaningful exchange / debate than not . I suppose you felt that I didn’t address your comments on how we are constituted and what makes life worth living .
At the end of the day , I think that all depends on our worldview . If in the final analysis , ultimate reality is merely electron flow in the void or quantum foam or whatever , I find it difficult to escape the specter of nihilism . Nietzsche had a lot to say about that . That said , I realize that many don’t see it that way . I would say that they are being inconsistent , but you know , different strokes and all that .
Posted by: Cassiodorus | July 18, 2023 at 07:56 PM
"Cool comment, umami.
Good of you take the trouble to dig up those reports, and to set the record straight."
Yeah, thank goodness for that Umami.
A Santmat64 without facts is like a fish without a bicycle.
Posted by: manjit | July 18, 2023 at 11:07 PM
Hi AR
You wrote, critiquing the Prime Mover argument.
"There’s no reason, at all, why that causal sequence shouldn’t go on indefinitely."
Illogical.
If you are implying that time stretches on from and to infinity, there is zero evidence for that. Any measurable event has a beginning and an end. Therefore there is every reason to suggest, and indeed all of science, whatever you point to has had a beginning and will have an end. To suggest otherwise has no logical basis.
You wrote
"Even should there be Prime Movers, there’s nothing in that reasoning that shows that there’s just the one Prime Mover: there may well be two, or ten, or a hundred thousand."
You failed to understand Aquinas argument. Every effect has its cause, and that includes whatever started all this. . Whatever that is, Aquinas points out, it's a priori. He writes it is impossible to make any commentary on that at all, except to acknowldge that something that was not part of the potentiality which it instigated, started all this movement of creation. Independent as in independent variable, the basic foundation of science. Call that what you like. Aquinas says it's what people call God, even though he also acknowledges it cannot be known.
To suggest what that prime mover is, as you have done above, introduces pure speculation without evidence. What you have accused Aquinas of, only you are guilty of.
But to prove there must be a start, an independent start is pure logic. And Aquinas ' argument for that is flawless and has become a foundational argument within the philosophy of science.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 19, 2023 at 03:35 AM
Spence ,
You realize that the argument from change doesn’t depend on there being a beginning of the universe - it’s very different from the Kalam which Aquinas did not advocate . Without a background in their metaphysics , the argument from motion / change is often misunderstood . The key principles are the act / potency distinction and ontological causation in the present- as opposed to temporal causation which goes back in time .
I agree the argument employs near perfect logic and is valid . Whether or not the argument is sound is another story . Like any philosophical case , it’s not unassailable. AP seems to be familiar with only stock caricatures . Respectfully, not uncommon with your typical atheo-materialist .
Posted by: Cassiodorus | July 19, 2023 at 06:45 AM
manjit,
In youth I knew an Italian kid who celebrated victory after every game he played, win or lose, especially soccer. That's right, even if he lost, he'd jump around, pump his fist and mimic uproarious cheering from an imaginary stadium crowd, like he scored the winning goal in the final seconds of the Copa Mundial!
Have you known anyone like that, who's both a sore loser and a sore winner? For Paolo the real game was in crushing any challenge to his image of superiority. Remember Enzo Ramazotti, international pop star? One festive night at the height of Ramzotti's fame Paolo sat at the same table. "No one special," he concluded. Paolo gloated at Trump's election victory. "Now America will have a Berlusconi!"
That, I submit, is MAGA denialism in a nutshell. It's also why drag and transgender touch such a sensitive nerve, because they see their own reflection in the funhouse mirror!
Posted by: umami | July 19, 2023 at 07:29 AM
Hi Cassiodorous :
You wrote
"the argument from change doesn’t depend on there being a beginning of the universe - it’s very different from the Kalam which Aquinas did not advocate . Without a background in their metaphysics , the argument from motion / change is often misunderstood . The key principles are the act / potency distinction and ontological causation in the present- as opposed to temporal causation which goes back in time ."
I'm not sure I understand. Aquinas very much advocated that there had to be a beginning, that things don't cause themselves. He employs the very foundation of scientific principle of cause and effect, in the earliest recorded definition of independent and dependent variables.
Scientific measurement of any object of study serves to find the cause and therefore define the birth of the measured event as part of that process.
And that birth has a cause. But as Aquinas pointed out so long ago, and modern astrophysics and biology affirm, the a priori conditions, as independent variables, are not the conditions that followed, which are all dependent effects. Thus the effort to understand what came before is very difficult for science to determine. The very physical and biological environment was different, and so today's laws fail hopelessly when projecting in a linear way the past.
