The Illusion of Self

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Energy changes form, but it persists, it transcends all change, it is eternal.  So what is the problem with a chain of dependencies terminating at energy ?

you have said that energy changes form. It therefore has derived power and therefore cannot be a candidate for actual power.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Changes in energy show that it too has derived potential or power.

It shows no such thing.

Again, what's your (and Feser's) excuse for ignoring what physics actually tells us?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it just me or is somebody desperately waving the word physics around shamanically here and suggesting an infinite chain of derived change as well?

Feser's argument works whether energy is eternal or not because it talks about change and potential.

There is no mileage in trying to change playing fields here.

[torridon]

you have said that energy changes form. It therefore has derived power and therefore cannot be a candidate for actual power.

I don't follow that.  Energy has many manifestations but it does not derive from something more primitive.  It might take the form of kinetic energy, it might take the form of potential energy, it could be chemical energy, it could be thermal, etc etc, these are all forms of energy but that does not mean that energy itself is derivative. All forms of power derive from energy in one of its guises.

[Gordon]

But you cannot logically or reasonably have an infinite chain of derived power ergo there must be an actual power which is not derived. Which changes and is not changed itself since that would mean it is a derived power and an infinite chain of derived power is not logical.

So, if I've got this right, you (and Feser) are arguing for some kind of 'prime Duracell'?

Yes?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't follow that.  Energy has many manifestations but it does not derive from something more primitive.  It might take the form of kinetic energy, it might take the form of potential energy, it could be chemical energy, it could be thermal, etc etc, these are all forms of energy but that does not mean that energy itself is derivative. All forms of power derive from energy in one of its guises.

Your still not getting it, probably because of your habit of missing out key points which funnily enough don't suit your argument.

We are not talking about their being energy. As I said there can always have been energy. We are talking about CHANGE and potentiality which is derived.

Your argument is essentially not one of the physicist...but the just is-icist. Unless you can explain change other than it being derived change then you aare left with an illogical infinite chane of derived power.

What I like about this Aristotelian approach is that it satisfies logic, parsimony and basic scientific principles.

I have the feeling that certain people are going to have to resort to scrapping parsimony and Occam's razor to preserve their antitheism. We shall see.

[torridon]

Your still not getting it, probably because of your habit of missing out key points which funnily enough don't suit your argument.

We are not talking about their being energy. As I said there can always have been energy. We are talking about CHANGE and potentiality which is derived.

Your argument is essentially not one of the physicist...but the just is-icist. Unless you can explain change other than it being derived change then you aare left with an illogical infinite chane of derived power.

What I like about this Aristotelian approach is that it satisfies logic, parsimony and basic scientific principles.

I have the feeling that certain people are going to have to resort to scrapping parsimony and Occam's razor to preserve their antitheism. We shall see.

So are you saying that cause and effect is your issue ?  A chain of cause and effect must have a starting point ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Is it just me...

Yes.

... or is somebody desperately waving the word physics around shamanically here and suggesting an infinite chain of derived change as well?

Feser's argument works whether energy is eternal or not because it talks about change and potential.

There is no mileage in trying to change playing fields here.

So before I dismantle your latest mistakes, can we be clear about where you've retrenched to now? Previously you asserted a god who created everything. Now it seems that you've shifted ground to a god who happened to be passing one day when he noticed some energy lying around and thought, "Ooh, that's handy - if I tinker with that from time-to-time I'll be able to make people and octopi and diamonds and stuff".

And that's the notion that you think satisfies Occam's razor, is parsimonious etc?

Really?

Really really?

Well, ok then - let's abandon your god of the omnis conjecture and examine instead your new version of god as jobbing engineer.

OK with you so far?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#334

Start with your own power/potential/change/ability. You will see that it is dependent/derived from something else. and the power/potential/change/ability of that something  is dependent or derived and so on but what you can't have logically is an infinite chain of derived power/potential/change/ability.

OK, I see, but doesn't that just boil down to the argument that SOTS likes to make - essentially, I appear to have power, that power must have come from somewhere, it cannot have come from nothing, therefore it must derive from some powerful being working in isolation.

In terms of a direct response to this Torridon, nothing to add to what Emergence has said in #335 and subsequent posts.

However, as you did mention the argument I'm allegedly making, I'll just add some comments

1. The 'something from nothing' argument is based on Physics.

2. The last part therefore it must derive from some powerful being working in isolation. is not correct. My contention is that the cause of the power is external. It is consistent with Physics and is supported by the kind of observations and experiments that anyone on the planet can observe or even demonstrate themselves! I can also conclude that the cause for the power is external, because the system is not doing any work in order to generate it, nor does it come at the expense of another part of the system.

One can reach different conclusions about the nature of the external influence, but it doesn't alter the truth that there is an external influence responsible.  I would rather go down the route of investigating what that external influence is, rather than going for the alternative, which violates laws of Physics.

[torridon]

#334
In terms of a direct response to this Torridon, nothing to add to what Emergence has said in #335 and subsequent posts.

