The gears coukd have eternally moved by gravity if they are on a slant
But nothing about the OP is mystical nor does it cite anything mystical. I challenge you to show me which premise in the OP is making an argument from ignorance. — Bob Ross
Like I said before, the problem is that you are positing an infinite series which is contradicted by what we know exists; so it is impossible. The idea of such an infinite series ceteris paribus, to your point, is possible. — Bob Ross
The OP is just establishing that an absolutely simple being must be the underpinning (ultimately) for the actualization (composition) of the composed being: how it scientifically works is separate question that digresses from the OP. — Bob Ross
Wouldn't a part of the immutable being need to interact with that part?
No, because there is no parts to the simple being; but, yes, it does ‘interact’ with what it actualizes insofar as it keeps it in existence. — Bob Ross
No, because there is no parts to the simple being; but, yes, it does ‘interact’ with what it actualizes insofar as it keeps it in existence. — Bob Ross
Energy is just the ability to do work; so I am not following what you mean here. Energy doesn’t have parts just as much as space itself has no parts; however, it is worth noting that they are not absolutely simple concrete beings. — Bob Ross
I don’t see why it couldn’t in principle. By partless, we are talking about in concreto parts. My feeling of sadness and my thought about maybe eating ice cream later are not parts of my (in concreto) being. — Bob Ross
I am more than happy to discuss that in this thread if you want or in that thread; but the same issues I have voiced before still seem to be there. E.g., the term ‘cause’ is being used entirely too loosely. — Bob Ross
Here’s a simple way of demonstrating my point with the gears:
I have learned how you think enough at this point that you are missing my point and I don't think explaining my side again would help. Not a worry, let me go back to your original premises at this point as I think talking in your thought process will help communicate the issue better.
— Bob Ross
8. An uncomposed being (such as an uncomposed part) is purely simple, since it lacks any parts.
9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts.
10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none).
11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist. — Bob Ross
Nothing which is spatiotemporal can be absolutely simple (i.e., an ‘aristotelian atom’); for everything in space and time is divisible. — Bob Ross
for a part is a word which refers to a thing’s relation to another thing and not what some other thing may be in relation to it — Bob Ross
The 'thing' which would be actualizing the potential for the gears to move would, like I pointed out, be external to the series — Bob Ross
you circle back to the original point I already — Bob Ross
already demonstrated that gravity doesn't work like — Bob Ross
I'm noting that if you apply the same approach to your idea of a simple being being the start of it all, you run into the same impossibility. If that is so, and you are noting that something impossible is possible, then an infinite series is equally impossibly possible.
1. Change is the actualization of a potential.
2. A gear cannot change itself.
3. Rotation is a form of change.
4. A gear cannot rotate itself.
5. An infinite series of gears that are interlinked would never, in itself, produce any rotation amongst the gears.
6. Therefore, if an infinite series of gears that are interlinked are such that they are each rotating, then something outside of that series is the cause of that rotation.
Can you give an example of a monopart that exists apart from space and time yet is able to interact with the space and time of a gear to start it all? Of course not, its impossible, yet we say its possible anyway.
What you're saying is there is essentially one gear that gets powered, then powers all the others. How can that be 'perfectly simple'?
This makes no sense then. If a single gear powers the others, it powers it by transferring energy from itself to the rest of the gears. If not, then how does it transfer?
They actually are. You can tie those feelings to your brain, which is many multiple parts. A person can be lobotimzed to the point that they cannot think about ice cream nor feel sad anymore.
But how can something which does not exist in space or time power the first gear?
Two beings are distinguishable from each other's parts, not from their own parts within themselves. A simple part is mono, meaning it cannot be multiple. Meaning we can have two different monoparts. They would be distinguishible because one mono part would not be the other monopart.
Not a worry, it was only referenced if it would help you to understand what I was getting at. I wrote it specifically to detail 'cause' more, so I am a bit disappointed you think its not detailed enough. After were done here it would be kind if you would point out where you think its still lacking.
Is it essentially the idea that the esse (viz., the parts) depend also on the essence (viz., the whole)? — Bob Ross
I agree with this insofar as living beings aren’t just composed like non-living beings: they have a form that has to do with a process of maintaining and developing as an organism. Is that what you are referring to by “substantial form”? — Bob Ross
I guess I am not seeing the issue. I would say that a form is instantiated by way of the parts arrangement in such-and-such manners; and so the essence is not strictly reducible to the parts which comprise the being which has it; but this doesn’t seem to negate the fact that the essence itself is contingent for its existence on the parts. — Bob Ross
That’s fair, and I hadn’t thought of that. I think this OP, if true, would necessitate that the universe is finite and that matter is not eternal; or at least that matter is eternal only insofar as it subsists in being (from God).
