3 ms·

I have seen Aquinas's proof written somewhere. It is like what you wrote: Something that is moved is moved by someone else, but there cannot be a infinite regre

I have seen Aquinas's proof written somewhere. It is like what you wrote: Something that is moved is moved by someone else, but there cannot be a infinite regress, therefore God is the unmoved mover. But that is illogical: The conclusion contradicts the premise. Rather, if something that is moved is moved by someone else that is before it (rather than a loop), then it necessarily is a infinite regress (and this infinite regress is like what is God, I suppose).

throw0101a 7y ago
> Rather, if something that is moved is moved by someone else that is before it (rather than a loop), then it necessarily is a infinite regress (and this infinite regress is like what is God, I suppose). Read the series posts. The use of the word "motion" in the day-to-day colloquial sense is not the way "motion" is being used in the technical/philosophical sense in these arguments: > What's in a name? If "motion" is more than the thin concept used in modern physics, that raises the question³ of whether we ought to call it "motion" anymore. Because motion is defined as "the reduction potency to act," we might call it "actualization," but this would earn blank stares [see left]. So would kinesis, although that sounds agreeably scientificalistic. The word change captures the greater scope of kinesis, but comes off as rather bland. It's kinetic change, after all. [...] > 3. "Motion" begins when the many potencies a thing possesses collapse onto a single potency (the "actual" potency). The act of building commences. > 4. "Motion" ceases when the potency has been fully actualized (or the actualizing force has been removed!) The building has been completed (or abandoned). > 5. "Motion" means that a thing is both what it is now and what it is going to be, as of now. > 6. "Motion" is a change to something a thing already possesses. If the thing already possesses motion, then it would be a change in that motion (i.e., an acceleration) [...] > 8. "Inertia" (lit. "laziness") is a principle of resistance to change, not a principle of motion. "Motion" ["Change"] must overcome this resistance. A body does not continue to move because of inertia, but because of momentum. If friction changes the motion, it must overcome resistance to change. > 9. "Motion" that is continuous and unchanging is actually "rest" (equilibrium). This includes orbiting planets, Belousov–Zhabotinsky reactions, etc. * http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.html http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.ht...
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  OK, what you write makes sense, although my argument is not about motion, but rather about Aquinas's argument, so the meaning of "motion" is not relevant to my argument (whether that premise is true or false is also not relevant); rather, I am commenting on the form of the argument being illogical.

throw0101a 7y ago

> Rather, if something that is moved is moved by someone else that is before it (rather than a loop), then it necessarily is a infinite regress (and this infinite regress is like what is God, I suppose). Read the series posts. The use of the word "motion" in the day-to-day colloquial sense is not the way "motion" is being used in the technical/philosophical sense in these arguments: > What's in a name? If "motion" is more than the thin concept used in modern physics, that raises the question³ of whether we ought to call it "motion" anymore. Because motion is defined as "the reduction potency to act," we might call it "actualization," but this would earn blank stares [see left]. So would kinesis, although that sounds agreeably scientificalistic. The word change captures the greater scope of kinesis, but comes off as rather bland. It's kinetic change, after all. [...] > 3. "Motion" begins when the many potencies a thing possesses collapse onto a single potency (the "actual" potency). The act of building commences. > 4. "Motion" ceases when the potency has been fully actualized (or the actualizing force has been removed!) The building has been completed (or abandoned). > 5. "Motion" means that a thing is both what it is now and what it is going to be, as of now. > 6. "Motion" is a change to something a thing already possesses. If the thing already possesses motion, then it would be a change in that motion (i.e., an acceleration) [...] > 8. "Inertia" (lit. "laziness") is a principle of resistance to change, not a principle of motion. "Motion" ["Change"] must overcome this resistance. A body does not continue to move because of inertia, but because of momentum. If friction changes the motion, it must overcome resistance to change. > 9. "Motion" that is continuous and unchanging is actually "rest" (equilibrium). This includes orbiting planets, Belousov–Zhabotinsky reactions, etc. * http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.html http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.ht...

zzo38computer 7y ago
OK, what you write makes sense, although my argument is not about motion, but rather about Aquinas's argument, so the meaning of "motion" is not relevant to my argument (whether that premise is true or false is also not relevant); rather, I am commenting on the form of the argument being illogical.