However, as you did mention the argument I'm allegedly making, I'll just add some comments

1. The 'something from nothing' argument is based on Physics.

2. The last part therefore it must derive from some powerful being working in isolation. is not correct. My contention is that the cause of the power is external. It is consistent with Physics and is supported by the kind of observations and experiments that anyone on the planet can observe or even demonstrate themselves! I can also conclude that the cause for the power is external, because the system is not doing any work in order to generate it, nor does it come at the expense of another part of the system.

One can reach different conclusions about the nature of the external influence, but it doesn't alter the truth that there is an external influence responsible.  I would rather go down the route of investigating what that external influence is, rather than going for the alternative, which violates laws of Physics.

Virtual particles created in a quantum vacuum are an example of something from nothing. Are you claiming something from nothing is impossible and therefore these particles must have an external source ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

I would rather go down the route of investigating what that external influence is, rather than going for the alternative, which violates laws of Physics.

No it doesn't. A better alternative is to understand what the laws of physics are actually telling us rather than rely on ignorance of them to open up a faux gap in which a god can hide.

[wigginhall]

Your still not getting it, probably because of your habit of missing out key points which funnily enough don't suit your argument.

We are not talking about their being energy. As I said there can always have been energy. We are talking about CHANGE and potentiality which is derived.

Your argument is essentially not one of the physicist...but the just is-icist. Unless you can explain change other than it being derived change then you aare left with an illogical infinite chane of derived power.

What I like about this Aristotelian approach is that it satisfies logic, parsimony and basic scientific principles.

I have the feeling that certain people are going to have to resort to scrapping parsimony and Occam's razor to preserve their antitheism. We shall see.

One of the troubles with these Aristotelian terms such as potentiality, actuality, and change, is that it's possible to sculpt them infinitely.  For example, an acorn is potentially an oak tree, but hang on, a squirrel eats it, so now it is actually part of squirrel meat, and potentially squirrel poo.  But squirrel poo itself is potentially part of the forest's composted floor, which of course, potentially feeds the surrounding trees.

This is quite entertaining, but it seems without constraints.  I suppose Feser would say that God, since he is not created, unifies potency and act.   But this is a bit like angels dancing on a pin-head, isn't it?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

One of the troubles with these Aristotelian terms such as potentiality, actuality, and change, is that it's possible to sculpt them infinitely.  For example, an acorn is potentially an oak tree, but hang on, a squirrel eats it, so now it is actually part of squirrel meat, and potentially squirrel poo.  But squirrel poo itself is potentially part of the forest's composted floor, which of course, potentially feeds the surrounding trees.

This is quite entertaining, but it seems without constraints.  I suppose Feser would say that God, since he is not created, unifies potency and act.   But this is a bit like angels dancing on a pin-head, isn't it?

Quite so – if you use an Aristotelian understanding of the world to model your reality you’ll end with some very peculiar results. How for example should we define and bound Aristotle’s take on “potential”? Does the crocodile have the potential to be a pair of shoes? Does the dinosaur that died, became oil, was extracted and made into plastics have the potential to be my computer keyboard? Where does it end?

It’s all pretty arbitrary – handily vague if you’re Feser and you want to proselytise, but hopeless as soon as you apply some rigour to the proposition. Curiously too by the way it’s led him (and Vlad it seems) to a sort of “God as a Polish plumber” tinkering about with the energy He’s stumbled across anyway rather than the standard “ground of all being” model, though how he/they would deal with that driving a coach and four through the god of the omnis conjecture is anyone’s guess.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No it doesn't. A better alternative is to understand what the laws of physics are actually telling us rather than rely on ignorance of them to open up a faux gap in which a god can hide.

Where is the ignorance of them taking place?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

Where is the ignorance of them taking place?

Actually, conceptually in several places.

First, various hypotheses (like quantum borrowing) already suggest ways in which “something can come from nothing”.

Second, even if it were the case that science didn't have an answer to something that does not give you licence to drop in a superstitious belief to like to fill the gap. Your approach here is equivalent to Sven saying to Eric, “That thunder stuff – your science can’t explain it, so I’m going to explore my Thor option instead”.

Third, as I understand it most conjectures about “God” assert him to be non-material, “outside time and space”, not bound by the rules and laws of science etc. What then would you propose to explore and how when you think the science at hand doesn’t give you a satisfactory answer?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Second, even if it were the case that science didn't have an answer to something that does not give you licence to drop in a superstitious belief to like to fill the gap.

Where has this taken place?

Your approach here is equivalent to Sven saying to Eric, “That thunder stuff – your science can’t explain it, so I’m going to explore my Thor option instead”.

Again, where has this taken place?

[Gordon]

Where has this taken place?
Again, where has this taken place?

Just check any creationist website - say AIG (especially if you like a laugh).

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Just check any creationist website - say AIG (especially if you like a laugh).

I haven't seen this on any creationist website.

Have you any citations that illustrate specifically what bluehillside is claiming?

[Gordon]

I haven't seen this on any creationist website.

