Necessity, Contingency and Material Actuality

[bricklayer]

That which is subject to change is subject; it is not sovereign.
That which is not sovereign is not necessary; it is contingent.
That which is contingent cannot produce what is necessary.
That which is necessary may produce what is contingent.
All that is contingent is produced by what is necessary.
The existence of the contingent begs the existence of the necessary.

No particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter (space) in any two increments of time. The entire matter-space-time continuum is subject to constant and exhaustive change. Therefore, material being is actually contingent.

 

[variant]

That which is subject to change is subject; it is not sovereign.
That which is not sovereign is not necessary; it is contingent.
That which is contingent cannot produce what is necessary.
That which is necessary may produce what is contingent.
All that is contingent is produced by what is necessary.
The existence of the contingent begs the existence of the necessary.

No particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter (space) in any two increments of time. The entire matter-space-time continuum is subject to constant and exhaustive change. Therefore, material being is actually contingent.

The Universe is not nessisary?

I beg to differ.

Also, please justify the assertion that things that are subject to change must rely upon things that are not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This strikes me as the fallacy of composition. Just because the form of a material entity at any one time may be contingent on causal changes from prior material entities, that doesn't mean that the universe as a whole is contingent on anything.

So, the universe as a whole may be self-sufficient, while the forms of specific entities might not be.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

The material universe is subject to constant and exhaustive change.
Anything, everything, subject to change is subject, IE not-sovereign, not-necessary, contingent.
The material universe is contingent upon a necessary cause.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The material universe is subject to constant and exhaustive change.

Please support this claim. How do you know that the change is "exhaustive"? How do you know that there aren't unchanging aspects to the universe?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Please support this claim. How do you know that the change is "exhaustive"? How do you know that there aren't unchanging aspects to the universe?


eudaimonia,

No matter how small you slice it, no particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter in any two increments of time. That's constant and exhaustive change.

 

[bricklayer]

Matter is that with mass.
Space is position relative to matter.
Time is the progressive sequential increments of the matter-space continuum.
(Note matter's special relativity)

Nothing, no particle of matter, can occupy the same space twice.
That alone is enough to establish material contingency.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nothing, no particle of matter, can occupy the same space twice.

I'm not familiar with that principle of physics. Source?

(Note, that there is more to the universe than matter. It sounds like you are assuming that matter is all that there is.)

Space is position relative to matter.

This is not actually clear. For instance, in loop quantum gravity theory, space is quantized, and isn't some kind of perfect emptiness.

It sounds like you are relying on arguments (rooted in Aquinas) that are already greatly outdated.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

Also, please justify the assertion that things that are subject to change must rely upon things that are not.

I like the OP. Pretty cool IMO. With that said, the leap from the logic to the material condition is pretty weak. That's going to be a very difficult one to establish, and is likely to derail the thread into some petty squabbles.

Moreso, it seems better to answer the first question first.

So, I'm interested in some thoughtful discussion on variant's question. I think the assertion is correct, but that's an intuitive response. I don't have a good answer to the challenge.

 

[bricklayer]

Any quantification of space is relative to matter.
Space is nothing more than position relative to matter.

The progressive sequence of matter's relative positions is the constant and exhaustive change of time.

The material universe is a material-spatial-temporal continuum.

Not only is the material universe subject to constant and exhaustive change, I would submit that the changes equate to processes.
A process is a prescribed sequence of changes, but that's another thread.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You've started threads along similar lines before. If we grant you that all matter is contingent on some necessary cause, then by what means can we know anything about this necessary cause? What is it? What is it made of? How can I find out about it empirically?

 

[bricklayer]

You've started threads along similar lines before. If we grant you that all matter is contingent on some necessary cause, then by what means can we know anything about this necessary cause? What is it? What is it made of? How can I find out about it empirically?

By analogy. No effect can be completely unlike its cause.
God's purpose for His creation is the revelation of His glory. You are asking the most important question.
Remember this. The bible does not hold out God's infinite perfections as His glory; it holds out the inviolate balance of those infinite perfections as His glory.

Right off the bat we can know a few things about what is Necessary.
It is not material, spatial or temporal. We have established that what is material-spatial-temporal is contingent (changing).
Therefore, what is necessary is metaphysical-spiritual-eternal. This is very important because what we find is determined by what we look for.

Humanity is a psychosomatic union of the material and immaterial, the spatial and spiritual, the temporal and aveternal. Unfortunately, human spirit died in Adam and Eve. Every human being conceived between human beings inherits dead human spirit and living human flesh. We are all conceived into living bodies and dead souls.

Apart from being spiritually regenerated, a spiritually dead human being has the same ability to discern the spiritual as a physically dead human being has to discern the physical.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Any quantification of space is relative to matter.
Space is nothing more than position relative to matter.

I don't think that all physicists would agree.

