In a recent post I argued that in Aristotelian substantial change, given special relativity, the resultant substance starts as basically a point—it is arbitrarily small.
I think the argument doesn’t actually require much in the way of Aristotelian assumptions, but works for any caused extended substance, or at least any ordinary one.
Suppose that a substance B is caused to exist by A (which might be a single entity or a plurality) and initially (at least) at distinct points in spacetime. There is a reference frame according to which one of these points is earlier than the other (this is true in all frames if the points are timelike-related and some frames if they are spacelike-related). Let F be a frame where this happens, and let z1 be the F-earlier and z2 the F-later point. From now on, work in F.
Let ti be the time of zi. Now B is at least partly present arbitrarily close to z1, and hence arbitrarily close to t1, and since t1 < t2, it follows that B already existed before t2. Therefore, any causal influence of A sufficiently close to time t2 is irrelevant to B’s existence. In fact, B wasn’t even partly caused by A to exist at times close to t2, since it had already existed for a while before this. And this contradicts our assumption that A caused B at both z1 and z2.
A crucial assumption here is that nothing that happens later than a time t is relevant to whether a substance B exists at t.
What if there is backwards causation? If so, then this argument fails. But even if there is backwards causation, it is rare and extraordinary. It is still true that in ordinary cases, substances are caused to exist at a single point.
What if B is uncaused? Again, the argument fails. But even if there are uncaused extended substances, they are not the norm. So, again, the argument still works in ordinary cases.
17 comments:
I think it is a fact with mammals (not birds if you think the whole egg is the embryonic chick) that the initial stage of life (fertilized ovum) is indeed microscopic.
One additional problem with infinitely subdividing a lifetime into times is that life requires process, and process requires a duration. If you look at a frozen nanosecond of an individual I do not think you can see its life.
"Suppose that a substance B is caused to exist by A"
A cannot cause B to exist, or to cease existing.
The total amount of material in the cosmos is static.
Material does not begin to exist.
Material does not cease to exist.
Aristotle was wrong about almost everything regarding motion, change, and the nature of the underlying reality.
What Aristotle mistakenly considered to be substantial change is just a rearrangement of already existing material. The net amount of material after the rearrangement is precisely equal to the net amount of material prior to the rearrangement. Nothing new was caused to come into existence and nothing old was caused to pass out of existence.
SP: You didn't exist 150 years ago. You exist now. So you came into existence. Sure, maybe, your matter came into existence, but that's not you.
And even if the net material is constant (which it isn't exactly, due to quantum fluctuations), the identity of the entities is different. When two photons collide and turn into an electron-positron pair, the electron and the positron are new entities, even if the total mass-energy is the same.
William:
That said, in the case of human persons, the claim that our existence begins as a zygote is actually controversial--a number of pro-choice people will deny it.
"One additional problem with infinitely subdividing a lifetime into times is that life requires process, and process requires a duration. If you look at a frozen nanosecond of an individual I do not think you can see its life."
We should distinguish the process and the individual in which the process takes place.
I am just a temporary arrangement of pre-existing material.
"You exist now."
No, only the material of me exists. What I identify as me is an identifiable set of processes of that material.
"So you came into existence"
No I did not come into existence. Pre-existing material began sets of processes I call me.
"(which it isn't exactly, due to quantum fluctuations)"
False. Material does not come into existence out of nothing due to quantum fluctuations or anything else. The amount of material in the cosmos is precisely static.
"the electron and the positron are new entities,"
They are new arrangements of the same material. Nothing new comes into existence and nothing old passes out of existence, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever.
Just keep in mind that Aristotle was wrong about nearly everything regarding motion, change, causation, the arrangement of the cosmos, and the nature of the underlying reality.
StartdustyPsyche: I am curious. How does your monism save the phenomena (of science and ordinary life) that the count of real things changes?
William,
Counting is an abstraction. Human beings count. Nature does not count.
Suppose you have a kilogram of gold.
Divide it into as many pieces as you wish.
Count 10, 100, 1000. Whatever you feel like.
You still have a kilogram of gold.
The amount of material in existence is precisely static.
There is no call for a first sustainer because to cease to exist would be a change calling for a changer. Continued existence is no change in the amount of material in existence and therefore calls for no changer at all, much less a necessary first changer or first sustainer.
A cannot cause B to exist because B already exists and therefore there is nothing that can cause B to somehow exist even more.
Human beings think of things beginning to exist. That is mistaken.
Abstractly, sets of material begin to associate with each other and begin identifiable patterns of motion.