Have you any citations that illustrate specifically what bluehillside is claiming?

Don't be silly - AIG is packed with superstitious beliefs and spurious explanations: for example, this bollocks regarding dinosaurs which includes a fine mix of superstitious beliefs (God's Word) and spurious facts (dinosaurs lived alongside people). You'll join me in laughing at the drivel below - wont you?

https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/kangaroos-dinosaurs-and-eden/

Dining Dinos

For instance, I have found that most Christians are mystified at how to explain dinosaurs. However, if we know God's Word, we can make many authoritative statements about dinosaurs.

Think about this. Does the Bible tell us when dinosaurs first appeared, or what the first Tyrannosaurus Rex ate? Most Christians emphatically say 'No!' However, the Bible does provide a logical basis for answering such questions.

There was no death and bloodshed of man or animals before sin. So the dinosaurs whose bones we find could not have died millions of years before Adam.

The Bible tells us in Genesis, and again in Exodus 20:11, that everything was made in the same six days as Adam and Eve. This means, on the authority of God's Word, not based on opinion, we can state for certain that dinosaurs lived beside the first people, just thousands of years ago.

We are also told in Genesis 1:29–30 that Adam and Eve, and all the animals, were to have vegetarian diets. So T. Rex was originally a herbivore!

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

Again, where has this taken place?

Here (Reply 358):

"One can reach different conclusions about the nature of the external influence, but it doesn't alter the truth that there is an external influence responsible.  I would rather go down the route of investigating what that external influence is, rather than going for the alternative, which violates laws of Physics."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One of the troubles with these Aristotelian terms such as potentiality, actuality, and change, is that it's possible to sculpt them infinitely.  For example, an acorn is potentially an oak tree, but hang on, a squirrel eats it, so now it is actually part of squirrel meat, and potentially squirrel poo.  But squirrel poo itself is potentially part of the forest's composted floor, which of course, potentially feeds the surrounding trees.

This is quite entertaining, but it seems without constraints.  I suppose Feser would say that God, since he is not created, unifies potency and act.   But this is a bit like angels dancing on a pin-head, isn't it?

Wigginhall.

The Aristotelian approach takes infinity into account. In fact for much of the history of monotheism the universe has been considered as possibly infinite.

You are arguing with me as though I am proposing a Kalam Cosmological argument. I am not.
The question why something and not nothing though is not the same as why did something pop out of nothing.

What the argument boils down to is derived power. There cannot logically be an infinite chain of derived power (although that which derives power could have existed infinitely).
The chain of derived power must logically end in an actual power which is a unitary actual power.

Any infinite chain of derived power is like proposing an infinite chain of railway wagons which are moving themselves without a locomotive. Totally illogical.

Angels on pinheads and dewdrops on roses have no place here since any other proposal creates an infinite chain of derived power.....and that is not logical.

To continually conclude then that there are no constraints here is to either misunderstand that derived power observed is completely illogical if presented as an infinite linear chain rather than a hierarchical chain where the buck stops at an actual unitary power which is not material as material is only observed to have derived power.

Regarding Professor Feser...have you read or seen any videos of the Master? An introductory ad hominem attack by Bluehillside is a recommendation and endorsement I would have thought. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Virtual particles created in a quantum vacuum are an example of something from nothing. Are you claiming something from nothing is impossible and therefore these particles must have an external source ?

Coming into being from nothing is a change. The being of that something is therefore a derived power and therefore it must be in a heirachical chain ending in an actual power. Also, given that the universe is not a quantum vacuum is it not possible that these particles have come from somewhere else in the system? Earlier for instance you reiterated the notion that energy is not created or destroyed...that energy is eternal. Why are you contradicting yourself now?

I have a feeling though that the nothing you describe is actually a physicists nothing which as we know is a something. And I'm sure you reflected Krauss earlier in the argument by saying that questions concerning a nothing might be invalid.

Also you used the term virtual self to avoid admitting to a real non illusory self. Are virtual particles therefore real or illusory?

[Shaker]

Regarding Professor Feser...have you read or seen any videos of the Master? An introductory ad hominem attack by Bluehillside is a recommendation and endorsement I would have thought.

A recommendation and endorsement of bluehillside, certainly.

[Walter]

Coming into being from nothing is a change. The being of that something is therefore a derived power and therefore it must be in a heirachical chain ending in an actual power. Also, given that the universe is not a quantum vacuum is it not possible that these particles have come from somewhere else in the system? Earlier for instance you reiterated the notion that energy is not created or destroyed...that energy is eternal. Why are you contradicting yourself now?

I have a feeling though that the nothing you describe is actually a physicists nothing which as we know is a something. And I'm sure you reflected Krauss earlier in the argument by saying that questions concerning a nothing might be invalid.

Also you used the term virtual self to avoid admitting to a real non illusory self. Are virtual particles therefore real or illusory?

why do you keep using the word 'power' , what do you mean by it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

why do you keep using the word 'power' , what do you mean by it?

Ability to change. The scientific definition of power would, for instance come under this since power is energy transferred in a given time.