We can also, I would say, object in a similar manner to time, space, and natural laws. None of these have parts themselves, and so they would be immune to the OP; but my point would be that the OP establishes the requirement for God, and establishes the nature of God sufficiently to know that these kinds of things which have no parts themselves must be only in existence through God as well. I would say this because nothing can affect a purely actual being (since it lacks passive potency), granted such a being exists, and given natural laws (or time or space itself—if you are a realist about those) would be a medium which does affect such a being’s ability to actualize, it follows that no such purely transcendent natural laws (or time or space) can exist; for God must be more fundamental than them, as their own actualization. They equally have a potential to exist or not, and God actualizes that potentiality. — Bob Ross
That is fair, but my thing would be that Aristotelian idea of ‘motion’ is misleading for modern people; and makes them be too dismissive of the argument. — Bob Ross
and that, rendered, is God as presupposition.
That is, we presuppose God exists, therefore God exists:
sound theology, not very good philosophy, and nothing scientific at all.
But it seems to me that given your "generic existence," then it is difficult - actually impossible - to think of anything that does not exist. Yes? No?
The parts which make up the whole actualize the potential for the whole to exist — Bob Ross
the slide cannot be composed of an infinite per se series of parts and, thusly, God must exist — Bob Ross
gravity is the displacement of space-time fabric which is relative to a relationship between the two objects effected — Bob Ross
So, I want to focus for second on the fact that you believe both a finite series
with an absolutely simple first member and an infinite series of rotating gears are impossible. — Bob Ross
1. There is no example we can give of a being that exists outside of space and time and yet can still interact with things in space and time.
2. Therefore, it is impossible.
That is, ironically, an argument from ignorance—that’s a God of the gaps style argument. — Bob Ross
I would like you to focus on providing me with a sound argument for why it is impossible; because that’s the crux of your argument. — Bob Ross
I am not arguing that there is an absolutely simple being at the beginning of a finite series (or an indefinite series with a starting point—i.e., a potential infinity) of gears moving. As a side note, Aristotle would argue that, by analogy, the gears are an infinite series that are rotating each other and the pure actualizer is the external cause for that rotation. I don’t want to get into his argument from motion because it detracts from the OP (which is about composition). — Bob Ross
My argument is from composition: it is the idea that an absolutely simple being that is purely actual is the start of the chain of causality for the existence of things in terms of their composition. — Bob Ross
This doesn’t matter if the OP succeeds in demonstrating that an absolutely simple being needs to exist to account for the existence of contingent beings. Again, you keep shifting the goalpost to questions about how this absolutely simple being actualizes the existence of things instead of whether or not the OP succeeds at proving there is such a being that actualizes them. — Bob Ross
I agree that consciousness can be reduced to our bodies; but that is a red herring to what I said. It is uncontroversially true that your thoughts have no concrete, proper parts. — Bob Ross
but I am going to deny that because the OP demonstrates such a being must exist; so it must be the case that not all forms of intelligence are reducible to physical parts. — Bob Ross
20. Intelligence is having the ability to apprehend the form of things (and not its copies!).
21. The purely simple and actual being apprehends the forms of things. (19)
22. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being must be an intelligence. — Bob Ross
If a thing has parts, then it can be distinguished from other things. An absolutely simple being has no parts, so it is impossible that this ‘mono’ thing you referred to as having ‘their own parts within themselves’ is absolutely simple. — Bob Ross
Likewise, you just blanketly asserted that we can have two different ‘monoparts’ when that’s literally what are supposed to be providing an argument for. You basically just said:
1. An absolutely simple being is ‘mono’.
2. There can be two different monoparts.
3. Therefore, it is false that two absolutely simple beings cannot exist.
That just begs the question. — Bob Ross
Sorry, I am not trying to disappoint you; and I will re-read your OP and respond in that thread sometime soon so we can discuss that as well. — Bob Ross
1. There is no example we can give of an infinite regress of reality being powered by itself.
2. Therefore, its is impossible.
How is the argument I noted any different?
What I'm noting is your example of a simple being outside of time and space powering 'the first gear', is also impossible.
Because what is possible must be known at least once.
a simple being that exists outside of time and space cannot interact with time and space. To affect time and space, the thing must touch time and space, and must be in it at the point of interactivity. Its simple physics
But you use the argument from motion to show the infinite regress of gears is impossible. Again, the same standards must be applied to both arguments. And if you're not arguing that there is a simple being powering the first gear of regress, I don't understand what you're trying to say
How is this any different from a simple being starting the first gear in the chain of causality?
