Aquinas's argument is that an "essential" infinite series (into the past) is impossible because every cause would be intermediate and there would be nothing behind the scenes. God, for him, could have made an eternal universe ("accidental series"), but one cannot stand on its own ("essential series"). My position is that the series would still be all intermediate even with God holding it up. It's less intellectually satisfying, but Aquinas's point is not enough for me to believe in God

An infinite regress of causes has no first or ultimate cause, so it's a simple matter of induction to show that the whole of such sequence cannot exist. See:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360708

So absent the assumption of a "Prime Mover", is there actually any compelling reason to imagine that reality has ever done anything other than continually change...forever before? — Siti

Perpetual motion without a prime mover is an impossibility. See:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360714

↪Athena Thanks Athena! I am afraid I'm not much of a physicist and photons are a mighty mysterious particle, but below are my thoughts.

I understand that photons are tiny packets of energy that are emitted by energised atoms when an election in a high energy orbit falls back into a normal orbit. This happens during various sorts of reactions (chemical, nuclear, etc).

A photon is a massless particle so is not effected by gravity according to Newton. Einstein's work however indicates that gravity is actually due to distortions in spacetime and as such photons are effected by gravity as well. This is why a black hole is possible, the curvature of spacetime is so extreme that not even photons can escape. But under less extreme scenarios, photons appear to be unaffected by gravity and travel in straight lines.

Photons are strange because they travel at the speed of light because they have no mass and so do not experience the passage of time. They also experience another relativistic effect call length contraction - at the speed of light distances are compressed down to zero. Photons appear to have motion from our perspective but if it were possible to see things from a photon's perspective, it might seem as if it can travel anywhere in the universe in no time whilst covering no distance.

The prime mover argument is all about massive objects so how do photons fit in? Well they do have some momentum so they can interact with massive objects to cause their motion. And their production is caused some sort of reaction involving matter. Einstein says E=mc^2 so energy is equivalent to matter, so maybe we could think of the prime mover argument as being about matter and energy rather than just matter only and being about momentum rather than movement.

So maybe the prime mover argument could be restated so as to include photons:

We look around us, we see matter/energy with momentum, but matter/energy must have a source of its momentum and the source must itself have another source of its momentum. But these chains of sources cannot proceed out to infinity else there would be no first/ultimate source of momentum in the universe and all would be still, so there must be a prime momentum that is the ultimate cause of all momentum in the universe.

The Big Bang obviously is a candidate for this ‘prime momentum’. — Devans99

:nerd: I think actually understood most of what you said. However, as we experience three-dimensional reality, comprehending "Photons are strange because they travel at the speed of light because they have no mass and so do not experience the passage of time. They also experience another relativistic effect call length contraction - at the speed of light distances are compressed down to zero. Photons appear to have motion from our perspective but if it were possible to see things from a photon's perspective, it might seem as if it can travel anywhere in the universe in no time whilst covering no distance." seems impossible.

How can it travel and be here and there at the same time? I know you explained that but my brain is being very stubborn and says "don't go there, because if you grasp that explanation you will be insane". :lol: It might feel a whole lot safer to understand it through math, but I have not developed the ability to do that. How is it known that a photon "experiences the effect call length contraction"? Yeah, perhaps knowing how scientists come up with that notion, will help me comprehend it? Grasping "at the speed of light distances are compressed down to zero" is not comprehensible to me. :chin: Zero is before the big bang? Oh my, back to the question of prime mover. :worry: If the prime mover ran out of energy it would slow down and everywhere there was nothing, everywhere there would be something.

If photons have a time perspective, then there is a noise even if nobody hears it

How can it travel and be here and there at the same time? — Athena

I am afraid I am not a physicist, but I will try to explain the bits I understand. Please forgive me if there are any mistakes... it is not my field.

In Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity it is assumed as an axiom that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of motion. We have many experimental results that indicate that Einstein’s axiom is correct.

Time dilation is then usually explained with light clocks - these fire a beam of light at a mirror and the light bounces back to a detector. So you can imagine a stationary light clock, the beam travels perpendicular to the beam source, is reflected back along a perpendicular path to the detector and that counts as one ’tick’ of the light clock.

Then imagine a second light clock, this time moving to the right relative to you. Imagine the path the beam of light would take from your perspective - it would not be straight up and down anymore, instead, the beam would set off at a slight angle to the right, be reflected at a the mirror at a slight angle and return to the detector - tracing out an acute triangle shape.

But the speed of the beam would be the same because the speed of light is constant for all observers. Therefore because the beam of light has to take a longer path, it would take slightly longer from your perspective for the beam to travel from emitter to the mirror and back again (because the beam is tracing out a triangular rather than perpendicular path).

So from your stationary perspective, a stationary light clock ‘ticks’ faster than a moving light clock - meaning presumably that time is somehow running slower for the moving clock.

Then you can imagine light clocks moving relative to you at increasingly faster speeds, with increasingly slower ticking - as movement of the clocks speed up, the path the beam takes becomes more and more horizontal from your perspective - a flatter and flatter triangle shape is traced out.

