The first cause argument

[ppp]

Playing with words.

That is a weird response. Are you taking past each other, perhaps? Are you a Platonist?

"Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental." Platonism in Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Polymath257]

Playing with words.

Not at all. Our thoughts and how we classify things don't have a bearing on what actually exists.

The concept (our thoughts) is not required for the reality (what exists outside of our thoughts).

A concept is a classification. It is a thought.

 

[Polymath257]

That is a weird response. Are you taking past each other, perhaps? Are you a Platonist?

"Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental." Platonism in Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I consider Platonism to be a very fundamental philosophical error.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't remember those. What class would that have been in?

Probably not in any class. Unless you take one of mine.

But it is part of mathematical culture.

 

[ppp]

Probably not in any class. Unless you take one of mine.

But it is part of mathematical culture.

Heh. People just don't understand the concept of recreational math.

 

[ppp]

I consider Platonism to be a very fundamental philosophical error.

Me too. But they still exists. Especially in pre-sup circles. I was hoping that your disconnect was simply frustration from different first/early principles.

 

[Polymath257]

Me too. But they still exists. Especially in pre-sup circles. I was hoping that your disconnect was simply frustration from different first/early principles.

I'm not sure which is worse: Platonism with it's abstract objects actually existing somewhere or Aristotelianism with its 'potential existence' and bad classification of causality. Thomism is mostly a derivate of Aristotelianism and seems to be the basis of some of the discussion here as well.

 

[ppp]

potential existence

Is that the potentiality and actuality and pure actuality thing?

 

[Polymath257]

Is that the potentiality and actuality and pure actuality thing?

I think so. It's like philosophy stopped 800 years ago with Aquinas.

 

[ppp]

I think so. It's like philosophy stopped 800 years ago with Aquinas.

I am merely a dabbler, but what is wrong with Hume?

 

[Polymath257]

I am merely a dabbler, but what is wrong with Hume?

I like Hume quite a bit, actually. Among the ancient philosophers, I also like Lucretius.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Light clearly has causal power of its own: you can see it because of that causal power. And it certainly has the power to 'illuminate', so what is the issue?

So in this causal chain of light (from a shining object) and (a series of) reflecting objects there is one cause that is principal/independent and other causes that are instrumental/dependent. Each member from the latter is deriving its causal power to illuminate from other causes and finally from the principal cause.

Such causal series must have a first independent cause.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Why would you think there is such a thing? Why does being need a 'ground'? What makes you think there is a single root cause of ALL that exists? And how could that root cause be a cause for its own existence?

Good questions but first we have to establish that a sort of causal series must have a first cause...

 

[Polymath257]

So in this causal chain of light (from a shining object) and (a series of) reflecting objects there is one cause that is principal/independent and other causes that are instrumental/dependent. Each member from the latter is deriving its causal power to illuminate from other causes and finally from the principal cause.

Such causal series must have a first independent cause.

I think that is a really bad interpretation of what happens. It completely misunderstands what is actually happening in this scenario.

First, only the light has the 'power to illuminate' and it does so simply by bouncing off of something and then entering an eye. That is what we *mean* to say that something is illuminated: that light has bounced off of it.

Second, NONE of the other things has any 'power to illuminate'. Instead, they have a 'power to reflect light'. And that power is not transferred, gained, or lost.

Now, the light itself can be caused by some sort of interaction of matter, but that doesn't mean the matter has the 'power to illuminate'. It just means that matter has the 'power to make light'. And that power doesn't get transferred either.

So, the sun has the 'power to make light' and the moon has the 'power to reflect light' and the light has the 'power to illuminate'. No powers are transferred between things. Each thing has its own power (property) and keeps it for the duration of the process.

 

[Polymath257]

Good questions but first we have to establish that a sort of causal series must have a first cause...