It doesn't succeed in demonstrating this because you need a simple being to be understood in terms of real causality just like the gear example.
Without understanding what a simple being is, and how it could begin this causal chain, you can't prove your OP.
Its not a red herring, its to show that thoughts are parts.
A simple being would be like that, 'red'
The correct statement here is that forms of intelligence reduce to physical parts, so there is a flaw in your OP.
A simple being of red, a simple being of green for example. If a being has both green and red, it is no longer simple. If a being can think, it is no longer simple. You're noting a simple being, and a simple being would have severe limitations because it has no parts within it. A god of intelligence in no manner of logical thought is simple.
A simple being is one, it has no other parts. There could be another simple being that also has no parts, and that would not contradict the first simple being. Therefore it is not true that two simple beings cannot exist.
A surface without edges.What is an unbound surface? — Bob Ross
Earth.Can you give a concrete example of that?
Consider this article ...What is a fractal? Ditto.
None of the premises of your argument refer to "concrete entities" – goal post-shifting fallacy, Bob. Here's what I'm addressing that you've repeatedly referred to:Real number series are not concrete entities,so they are not a valid rejoinder to the argument from the composition of concrete entities.
Numbers¹ are "composed beings" (i.e. sets²1. Composed beings ... — Bob Ross
False (e.g. negative integers, fractals).[A]n infinite regress of contingent beings is actuallyimpossible.
Impermanence, flow (i.e. flux), becoming, transformation, energy (i.e. activity) ...How would you define change?
By causality³ I understand non-random (i.e. conditional-constrained) sequential patterns of events (i.e. effects).How would you define causality?
What do you mean by purely simple? Why an uncomposed thing must be purely simple?8. An uncomposed being (such as an uncomposed part) is purely simple, since it lacks any parts. — Bob Ross
Correct if two beings are composed. We can distinguish uncompsed beings by their attributes though.9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts. — Bob Ross
I don't see how this follows. Two uncomposed beings just do not have parts.10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none). — Bob Ross
I don't see how this follows either. Two uncomposed beings can have different attributes so there can be more than one.11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist. — Bob Ross
What do you mean by purely actual? Why cannot an uncomposed thing have potency?12. The purely simple being would have to be purely actual—devoid of any passive potency—because passive potency requires a being to have parts which can be affected by an other. — Bob Ross
This does not follow to me as I don't understand the previous premises and conclusion.14. Therefore, there can only be one purely actual being which is also purely simple. (11 & 12 & 13) — Bob Ross
What do you mean by this?19. Therefore, the forms of the composed beings must exist in the purely simple and actual being. — Bob Ross
Yes, if the form of things can be manifested as thoughts.20. Intelligence is having the ability to apprehend the form of things (and not its copies!) — Bob Ross
That does not follow to me as I don't understand what do you mean by (19).21. The purely simple and actual being apprehends the forms of things. (19) — Bob Ross
Yes, if all possible forms of composed beings exist. Otherwise, the purely simple and actual being lacks omniscience.24. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is omniscient. — Bob Ross
To me, good is just a feature of our experiences and has nothing to do with privation.27. To be good is to lack any privation of what the thing is. — Bob Ross
That does not follow since I disagree with the definition of good.28. The purely simple and actual being cannot have any privations, since it is fully actual. — Bob Ross
The omnipotent is the ability to actualize all possible forms. It is not sure whether all possible forms exist and whether they are only caused by a purely simple being.35. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is omnipotent. — Bob Ross
Well in the first place esse != parts and essence != whole. Esse/essence is not the part/whole relationship.
, if you place all of the parts of a frog together in the correct configuration, there will still be no frog
If a cat loses an ear or a dog loses a leg it has lost a part but the cat or dog still exists
The problem begins in premise (4), where you imply that there is an existence in the parts that is not in the whole, and thus we are upbuilding existence from parts to whole. Your idea is something like, “Parts are what primarily exist, and because they exist wholes exist. The existence of wholes is generated by the existence of parts.”
Why do you say that?
…
Think about it this way: is it easier for someone to deny the essence/existence distinction, or is it easier for them to deny that existence of motion/change?
1. An absolutely simple being causing (ultimately) the existence of all things violates physics.
2. Therefore, it cannot exist.
How does it violate physics? — Bob Ross
1. There is no example we can give of an infinite regress of reality being powered by itself.
2. Therefore, its is impossible.
How is the argument I noted any different?
I didn’t argue that: that would also be an argument from ignorance. I specified exactly why it is impossible. — Bob Ross
Because what is possible must be known at least once.