For example, when I die no thing will cease to exist. All the material that I presently identify in the set I call "me" will continue to exist. No thing will pass out of existence when I die. The set of material I presently call "me" will simply disassociate, disperse, diffuse, and scatter back into the wider cosmos from which it came.
"For example, when I die no thing will cease to exist"
*You* shouldn't be so hard on *yourself*.
I know that *you* have a point you feel compelled to make––truth be damned––but if *you* really think the difference between *you* and the worm turds *you* will become is nothing, what force do *you* expect *your* ramblings to have?
"but if *you* really think the difference between *you* and the worm turds *you* will become is nothing,"
The difference is the arrangement and processes of rearrangement, not of existent material.
The amount of existent material in the cosmos is precisely static.
When a person says they saw a new thing come into existence what they actually saw was a rearrangement of already existing material.
When a persons says they saw an old thing pass out of existence what they actually saw was a rearrangement of material that continues to exist.
*You* are the one asserting that only matter exists. And now *you* ask us to understand things by dint of their forms?
The seeing subject is a real thing, whether you like it or not, and so is some "arrangement" or "re-arrangement" (a.k.a. form) of matter in the real object seen.
"For example, when I die no thing will cease to exist"
Are *you* some thing that exists now or not?
Are *you* some particular arrangement of matter, some arrangement of particular matter, or some particular arrangement of particular matter?
If the particular arrangement *you* say is *you* does not exist––i.e. does not have being––how can it be the difference between you and worm turds?
Common ordinary language is one thing. Technical terms are something a bit different.
Using terms in context without inadvertent equivocation or slippage into ordinary language can be especially difficult at times.
Only material exists. All material has properties.
There is no such thing as material that does not have properties.
There is no such thing as properties that are not of material.
Perhaps the most famous equation, E=mc^2, is also a statement of conservation of material.
There is no poof term in E=mc^2.
No thing gets in or out.
The LHS is precisely equal to the RHS.
If one defines a "thing", rather than material itself, but as an arrangement of material, then by that definition it is tautologically true that a new thing begins when that arrangement becomes a state of affairs in the cosmos. I think it is a mistake to reify that sort of "creation", as though some new stuff began a new ontological realization merely because we defined an arrangement of already existing material as a "thing".
It is common language to say that an arrangement exists. It would seem perhaps odd or pretentious to continually phrase one's language as states of affairs of material that already had ontological realization in the cosmos. People just do not talk in those terms, in general.
In one use of language I can know for certain that I exist in some form, else who is it asking the question as to whether I exist? But, on closer examination of terms employed, "exist" is at best an ambiguous term in this context.
"I" am a collection of material in motion, a dynamic arrangement of pre-existing material. In fact, "I" am not even the same material I once was! If we could somehow name-tag every atom in my body and track it over the years we would find that "I" am a high turnover business, with water, oxygen, carbon, and even most of my cells coming and going many times over in my lifetime.
"I" retain my continuity of self by a process of continual renormalization after small changes. Also, while most cells regenerate and are replaced within about 10 years, some of my brain cells are never replaced, which also helps to account for my perceived continuity of self.
All that said, a new arrangement of material is a different spatial state of affairs in the cosmos, but not a new existent thing in the sense of any new beables that have new ontological realization in the sense of coming into existence out of nothing, or passing out of existence into nothing.
Well, hopefully that at least begins to clear up some of the terminology and context.
No, it only clears up that you are self-contradicting, and that what you haven't made up entirely you have only half-learned.
You cannot say that (a) "when I die no thing will cease to exist" and (b) "I can know for certain that I exist in some form" and blame your blatant contradiction on my, or your, "inadvertent equivocation" or use of ordinary language. (emphasis mine)
"Pattern", "arrangement", "re-arrangement" are not technical terms but are attempts to smuggle the notion of form into your explanation while also denying form.
Perhaps, given that you have side-stepped every question I have asked of you, you can instead show me the material making up your famous equation E=mc^2? How does this *being of reason* exist (i.e. have being) in my mind and yours when you try to crowbar it into a bare assertion of only matter existing?
Or better yet just keep your ignorance and angry religious sloganeering to yourself.
" "when I die no thing will cease to exist" and (b) "I can know for certain that I exist in some form" and blame your blatant contradiction on my, or your, "inadvertent equivocation" or use of ordinary language. (emphasis mine)"
Sure I can "blame" my use of ordinary language, that I exist in some form.
I said no *thing* will cease to exist when I die.
I also said *I* *exist* in *some form*
Perhaps you always express yourself with long winded philosophical qualifications and definitions at every instance, I rather doubt it, and to an extent I trust the ready to understand that I do not, and if something seems contradictory to inquire for definitions that contain more fine parsing than ordinarily appears in conversation.
