Religion III

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're lying again. Both with your Ben see saw examples, you're entire point was that the effect for each was greater than THE cause for each (singular in each case!)

Losing and overthrowing a kingdom is greater than a horse shoe nail, and you weigh much more than a 1 ounce set of papers.

Do you understand what a causal chain is? Think avalanche.
And how a system in equilibrium can readily be unbalanced? Think getting sick

Ok let's drop it.

Tell you what, instead explain how evolution violates the fallacy of composition.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Losing and overthrowing a kingdom is greater than a horse shoe nail, and you weigh much more than a 1 ounce set of papers.

Do you understand what a causal chain is? Think avalanche.
And how a system in equilibrium can readily be unbalanced? Think getting sick

Ok let's drop it.

Tell you what, instead explain how evolution violates the fallacy of composition.

Look, you pathetic deceiver, go back to your original posts about Ben and the see saw and you'll be very hard-pressed to find anything in them pertaining to a "causal chain". You very conveniently forget that I was the one who broached the subject of multiple secondary causes!

Again, you whole point to your inane posts was that the effect for each was greater than the cause for each!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Look, you pathetic deceiver, go back to your original posts about Ben and the see saw and you'll be very hard-pressed to find anything in them pertaining to a "causal chain". You very conveniently forget that I was the one who broached the subject of multiple secondary causes!

Again, you whole point to your inane posts was that the effect for each was greater than the cause for each!

Your memory is failing you. I don't feel like quoting you saying one thing and then hypocritically denying it again and again and again! Just as you denied saying the cause must be GREATER than it's effect, or evolution violates the fallacy of composition.

You are way too far out of it to have a rational discussion. I am not putting you on ignore presently, since that would deprive me of hours of amusement of witnessing just how bonkers and twisted you have become.

One sick puppy. Worse than I ever remember

But don't expect any responses from me anytime soon.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your memory is failing you. I don't feel like quoting you saying one thing and then hypocritically denying it again and again and again! Just as you denied saying the cause must be GREATER than it's effect, or evolution violates the fallacy of composition.

You are way too far out of it to have a rational discussion. I am not putting you on ignore presently, since that would deprive me of hours of amusement of witnessing just how bonkers and twisted you have become.

One sick puppy. Worse than I ever remember

But don't expect any responses from me anytime soon.

You don't "feel like quoting me" because you're a psychopathic, serial liar.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You don't "feel like quoting me" because you're a psychopathic, serial liar.

I lied. I am responding











Yawn!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

[B][I]I lied.

This is hardly news.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This is hardly news.

Did I mention I am responding?


sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

An even bigger YAWN

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Did I mention I am responding?


sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

sleeping:: sleeping:

An even bigger YAWN

Sleep mode is a response? On the other hand, I suppose one barely living brain wave could technically be considered as such.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

"... quantum mechanics provides an exact description of every physical system, but some things are massive enough that quantum mechanics can be reliably approximated by classical mechanics. That's all that classical mechanics is: an approximation." Leonard Susskind & Art Friedman, Quantum Mechanics, the Theoretical Minimum, pages xix, xx.

Thanks, Actor. I think I understand that, and there are quantum Thomists such as Nigel Cundy...

http://www.quantum-thomist.co.uk/my-...rst=44&last=44

...I was intending a realism about change/ act/potency/time/causation, etc. Change and causation, and sense data as real features of the world.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your historian missed a few tidbits about early Greek thinking about heliocentrism versus geocentrism. You are attempting to excuse Aristotle's misconception of the solar system because it was "counter-intuitive" for the Greeks? And invalidate all Pythagorean philosophers because of....
Nonsense! There is quite a bit of value in the Pythagorean approach to numbers.

"The Pythagoreans engaged in the study of number theory or arithmetic (number in itself), geometry (number in space), harmonics or tuning theory (number in time), and astronomy (number in space and time). These descriptions correspond well with the modern definition of mathematics as "the study of patterns in space and time."

Our modern worn world owes much to Pythagoras focus on numbers. Try building, creating any technology without counting and calculating.

Where was Aristotle? Where are his mathematics today?


BTW, did Aristarchus and Philolaus propose that Harmony of the Cosmos theory theory you ascribe to legend as well?
Aristarchus out thought Aristotle MATHEMATICALLY, and it was not counter intuitive as you claim. Here is an early diagram he constructed. Much better than Aristotle.

Go to the link......


Aristarchus's 3rd century BC calculations on the relative sizes of the Earth, Sun and Moon, from a 10th-century AD Greek copy

Do me a favor please, and answer my questions in your own words with yes some strategic highlights from your sources. My eyes are not good enough to spend hours delving thru your links. That is the way I try to do it.

Quite reactionary to a minor point I made about a presentist reading of historical figures and yes, the still standing genetic fallacy. Cite that Pythagoras made his share of mistakes, (while leaving out some quirks...never urinating towards the sun, never marrying a woman who wears gold jewellery, never passing an ass lying in the street, never eating or even touching black fava beans) and I'm therefore attacking the Pythagorean Theorum, and treated to your allowable links stating the rather obvious. If your unable to read more than a blurb, how do you know the degree of evidence by which Christie supports his in depth, yet few minutes of commentary regarding the overwhelming science favoring geocentrism until roughly the 17th century?