This is standardly false. Right now, we are discussing actual possibility; — Bob Ross
Your point here requires that space and time are real substances which every existent thing is in and of; and I don’t see why that is case nor how science backs that. — Bob Ross
If it is impossible for a composed object to be infinitely composed, then there must be a first member; and that member must be uncomposed—which means it is absolutely simple. — Bob Ross
Because I don’t think that this simple being is the cause of the composition of objects analogously to a thing perpetually moving the first gear in a series. Moving a gear in a series would require something physical moving it, at least immanently (directly). — Bob Ross
Without understanding what a simple being is, and how it could begin this causal chain, you can't prove your OP.
That’s false. If all the premises are true, then the conclusion in the OP logically follows. How it causes the existence of things is a separate question. — Bob Ross
A thought does not have parts. Your brain has parts. Are you arguing that somehow your brain has parts and your thoughts have parts? — Bob Ross
Red in the sense of the phenomena or the wavelength? If the former, then it doesn’t have parts and is absolutely simple but is not a concretely existent thing; — Bob Ross
Again, you are using the term ‘part’ too loosely. A part is something which contributes to the composition of a whole in concreto — Bob Ross
Again, you just argued by way of begging the question. I have no good reasons so far to accept that you are right that two simple beings can exist. I already provided a proof that that is impossible. If two things lack parts, then they cannot exist separately from each other; for a thing can only be concretely distinguished from another thing by way of its parts. — Bob Ross
It devolves to whatever is presupposed in the metaphysical argument; and that, rendered, is God as presupposition. — tim wood
Not at all. God is not a presupposition of the argument in the OP. — Bob Ross
38. A being which is absolutely simple, absolutely actual, eternal, immutable, all-loving, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, all-good, one, unique, and necessary just is God. — Bob Ross
42. Therefore, God exists. — Bob Ross
1. Composed beings are made up of parts.
2. A composed being exists contingently upon its parts in their specific arrangement.
3. A part of a composed being is either composed or uncomposed.
4. A part that is a composed being does not, in turn, exist in-itself but, rather, exists contingently upon its parts and their specific arrangement.
5. An infinite series of composed beings for any given composed being (viz., a composed being of which its parts are also, in turn, composed and so on ad infinitum) would not have the power to exist on their own.
6. Therefore, an infinite series of composed beings is impossible.
7. Therefore, a series of composed beings must have, ultimately, uncomposed parts as its first cause. (6 & 3)
None of the premises of your argument refer to "concrete entities" – goal post-shifting fallacy, Bob.
So then your conclusion ...... the OP is only targeting concretely existent objects. — Bob Ross
... means that "God" is a "concretely existing object", which contradicts both theistic and deistic conceptions (Aristotle, B. Pascal, P. Tillich).41. The composed beings must subsist through an absolutely simple and actual being.
42. Therefore, God exists. — Bob Ross
As you can see, #38 posits a being with some certain characteristics (never mind that all-good/loving and omnipotent are contrary), and then concludes that such a being "just is God." So my question: where does "God" come from, if not presupposed?38. A being which is absolutely simple, absolutely actual, eternal, immutable, all-loving, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, all-good, one, unique, and necessary just is God. — Bob Ross
I think we are jumping all over the place in our discussion, and that’s equally my fault. — Bob Ross
I still stand firm that a part is something which contributes to the composition of the whole—as its definition— — Bob Ross
To this, I say that the OP is talking about divisibility as it relates to concrete objects—that is, spatiotemporal objects. E.g., a singular feeling of disgust that spans 3 seconds is divisible in time—and thusly has parts—but not in a spatial—and thusly not in a concrete—sense; for a feeling does not exist in space (even if it can be causally explained in terms of brain processes). — Bob Ross
I only refer to this objection to be thorough, as I don’t believe you accept the non-reality of space and time, but for now I think we can both establish concrete entities as simply defined in the sense in the first objection — Bob Ross
5. An infinite series of composed beings for any given composed being (viz., a composed being of which its parts are also, in turn, composed and so on ad infinitum) would not have the power to exist on their own.
Corollary point: how can a being be both? If God is omnipotent, he can do anything. If omnibenevolent, then ony good things. And then, of course, since God is absolute, what exactly is an absolutely good thing - are not good things good with respect to something?omnibenevolent, omnipotent, — Bob Ross
The point is the proof of the OP is just an exercise in word games which only works if the required understandings are already in place and accepted, I.e., presupposed.No different than how we can prove a car exists and then note that the thing we just proved exists is traditionally called a 'car'. — Bob Ross
9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts.
10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none).
11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist. — Bob Ross
. . . checks out in my head.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.