Finally, imagine a light clock that is moving to the right relative to you at the speed of light. Now the beam is moving at the speed of light to the right but the clock is also moving at the speed of light to the right. The beam will therefore never hit the mirror on the detector so, from your perspective, time is not passing for a light clock moving at the speed of light. This is why it's said that the photon is a timeless particle - it travels at the speed of light so it can travel any distance in seemingly no time.

If the prime mover ran out of energy it would slow down and everywhere there was nothing, everywhere there would be something. — Athena

I believe that a prime mover must be something from beyond time. So temporal terms, such as running out of something, would not apply to such an entity.

An infinite regress of causes has no first or ultimate cause, so it's a simple matter of induction to show that the whole of such sequence cannot exist. — Devans99

Wrong - an infinite regress of anything has no first term - that's all you can say...using the example of the negative integers, I can think of the biggest integer I can imagine and because I can imagine it, it exists (at least as an idea in my mind) and so does the entire series of negative integers between it and -1 - and I know for sure that there is another 1 before it, and another before that (even if I can't name those numbers). Its exactly the same with causes - just because I don't know what the primordial causes of the universe becoming as it came to be at the point where we can begin to pick up the threads of cause and effect doesn't mean those causes don't exist. "Prime Mover" is just a gap filler - and in any case, the kind of "Prime Mover" Aquinas was talking about simply replaces one infinite regress with another - God (as he was 1 second before the act of creation, then as he was two seconds before, 3, 4, 10 million years before...and before you argue that time didn't exist "before" the BB, you will also have to convince me that how that could possibly have changed in no time. And that really is the problem with notion of a prime mover - it - whatever we imagine it might have been, would have to have "acted" to cause "change" in "no time". To me, its a far simpler induction to show that "action" and "change" cannot happen in "no time".

Perpetual motion without a prime mover is an impossibility. — Devans99

Motion with a prime mover is is not perpetual...but really the evidence suggests that perpetual motion is exactly what we see - if you want to convince me otherwise, you just have to name one thing (just one) that is not moving right now.

Wrong - an infinite regress of anything has no first term - that's all you can say...using the example of the negative integers, I can think of the biggest integer I can imagine and because I can imagine it, it exists (at least as an idea in my mind) and so does the entire series of negative integers between it and -1 — Siti

Just because you can imagine something, does not mean it could have physical existence. I can imagine a square circle but it cannot exist. Likewise anything with the structure of the (infinite) negative integers cannot exist in within time. Please consider the argument given in this OP:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6218/the-universe-cannot-have-existed-forever/p1

Prime Mover" is just a gap filler - and in any case, the kind of "Prime Mover" Aquinas was talking about simply replaces one infinite regress with another — Siti

It does not, to see so, consider the following reasonable statement:

Everything that exists in time has a cause.

Please consider the argument given in this OP:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6218/the-universe-cannot-have-existed-forever/p1 — Devans99

In this argument you contend that the "lack of an initial state invalidates all the subsequent states - a system’s initial state determines all subsequent states." But what exactly is a "state" - the universe does not really have "states" - it has, or rather it IS, process..."states" are purely imaginary and therefore by your own definition do not have physical existence. "States" are "freeze-frame" snapshots - abstractions, not realities. To refute this, simply name one thing that is not moving - i.e. is actually in a "state" right now (PS - to make it easier, "now" can be any time you like 14 billion years ago, 10 billion years in the future...whenever you like).

Everything that exists in time has a cause. — Devans99

Egg zackly! And to be a cause of a physical effect, one has to exist in time n'est-ce pas? Do you know of any cause that exists "not in time"?

In this argument you contend that the "lack of an initial state invalidates all the subsequent states - a system’s initial state determines all subsequent states." But what exactly is a "state" - the universe does not really have "states" - it has, or rather it IS, process..."states" are purely imaginary and therefore by your own definition do not have physical existence. "States" are "freeze-frame" snapshots - abstractions, not realities. To refute this, simply name one thing that is not moving - i.e. is actually in a "state" right now — Siti

How can you contend that the universe / any system / a process does not have states? If a system has no states, it would not exist as a system - it would just an endless sequence of nothing.

I am not moving so I am in a state - movement is relative. And it does not matter if things are moving or not, they are still in states - we can take any subdivision of time and call it an approximate state - and any approximate must have a prior approximate state, else it could not exist.

Egg zackly! And to be a cause of a physical effect, one has to exist in time n'est-ce pas? Do you know of any cause that exists "not in time"? — Siti

I think you are missing the point: everything that exists in time has a cause. Nothing can be causeless and nothing can be the cause of itself. Therefore there must be something that exists outside of time... the prime mover I think we have to assume.

I am not moving relative to anything else so I am in a state. — Devans99

You are moving relative to more or less everything else - you just don't sense it because because you are sitting on a fairly large lump of rock that is spinning you around its own center of gravity faster than a jet plane, whizzing you around the sun faster than a rocket and is itself being carried around the center of the Milky Way at half a million miles per hour...how is that "a state"? Relatively, of course, and those are the only kind of states there are...relative states - approximations - abstractions - not real...