"Where is Aristotle's math today"? Category error. Where is Pythogoras' metaphysics, such that Heisenberg would cite them regarding the fundamental physical reality describing the world?

[thaskalos]

If my knowledge about Aristotle depended only on Hcap's opinion of him...I would have thought that the ancient sage was a FOOL. One has to wonder how he remains important to this day.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If my knowledge about Aristotle depended only on Hcap's opinion of him...I would have thought that the ancient sage was a FOOL. One has to wonder how he remains important to this day.

Well Thask, the Early Moderns replaced classical philosophy with their mechanistic description of physical reality, only to have Aristotle get his revenge...

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1626..._Mechanics.pdf

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If my knowledge about Aristotle depended only on Hcap's opinion of him...I would have thought that the ancient sage was a FOOL. One has to wonder how he remains important to this day.

Some religious folk have adapted Aristotle theory of "unmoved mover" as an explanation for god. Aristotle's primary cause, or first uncaused cause of everything in the universe.

What Actor and I have been pointing out is this leads to an inherent infinite regress. The God created everything, then who, or what created god conundrum? Why not the universe is and always was, and leave it at that?

I much prefer Socrates and Pythagoras. What do you like about Aristotle?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Quite reactionary to a minor point I made about a presentist reading of historical figures and yes, the still standing genetic fallacy. Cite that Pythagoras made his share of mistakes, (while leaving out some quirks...never urinating towards the sun, never marrying a woman who wears gold jewellery, never passing an ass lying in the street, never eating or even touching black fava beans) and I'm therefore attacking the Pythagorean Theorum, and treated to your allowable links stating the rather obvious. If your unable to read more than a blurb, how do you know the degree of evidence by which Christie supports his in depth, yet few minutes of commentary regarding the overwhelming science favoring geocentrism until roughly the 17th century?

"Where is Aristotle's math today"? Category error. Where is Pythogoras' metaphysics, such that Heisenberg would cite them regarding the fundamental physical reality describing the world?

You were the one reacting to my larger objection to you and boxcar advancing Aristotle's metaphysics as a counter to the causal chain proposed by Ben Franklyn's "For want of a nail the kingdom was lost".

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

If one accepts the principle of sufficient reason (intelligible world) and the principle of causation (act/potency) then what's being attempted here is the principle of proportionate causation. But it must be separated into formal (the effect shares the same nature as the cause--man causes a man, tiger causes a tiger), eminent (the effect is significantly different than cause (caterpillar/butterfly), or virtual (a painter [or brush?] causes a painting).

Sorry, that does not support in any way boxcar's contention the cause must be greater than it's effect. Your attempt to turn Ben' thought expeeriment on it's head, continued this rather silly propping up of your interpretation of Aristotle...

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I simply named the overarching principle that Boxcar was working from--whatever is in an effect must in some way be in its cause.

For those who accept it, it flows from a philosophy of nature, rather than the physical properties of this or that physical object. The nail has the capacity to affix the shoe, in a way that the shoe does not, i.e., a greater/perfect way.

Of course smaller objects/events can cause greater objects/events. A microscopic gene precedes your caterpillar eating a leaf in the casual chain that leads to metamorphosis. I thought I bracketed off each efficient cause, but of course fighting to preserve the kingdom was a greater "cause" than nailing a shoe. Platonic and Aristotelian traditions understood that "what is first in time is last in causality".

Sure, the nail, etc. has the potential to cause various effects. But the nail has the intrinsic capacity to affix things, when the intention of the blacksmith is to assist in preserving the kingdom. It has the incidental capacity to cause a detrimental effect. Depends on the mind and the intent of the agent, which is why the Early Moderns tossed out final causes, perceived as subjective and more importantly, not quantifiable.

Will you please cut the verbiage, and get to your point.
As I recently told boxcar causal chains where minor forces (causes) lead to massive effects is more simply illustrated by a snow avalanche. Also now that I think of it nuclear fission.

I only listed Aristotle's failures to cast doubt on his thinking as to his archaic "four causes" in you guys use in Ben's for want of a nail example.
Geocentricism was one. You latched onto geocentricism and turned it into a limited perspective of Greek philosophical thinking, claiming it was excusable since Aristotle's misconception of the solar system was NOT "counter-intuitive" for the Greeks at that time.

The original argument made by boxcar was evolution violated some sort of metaphysical principle. Are you agreeing with any of that?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

..
Sure, the nail, etc. has the potential to cause various effects. But the nail has the intrinsic capacity to affix things, when the intention of the blacksmith is to assist in preserving the kingdom. It has the incidental capacity to cause a detrimental effect. Depends on the mind and the intent of the agent, which is why the Early Moderns tossed out final causes, perceived as subjective and more importantly, not quantifiable.

Early moderns and later moderns try to focus on the subset of the phenomena being investigated. The "mind and the intent of the agent" is not in question as part of the much larger causal chain, but not this subset.

And beside the point.

And as I just said, there are casual chains, like an avalanche and a nuclear fission chain reaction that are without mind.

Further contrary to boxcar's proclamation that causes must be greater than their effects. In Bern's cautionary tale "for want of the nail", neither were there secondary causes.
If a British soldier shot the rider or horse, that would be secondary.

One too many snowflakes triggering an avalanche, or one neutron initiating nuclear fission, require no "secondary causes".