Apparently that trust was misplaced in your case.
""Pattern", "arrangement", "re-arrangement" are not technical terms but are attempts to smuggle the notion of form into your explanation while also denying form"
I have no need to smuggle anything.
What you might call form I might call properties. Likely our conceptual difference is that I hold that properties manifest at the very smallest scales. The notion that a whole macro object has a form of its own that comes into existence when the parts associate with each other is an ancient misconception, an illusion, an approximation at best, a baseless fantasy in light of modern physics I would say.
The apparent macro form is truthfully the aggregate of the properties of the constituents.
No longwinded philosophical qualifications are necessary.
Are *you* a thing that exists, or not?
Then you will be gored on one of two horns––either: 'then some *thing* does cease to exist when you die', or: 'how can the non-existing no-thing *be* a knower, sayer, language user, etc.'. "Pattern", "arrangement", or even "properties" in the sense you want to use it, are smuggling in form while trying to deny it.
Again, your problem is every thing is some thing. Even if the macro thing was truly no more than an aggregate, the micro things of which it consists––even quarks––have forms. Calling them "flavors" won't avoid this reality for you, I'm afraid.
Anyone who thinks your meandering evasions are direct answers is crippled too high for crutches.
"Are *you* a thing that exists, or not?"
Depends on your definitions of "thing" and "exists".
In common language we call collections of stuff a thing.
Also in common language an ongoing process might be said to exist.
So, in common language I am a thing that exists and will cease to exist when I die. That is how ordinary people ordinarily think and express themselves.
That sort of common parlance breaks down under closer examination.
Suppose a macro object is a new thing that begins to exist. Where did it come from? Did some new stuff just pop into existence out of absolutely nothing at all? What caused this new stuff to pop into existence?
Well, just supposing this macro object is an existent thing and then it ceases to exist. Where did it go? Just poof, it disappeared, like in a magic show, just now you see it now you don't, only for real, this existent thing just turns into absolutely nothing at all?
You seem to imagine that stuff can just poof into existence out of absolutely nothing, hang around for a while, then poof out of existence into absolutely nothing.
Your apparent position seems rather far fetched, to say the least.
I have a different answer. On my view the only things that exist are the most fundamental material entities, quarks, electrons, strings, fields, or whatever in point of ontological fact they are.
All the objects we see are not themselves existent things, rather, collections of existent things we cannot see with the unaided senses. In that manner of speaking I am not an existent thing, just a collection of material in motion.
'how can the non-existing no-thing *be* a knower, sayer, language user, etc.'
To be, or not to be, that is the question.
In common language "I" "be", that is, most people think and express a personal identity that seems unified and a first person experience of existing. That also breaks down on closer examination.
Clearly, there is no single location in space for "me". I have many different, often competing, processes of thought. Scientific study shows that those processes are distributed over space, time, and brain structures.
To know, say, and use language are all distributed processes, spread out over space, time, and brain structure.
The primary challenge of eliminative materialism is in communicating its concepts. They are largely counter intuitive and largely defy description in simple sentences of common words used in their common meanings.
To express eliminative materialism requires an extraordinary degree of word parsing, such that even the simplest assertions seem self contradictory without lengthy definitions of terms, such that ordinary words take on counterintuitive meanings, which is a process most people just are not willing to engage in.
No one imagines "that stuff can just poof into existence out of absolutely nothing" apart from atheists like Hawking who would redefine nothing, or Richard Carrier who––like you––doesn't have the first clue what he is talking about.
Still, let us humour you: we grant that you are "just a collection of materials in motion". This admits motion which pre-supposes change which, being a pre-scientific notion, is pre-supposed by science and thus cannot be disproved by it.
But *change* just is when some type of matter goes from not having a particular form to actually having that form. And this analysis is as true of the accident of place (i.e. what you refer to as motion) as it is of substance (as when you came into being). And it's as true of real (i.e. entitative) change as it is of change related to the mind's consideration of its objects (i.e. intentional)––such as when science advances its understanding of fundamental entities from time to time.
Clearly, there *is* a single location in space for you: and it is contiguous with your living body.
You are correct that most people are not willing to engage in such an extraordinary degree of deception under pretence of parsing. Why are you?
Maybe if you could rephrase your case without any appeals to "arrangement" or "re-arrangement" or change or formal thinking such as logic––all admitting form––, and without clearly believing that we exist and are having this debate, you *might* be more convincing.
But if, as you have done, you first assume a thing to deny it you *will* end up contradicting yourself.
Post a Comment