Aquinas said it was impossible to understand, and thus states that this first independent cause is simply called God, without further effort to prove what, he actually proved as a priori, this can't therefore be proven.
Astrophysics does indeed give us a way to look very far into the past, and so their insights that mirror Aquinas general logic about the fact that a priori conditions had to be different is very telling.
And they face the same wall.. Those conditions are not so easy to predict and determine.
But all things have their beginning and end.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 19, 2023 at 10:07 AM
"Yeah, thank goodness for that Umami.
A Santmat64 without facts is like a fish without a bicycle."
Haha, fair point, manjit! 😆👍
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 19, 2023 at 10:26 AM
Hey, Spence.
Really? You want to go through this basic stuff with me? You? Aren’t you well-read enough, and intelligent enough, to detect for yourself the mile-wide flaws here, and to recognize this yourself for the half-witted claptrap it is? …But hey, sure, if you want to!
…I was kind of sure that we’d discussed this already. So I searched this a bit. And yes, there is indeed a thread specifically on Aquinas. Except, surprisingly, I didn’t find you commenting there. So well, since we haven’t done this before, you and I, and since you seem to want to, well why not.
-----
First off, you could go check out to this comment of mine upthread: link: https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2023/07/einstein-it-is-the-theory-which-decides-what-can-be-observed.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e202c1a6cddd76200b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e202c1a6cddd76200b.
It’s the same comment you quoted those bits of mine from. Except you’ve discussed only a small and apparently randomly selected portion of it, I’ve no clue why.
If you really want to discuss this with me, and if you really want to do it honestly, then I’m game. But I’ll ask you to go through it, all of it, every hole I point out. The holes in the logic, as well as the holes in the science. (With the clear understanding that, like I've said, no one's blaming Aquinas for not knowing the science. He's accountable only for his logical errors. It is his present-day fanboys who're to blame, not he himself, when it comes to swallowing the errors in the science of it.)
They’re all obvious enough, all of these holes, so obvious that I’m surprised you of all people want to get to this. It’s like the boys in long pants wanting to wade into the kindergarten stuff. Didn’t think you of all people would need this explained, beyond what I’ve already said there. But still, like I said, if you really want to do this, then I don’t mind.
-----
This is not to dismiss what you’ve already addressed to me, Spence! If for whatever reason what you’ve said there is all you wish me to address, then I’ll do that, sure. It’s just, I’ve very clearly laid out all of the holes in Aquinas, using that particular argument as example; and I see no earthly reason why you’d want to leave out the rest and zone in on just those one or two holes. It’s just that covering my entire comment, and discussing all of the holes I’ve pointed out there, would make for a more complete discussion. So that, should for whatever reason you wish to have me discuss this juvenile stuff with you, then covering the whole thing would make for a rounded, complete discussion, rather than simply working with two random portions of it.
Either way, your call. Go ahead and go through my comment, and put in your thoughts about every hole I point out there, and I’ll respond. Else tell me that you’d prefer to discuss only these two random points you’ve chosen to comment on, and, although I don't see why on earth you might want that, but that’s what I’ll then respond to. I’m game either way.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 19, 2023 at 10:47 AM
Hi AR
Thanks for the link. Give me a day or two to read and digest and I'll get back to you here.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 19, 2023 at 12:27 PM
Hi AR
Here is what I found from your earlier comments. Are these the ones you are referring to?
"It is completely erroneous that the stationery state is the “normal”, starting state of every body. That’s completely wrong. A body that’s at rest continues to be at rest, and a body that’s in motion continues to be in motion. That’s Gravity 101, that’s Isaac Newton 101. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be bodies eternally moving: that’s what a moving body does, it keeps moving. That’s what inertia means. Aquinas’s “argument” falls flat right at the get-go.
"Not to forget Relativity. Not only is the stationery state not the normal starting point for every body; but there’s no such thing, in absolute terms, as body-at-rest and body-in-motion. And given that there's no absolute reference frame, therefore the whole idea of a Prime Mover itself becomes completely nonsensical. That's Albert Einstein 101."
? Pleaae confirm and I'll respond next.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 19, 2023 at 12:33 PM
OK AR
Let's go through your comments listed above...