Well, *every* causal series is a sequence of interactions. Most of those interactions are between two or more different things initially. So we expect there to be a branching tree of previous causes, not a linear progression.

it seems to me that there is only one way there can be a 'first' in any branch of the tree: if there is something that is uncaused. And, if there is no infinite regression, there must be such in every branch of that tree.

And *that* tells me that there are MANY 'uncaused causes' and not a single 'first cause'.

 

[PearlSeeker]

So, the sun has the 'power to make light' and the moon has the 'power to reflect light' and the light has the 'power to illuminate'. No powers are transferred between things. Each thing has its own power (property) and keeps it for the duration of the process.

The sun has the power to produce light and it has the power to cause some object (for example moon) to be illumined. Illumined object can cause the same effect - some other object to be illumined etc. The sun causes this effect independently and the moon causes it dependently - its causal power is derived/traced back to the sun.

I don't see why these causes and effects supposedly aren't happening.

 

[Polymath257]

The sun has the power to produce light and it has the power to cause some object (for example moon) to be illumined. Illumined object can cause the same effect - some other object to be illumined etc. The sun causes this effect independently and the moon causes it dependently - its causal power is derived/traced back to the sun.

I don't see why these causes and effects supposedly aren't happening.

No, the sun has the power to make light. The moon has the power to reflect light. Light has the power to illuminate. The sun isn't illuminating the moon-the light is. The moon isn't illuminating the room-the light is.

You have the causes wrong in your chain. There is no 'transfer of power' from the sun to the moon to illuminate.

 

[PearlSeeker]

No, the sun has the power to make light. The moon has the power to reflect light. Light has the power to illuminate. The sun isn't illuminating the moon-the light is. The moon isn't illuminating the room-the light is.

You have the causes wrong in your chain. There is no 'transfer of power' from the sun to the moon to illuminate.

I don't know. Maybe I have a problem with English (my foreign language)...

So you say no object has te power to light?
Definition from dictionary:

light (verb)

1. provide with light or lighting; illuminate.
"the room was lit by a number of small lamps"​

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know. Maybe I have a problem with English (my foreign language)...

So you say no object has te power to light?
Definition from dictionary:

light (verb)

1. provide with light or lighting; illuminate.
"the room was lit by a number of small lamps"​

Object have the power to *make light*. The light is what then illuminates. The light can also be reflected and refracted and otherwise modified.

let me give a slightly different example that shows this is not a 'per se' causal series in the sense Aquinas was wanting.

Suppose that a star explodes that is 500 light years away and emits a tremendous amount of light. The light travels to the Earth, is reflected off of the moon, and illuminates a room. But, at the time the light is reflected off of the moon, the star that exploded no longer exists: it exploded 500 years ago. So, the illumination of the room does NOT require the continued existence of the source that makes the light. it only requires the light itself.

The only difference between this and the example of the sun is that the travel time for light from the sun is only 8 minutes or so as opposed to 500 years. The sun could cease to exist and the room would be illuminated by the light that was still traveling to the room.

 

[Ponder This]

Object have the power to *make light*. The light is what then illuminates. The light can also be reflected and refracted and otherwise modified.

let me give a slightly different example that shows this is not a 'per se' causal series in the sense Aquinas was wanting.

Suppose that a star explodes that is 500 light years away and emits a tremendous amount of light. The light travels to the Earth, is reflected off of the moon, and illuminates a room. But, at the time the light is reflected off of the moon, the star that exploded no longer exists: it exploded 500 years ago. So, the illumination of the room does NOT require the continued existence of the source that makes the light. it only requires the light itself.

The only difference between this and the example of the sun is that the travel time for light from the sun is only 8 minutes or so as opposed to 500 years. The sun could cease to exist and the room would be illuminated by the light that was still traveling to the room.

You are just avoiding understanding what a per se causal series is by trying to pick apart the analogy of light reflecting off moons but originating from a sun.
If I had picked on the per accidens causal series of generations of people that @PearlSeeker presented I would have argued it is clearly not per accidens. I refrained because I realized the point being made wasn't about the efficacy of the analogies.