In any case, while the universe may change, it's still a universe. It may be that the universe as a whole needs no causes or conditions for its existence, even if it changes internally and composite sub-entities may have causes or conditions for their existence. This is why I mentioned the fallacy of composition.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

I don't think that all physicists would agree.

In any case, while the universe may change, it's still a universe. It may be that the universe as a whole needs no causes or conditions for its existence, even if it changes internally and composite sub-entities may have causes or conditions for their existence. This is why I mentioned the fallacy of composition.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The material universe's composition is not in question; the implication of that composition is. I submit that if a thing is composed wholly of the contingent, it is as a whole contingent.
Anything with potentiality has the potential to not exist.
Anything with the potential to not exist cannot explain it's own existence.

As to space being "nothing more than" position relative to matter,
I will keep an open mind to the idea that I may have over simplified my definition; however over simplified, time is essentially position relation to matter. Can you demonstrate a quantification of space that is not relative to that with mass?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The material universe's composition is not in question; the implication of that composition is. I submit that if a thing is composed wholly of the contingent, it is as a whole contingent.

Go ahead and submit that, but I've already submitted that this may run afowl of the fallacy of composition. I'm not certain why it wouldn't. I don't see why something "composed wholly of the contingent" is itself contingent. The problem is that what is contingent within the universe is contingent on the universe, because the universe is its context. However, the universe as a whole has no context beyond itself. So, the universe as a whole might not be contingent on anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Go ahead and submit that, but I've already submitted that this may run afowl of the fallacy of composition. I'm not certain why it wouldn't. I don't see why something "composed wholly of the contingent" is itself contingent. The problem is that what is contingent within the universe is contingent on the universe, because the universe is its context. However, the universe as a whole has no context beyond itself. So, the universe as a whole might not be contingent on anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The nature of the composition of the universe being contingent, to me, begs a transcendent necessity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By analogy. No effect can be completely unlike its cause.
God's purpose for His creation is the revelation of His glory. You are asking the most important question.
Remember this. The bible does not hold out God's infinite perfections as His glory; it holds out the inviolate balance of those infinite perfections as His glory.

Right off the bat we can know a few things about what is Necessary.
It is not material, spatial or temporal. We have established that what is material-spatial-temporal is contingent (changing).
Therefore, what is necessary is metaphysical-spiritual-eternal. This is very important because what we find is determined by what we look for.

Humanity is a psychosomatic union of the material and immaterial, the spatial and spiritual, the temporal and aveternal. Unfortunately, human spirit died in Adam and Eve. Every human being conceived between human beings inherits dead human spirit and living human flesh. We are all conceived into living bodies and dead souls.

Apart from being spiritually regenerated, a spiritually dead human being has the same ability to discern the spiritual as a physically dead human being has to discern the physical.

There is a contradiction here. You've said that "No effect can be completely unlike its cause." But material is completely unlike supernatural/spiritual. So if there is some necessary cause, that cannot be unlike its effect (the material universe), then it cannot be something supernatural (which is very much unlike the material).

Furthermore, why should anyone accept that the necessary cause must be something supernatural or spiritual? You've given an argument for the existence of a necessary cause, but not an argument for why we should think that cause is spiritual in nature. How would even find out what it is in nature?

 

[bricklayer]

There is a contradiction here. You've said that "No effect can be completely unlike its cause." But material is completely unlike supernatural/spiritual. So if there is some necessary cause, that cannot be unlike its effect (the material universe), then it cannot be something supernatural (which is very much unlike the material).

Furthermore, why should anyone accept that the necessary cause must be something supernatural or spiritual? You've given an argument for the existence of a necessary cause, but not an argument for why we should think that cause is spiritual in nature. How would even find out what it is in nature?

Good stuff. Good questions.

The material world is analogous to the spiritual; it explains it. That is its purpose.

We know that matter-space-time is contingent; therefore, we can know that the necessary is meta-(matter-space-time).
The meta-physical equates to the supernatural.
The meta-spatial equates to the spiritual.
The meta-temporal equates to the eternal.

Supernatural-spiritual-eternal is just another way of saying
Meta-(physical-spatial-temporal)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Good stuff. Good questions.

The material world is analogous to the spiritual; it explains it. That is its purpose.

We know that matter-space-time is contingent; therefore, we can know that the necessary is meta-(matter-space-time).
The meta-physical equates to the supernatural.
The meta-spatial equates to the spiritual.
The meta-temporal equates to the eternal.

Supernatural-spiritual-eternal is just another way of saying
Meta-(physical-spatial-temporal)

Actually, we don't know that at all. The system itself may not be contingent. Just because the parts of the system are contingent (on other parts of the system), does not mean that the system as a whole must be contingent.

What's more, that does not resolve the contradiction... If an effect must not be unlike its cause, then you've already ruled out supernatural causes since they are nothing like their purported material effects.

A third problem is one of investigation. I can't verify the supernatural nature of a supernatural cause because it is, by definition, outside of my ability to verify its existence. Why then should I believe it?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Neutral monism FTW.