You wrote
"It is completely erroneous that the stationery state is the “normal”, starting state of every body. That’s completely wrong. A body that’s at rest continues to be at rest, and a body that’s in motion continues to be in motion. That’s Gravity 101, that’s Isaac Newton 101."
Nowhere does Aquinas write what you wrote, that the stationary state is the" normal" status, or the starting state of every body. He never says that.
In fact he says everything we see is the effect, in essence it is all in motion in a chain of cause and effect. He uses common metaphors of motion to help explain that to every effect there is a cause that is separate or independent from the effect. He also uses the metaphor of one fire igniting another fire in another piece of wood which then ignites. He isn't simply talking about physical motion but cause and effect. He goes further to explain the potential energy in the wood that becomes active, or kinetic energy, once ignited or moved. Again, Aquinas elucidates the concepts of independent and dependent variables, and their distinct relationship, as well as the concepts of potential and kinetic energy that are in fact distinct. He describes the two distinct states of energy, potential or kinetic, that Newton, Einstein, Heisenburg and others have used in their work: the very foundational principles of science and physics. Even quantum physics, which is largely the mathematics of how energy moves from potential to kinetic states through the effect of independent variables upon dependent ones.
You wrote
"but there’s no such thing, in absolute terms, as body-at-rest and body-in-motion. And given that there's no absolute reference frame, therefore the whole idea of a Prime Mover itself becomes completely nonsensical. *
This argument depends upon your own invented interpolation, that Aquinas says all bodies start at rest, and therefore your argument is false.
Aquinas merely points out that there must be a first cause to all this and it must be independent, just as each dependent variable is acted upon by a separate independent variable. The dependent variable cannot be its own independent variable. Nor can the potential energy exist once it has been transformed into kinetic emery. Not according to Aquinas nor relativity nor quantum physics, nor any branch of science.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 19, 2023 at 06:09 PM
“Hi AR
Thanks for the link. Give me a day or two to read and digest and I'll get back to you here.”
“Hi AR
Here is what I found from your earlier comments. Are these the ones you are referring to?”
“? Pleaae confirm and I'll respond next.”
-----
Hey, Spence!
Haha, what on earth is to confirm, what on earth is to be confused about? My comment that I referred you to, is that SELF-SAME comment that you yourself had referenced, and from which you’d extracted a random disjointed portion out to discuss! Just refer to that comment, and address the whole critique, is all.
You do realize why I asked you to address my complete critique, don’t you? It’s not to play a practical joke on you and make you run around! It’s because my critique was one single whole, and to address the entirety of it would make for a complete, rounded discussion, that’s all. What you’ve now done, is gone ahead presented two more disjointed critiques. I’m not sure why you keep avoiding the argument in its entirety. I mean, it’s short enough, my critique.
That said, and like I’ve already offered, if you want to me to address these disjointed truncated critiques rather than the whole, then, although I cannot imagine why you’d want that, but still, just say the word, and that’s what I’ll do.
AND IF YOU’VE UNDERSTOOD WHY I’M ASKING YOU TO PRESENT A COMPLETE CRITIQUE, RATHER THAN THESE DISJOINTED PIECES; AND IF YOU AGREE TO DOING THAT: THEN, TO MAKE IT COMPLETELY SIMPLE FOR YOU TO DO THAT, AND TO LEAVE ZERO SCOPE FOR FURTHER CONFUSION OVER THIS, I’M GOING TO COPY AGAIN, IN MY SUBSEQUENT COMMENT, THAT FULL CRITIQUE OF MINE. JUST ADDRESS ALL OF IT, IS ALL. (SO THAT ANYTHING YOU DON’T ADDRESS, I’LL TAKE IT THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME ON.)
YOU NOW NEED REFER JUST THE ONE COMMENT OF MINE, THE SUBSEQUENT ONE; AND I, IN TURN, WILL NEED TO REFER JUST THE ONE COMMENT OF YOURS, YOUR RESPONSE TO IT. AND THAT WILL LET US ENGAGE WITH THE FULL PRIME-MOVER ARGUMENT, IN ITS ENTIRETY RATHER THAN IN DISJOINTED PIECES.
Pardon the caps, Spence! Just wanted to get this through to you, is all.
Also, to make things simple, and to also make our references uniform, I’m also going to copy below the statement of Aquinas’s Prime Mover argument, that we can both refer. That’s so that we don’t end up disagreeing over what he actually said. (I’ve sourced the statement of Aquinas’s First Mover argument directly from his Summa Theologica, straight from the horse’s mouth, so hopefully there won’t be any quibbling or disagreement over the text itself.)
