Necessity, Contingency and Material Actuality

[Eudaimonist]

These links may be of interest in this thread. It outlines the Thomas Aquinas's Argument from Necessity, and notes major objections.

Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Necessity"

In more detail:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

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?

I am comfortable with the idea that a thing wholly composed of the contingent is as a whole contingent.
The differences between the necessary and contingent do not preclude the necessary from producing the contingent.
You are correct that you cannot perceive the supernatural. We are all conceived into living bodies and dead souls. Apart from the regeneration of your soul, you have the same ability to perceive the supernatural as a physically dead man has to perceive the natural.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am comfortable with the idea that a thing wholly composed of the contingent is as a whole contingent.

But why should we assume that the system as a whole is contingent? Consider a collections of triangles. Each triangle is part of some larger system -- an imaginary cosmos occupied by triangular bits. Does the fact that each discrete part of the system is a triangle give us grounds to conclude that the system, as a whole, must also be shaped as a triangle? No. Triangles can be arranged to form various other shapes -- diamonds, squares, rectangles, stars, and so on. So while each part of the system is a triangle, the system as a whole might not be.

The differences between the necessary and contingent do not preclude the necessary from producing the contingent.

But the claim that a cause must not be unlike its effect does preclude the possibility of the necessary being something supernatural. Consider a billiard ball. It is composed of matter and is set in motion by the cue, which is also composed of matter. The cause for the motion (the cue) is not unlike the object that it effects (the billiard ball). They are both material. You want to say that the billiard ball is like the sum of all matter and energy in the universe, and that it was set in motion by the cue, but that the cue was made of something entirely unlike the matter of the billiard ball -- something supernatural. How can a cause be so unlike its effect and none-the-less remain causally efficacious?

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

I had the potential not to exist (my parents might not have ever met, etc). I can explain my existence. Therefore this assertion is wrong.

Can you demonstrate a quantification of space that is not relative to that with mass?

Yes, we witness space expanding by observing the effects this expansion has on massless photons.

 

[bricklayer]

I had the potential not to exist (my parents might not have ever met, etc). I can explain my existence. Therefore this assertion is wrong.


Yes, we witness space expanding by observing the effects this expansion has on massless photons.

photons have mass as demonstrated by their susceptibility to gravity

there is difference between giving an account of one's existence and accounting for one's existence

 

[Eudaimonist]

photons have mass as demonstrated by their susceptibility to gravity

Photons do not have mass (unless you want to rewrite modern physics and claim your Nobel Prize), although they do have momentum. The reason that photons are affected by gravity isn't because of mass, but because gravity warps spacetime.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

photons have mass as demonstrated by their susceptibility to gravity

As others have said, you don't just get to make up reality to get it to match your ideas. Physics as we know it stops working if photons have rest mass.

there is difference between giving an account of one's existence and accounting for one's existence

Is there now?

 

[EricWinston]

That which is subject to change is subject; it is not sovereign.

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.

If a ball is moved from one place to another is it not still the same ball?

 

[bricklayer]

If a ball is moved from one place to another is it not still the same ball?

We do not know that the whole of the universe is not moving in unison as it changes within.
I will also contend that upon closer inspection within the composition of the ball, within the composition of the molecules, the atoms, one will find constant movement such that no subatomic particle of the ball can occupy the same relative position the balance of the sub atomic molecules within the ball.

 

[EricWinston]

What about when we get down to the subatomic level, down to where the particles are no longer made of other particles. When one of those particles moves from one location to another is it not still the same particle?

 

[bricklayer]

What about when we get down to the subatomic level, down to where the particles are no longer made of other particles. When one of those particles moves from one location to another is it not still the same particle?

No particle of matter can occupy the same position to the balance of matter in any two increments of time. Therefore, the matter-space -time continuum is subject to constant and exhaustive change.

Upon the movement of the part, the whole is changed.

 

[EricWinston]

Wouldn't the unchanging subatomic particles not made of other, smaller particles constitute the necessary agent producing the contingent and ever changing atoms and molecules.

 

[bricklayer]

Wouldn't the unchanging subatomic particles not made of other, smaller particles constitute the necessary agent producing the contingent and ever changing atoms and molecules.

The above mentioned particles have the potential for change (E=Mc2) and therefore the potential to not exist.
That which is necessary is simple actuality with no potentiality.
That which is contingent is a complex of actuality and potentiality.

That which is subject to change, actual or potential, is subject.
It is not-sovereign, not-necessary; it is contingent.

 

[cXXo]

Sir:

None of your premises seem inherently true. The first step to having your thoughts respected is to actually present them. You give no argument, you merely state a conclusion based on a series of conjectures.

 

[bricklayer]

Sir:

None of your premises seem inherently true. The first step to having your thoughts respected is to actually present them. You give no argument, you merely state a conclusion based on a series of conjectures.

I stand by my OP as a logical sequence of tautological statements.