So, we ignore everything that went before, and you refer just my next comment, and I your response to it, okay? (Unless you want the disjointed thing, in which case just say the word, that’s cool too.)
All right then, go!
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 20, 2023 at 05:19 AM
My complete critique of Aquinas’s Prime Mover argument, copied verbatim from my earlier comment addressed to um:
(Link: https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2023/07/einstein-it-is-the-theory-which-decides-what-can-be-observed.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e202c1a6cddd76200b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e202c1a6cddd76200b)
“ (…) There’s no reason, at all, why that causal sequence shouldn’t go on indefinitely. There’s no reason for it to stop someplace. And even should it stop someplace, it doesn’t follow, at all, that that should be just the one thing. Even should there be Prime Movers, there’s nothing in that reasoning that shows that there’s just the one Prime Mover: there may well be two, or ten, or a hundred thousand. And finally, even should there be just the one Prime Mover, even then there’s zero connection between that entity and what we commonly know of as “God” --- and to claim that is to take a compete gravity-defying flying leap. (Let’s not forget he’s basically arguing for the Christian God here. When he presents similarly lame arguments about …Perfection, for instance, then again that font of Perfection is, as he argues, “God” --- without explaining why the Prime Mover should be the same entity as the Perfect Thing (even granting him these cross-eyed ideas about the Prime Mover and the Perfect Thing). (…)
(…) It is completely erroneous that the stationery state is the “normal”, starting state of every body. That’s completely wrong. A body that’s at rest continues to be at rest, and a body that’s in motion continues to be in motion. That’s Gravity 101, that’s Isaac Newton 101. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be bodies eternally moving: that’s what a moving body does, it keeps moving. That’s what inertia means. Aquinas’s “argument” falls flat right at the get-go.
Not to forget Relativity. Not only is the stationery state not the normal starting point for every body; but there’s no such thing, in absolute terms, as body-at-rest and body-in-motion. And given that there's no absolute reference frame, therefore the whole idea of a Prime Mover itself becomes completely nonsensical. That's Albert Einstein 101. (…)”
----------------------------------------------------
And here’s the text of Aquinas’s Prime Mover argument, copied verbatim from Aquinas’s Summa Theologica:
(Link: https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa/summa.FP_Q2_A3.html#:~:text=The%20first%20and,to%20be%20God.)
“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. 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. 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. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 20, 2023 at 05:24 AM
Oh, I see Brian’s written a fresh blog post, and started a new thread, specifically about Aquinas. So then let’s just take this discussion there.
I’m going to re-post my comment immediately preceding on to that thread, and you can post your response to it, just the one post covering everything, directly in that thread. And do cover everything in my critique that you disagree with, it’s short enough after all; anything in my comment that you don’t address, I’ll take it that we’re in agreement on.
Don’t worry, Spence, no reason why this should take up time, or involve re-doing of what you've already typed here. You can just copy-paste directly from your posts here whatever you think you’ve adequately addressed here, obviously; and compose afresh only your responses to those portions you haven’t already addressed. After all, my own critique, that I posted today, is simply a very quick copy-paste job from my original comment addressed to um.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 20, 2023 at 05:29 AM
@AR
This is something between noble men crossing swords in a duel of honour so I cannot be part of it in any capacity.
That said, If somebody would argue that one cannot find out from studying a house whether there was one or more persons involved in the construction. Even if one had to conclude there was no constructor at all involved, one would be able to state as an fact, that the separated parts of the building were not able to move together into a house
I am the man sitting opposite of the house with a cup of coffe in his hands gazing at the building, wondering how it came to be there.
Posted by: um | July 20, 2023 at 05:41 AM
Hi AR
You have not addressed my comment
"Nowhere does Aquinas write what you wrote, that the stationary state is the" normal" status, or the starting state of every body. He never says that."
He only says that whatever is in motion, as a dependent variable was put in motion, by an independent variable. All of science, including quantum mechanics, is based upon that premise.
You have failed to acknowldge what Aquinas wrote
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 20, 2023 at 05:49 AM
Heh, cool imagery, the wild west duelling theme! Or maybe rapiers drawn might be closer to the theological disagreement theme of the middle ages!
Except, um, not really! Not in the least. At least not so far as I am concerned, although I suspect it might be for Spence.
It's silly to have your sense of "honor", and your self-image, tied in with with these opinions. That is sure recipe for closed-mindedness. As far as I am concerned, I'm simply exploring this question with Spence. In this case I'm completely sure that I'm wrong and he's abjectly wrong; but still, should it turn out otherwise, then, unlike him, not only will I willingly acknowledge it, but I'll actually be happy at having spent my time productively and learnt something.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 20, 2023 at 06:04 AM
Can't you effing read simple English, Spence?
This thing's all over the place. Just put it in one single comment like I asked, and on that other thread. As well as address my whole comment, that'll make it more rounded. ...Or else, if for whatever mysterious reason you object to this simple measure to make for clarity, then just say the word, and I'll copy out those disjointed comments you've made here, and myself present them in one place for you, that's fine too.
I mean, seriously, don't you understand what I'm saying here?
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 20, 2023 at 06:10 AM
@ AR
As said sometimes different people have different interests dealing with the same so they will attribute different values and means to the same.
Both the theist and the a-theist are human ans as human they operate in the same way
As often ... the books do not chose the reader, the reader does and... for his own interests.
I cannot get the idea out of my brain that both of you want to prove something to yourself and others and that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
That said, If somebody would argue that one cannot find out from studying a house whether there was one or more persons involved in the construction. Even if one had to conclude there was no constructor at all involved, one would be able to state as an fact, that the separated parts of the building were not able to move together into a house
I am the man sitting opposite of the house with a cup of coffee in his hands gazing at the building, wondering how it came to be there.
Posted by: um | July 20, 2023 at 06:12 AM
Okay, just let it go. Forget it, Spence, clearly what I asked is too complicated for you.
Don't worry, I'll pick up your comments from on here, disjointed though they are, and address each individually, in the other thread. No issues, none at all. Cheers.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 20, 2023 at 06:13 AM
"I cannot get the idea out of my brain that both of you want to prove something to yourself and others and that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand."
.....I wouldn't know about subconscious goings-on that I'm not aware of myself, um, obviously. But as far as I can make out, even when I consciously look within and ask myself this, the answer comes out as negative. It's exploration, is all, as far as I'm concerned. (Unless, like I said, my subconscious misleads me.)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 20, 2023 at 06:15 AM
@ AR
What I wrote tells something about ME .. me reading here, me mentally having reactions to what I read, me sharing those reactions.
Whether there is a god, whether there is a key in the house, whether my reaction on what read ... these are all things for you to on hearing them to find out ...IF ... it would interest you.
It is not for me to prove it in any way and capacity ... and ...i consider it a waste of time for others that think they can an should take upon themselves such a task.
Posted by: um | July 20, 2023 at 06:22 AM
@AR
Ask Spence again ... but he stated that he was not to leave the dinner table without involving in a debate
and I ...
I was supposed not to answer, in terms of "yes but" or otherwise to argue with what others had brought to the table ...NOR ... was I ever asked to agree with them.
It was all my prerogative to do with what i heard as i deemed fit ... but i HAD to listen.
Posted by: um | July 20, 2023 at 06:26 AM
Heh, um, my thanks to you for that recent discussion about dueling! It is that that helped me walk out from that intellectual cesspit.
By walking away, I’ve lost that debate. By every rule of rational discourse, I’ve lost. My “Ick” can be presented as a desperate ad hom by a sore loser; and someone pointing that out would, on the face of it, be completely right!
And yet that’s one “duel” I could easily have won. I had already won; and delivering the coup de grace would have taken no more than a snap of the fingers. But it would have involved wading into the cesspit. And there would have been no point to it. No “discovery”, neither for myself, nor to aid another. All it would have been about is proving a point, a psychological one not a factual, and completely meaningless.
And yet, I know I’d have continued doing that, on auto-pilot as it were. It is thanks to your thoughts about dueling that I’ve been able to spare myself that. Cheers, um.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 20, 2023 at 09:51 PM
@ AR
To give a more pleasant illustration of what is at stake here do read story nr. 14:
https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Zen-Flesh-Zen-Bones.pdf.
You are, like the monks on your way... YOUR way in life.
The monk is not in the order to prove the order right but for his own development.
Have a good cup of coffee.
Posted by: um | July 21, 2023 at 01:48 AM
Either my firewall's stopping it, else that link's dead, um.
I'm curious. Do you have an alternate link? Or if it's a short piece, then can you copy it here? (Only if it's very short, obviously, else let it go.)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 21, 2023 at 08:35 AM