...systems do not jump from state to state - that's really what Zeno's arrow paradox shows - arrows don't jump from state to state in space, they fly continuously through space - they process continuously... obviously our descriptions can't match that because we would have to have an infinite set of descriptions with infinitesimal graduations for every aspect of reality - the arrow hitting the target does not depend on any previous "states" of the arrow, it depends on the process of its flight, which is potentially (potentially mind you) describable (describable mind you) by any number of an infinite array of imaginary "states" (i.e. momentary - actually 'timeless' - locations and velocities). The locations and velocities are not real - but the flight (i.e. the process) is real.

Nothing can be causeless and nothing can be the cause of itself. — Devans99

Right - two of Aquinas' premises. Ergo - there can be no uncaused cause - right! And who says nothing can be the cause of itself? What does that really mean?

This is the main problem with Aquinas' logic (and Lane Craig after him) - the argument basically goes:

P1 there can be no uncaused cause
P2 nothing can be self-existing

Therefore there must be a self-existing uncaused cause

That would certainly rank as an epic fail in a Logic 101 exam.

You are moving relative to more or less everything else - you just don't sense it because because you are sitting on a fairly large lump of rock that is spinning you around its own center of gravity faster than a jet plane, whizzing you around the sun faster than a rocket and is itself being carried around the center of the Milky Way at half a million miles per hour...how is that "a state"? Relatively, of course, and those are the only kind of states there are...relative states - approximations - abstractions - not real... — Siti

How can the universe not be a state? All the particles involved always have well defined positions and velocities. This constitutes a state and that state must of evolved from a previous state. From this we can determine the requirement for an initial state - an initial set of positions and velocities of the particles - else everything in the universe would be undefined - the universe would have no initial positions and velocities and therefore no subsequent positions and velocities. It is a simple matter: if the initial positions/velocities are UNDEFINED, all subsequent positions/velocities are UNDEFINED. Any mathematical operator combined with UNDEFINED yields UNDEFINED.

My favourite analogy is a perfect, frictionless pool table. The balls are all wizzing around - the balls will continue wizzing around for a potential infinity of time. We have no idea how long the balls have been wizzing around, but we can infer an initial state where the player set the white ball in motion; else all would be still.

..systems do not jump from state to state - that's really what Zeno's arrow paradox shows - arrows don't jump from state to state in space, they fly continuously through space - they process continuously... obviously our descriptions can't match that because we would have to have an infinite set of descriptions with infinitesimal graduations for every aspect of reality - the arrow hitting the target does not depend on any previous "states" of the arrow, it depends on the process of its flight, which is potentially (potentially mind you) describable (describable mind you) by any number of an infinite array of imaginary "states" (i.e. momentary - actually 'timeless' - locations and velocities). The locations and velocities are not real - but the flight (i.e. the process) is real. — Siti

The (possible) continuousness of nature is no excuse for there being no initial state - the arrow hitting the target depends on the initial state of the arrow being set in flight by the archer, be it a continuous process or otherwise.

I also think you are making assumptions that you cannot prove: matter is discrete and electrons are known to perform a quantum jump from orbit to orbit without passing through any intermediate states - we have no proof of any continuous processes in the universe.

P1 there can be no uncaused cause
P2 nothing can be self-existing

Therefore there must be a self-existing uncaused cause

That would certainly rank as an epic fail in a Logic 101 exam. — Siti

You say I fail Logic 101 yet you offer no alternative solution:

1. It is clear that nothing can exist permanently within time.
2. It is also clear that everything in time requires a prior cause.

I see no other option but a recall to a timeless 'something' that is the ultimate cause of everything.

If you disagree, what is your solution that encompasses axioms [1] and [2] above?

All the particles involved always have well defined positions and velocities. — Devans99

Well no they don't really, indeed it seems to be a fundamental (not just practical) limitation of the universe that "particles" (whatever those are) cannot have both a clearly defined velocity (momentum) and a clearly defined position at the same time...but in any case, a clearly defined position and velocity can only be true at a "moment" - i.e. no time has elapsed - as soon as the clock ticks to the next attosecond, not only is the "state" of that particle abstract, it is also history...an abstract approximation of the history of that "particle's" process.

1. It is clear that nothing can exist permanently within time.
2. It is also clear that everything in time requires a prior cause.

I see no other option but a recall to a timeless 'something' that is the ultimate cause of everything.

If you disagree, what is your solution that encompasses axioms [1] and [2] above? — Devans99

I don;t have a solution that encompasses both of your premises because I would challenge the first premise...

First of all, how do you know that nothing can exist permanently within time? How can you even define "exist" without reference to time? What is the meaning of "permanently" apart from any notion of time? And in any case, if time began with BB, how do you know it will not also end with the Big Crunch (or whatever happens at the end of the process of the universe)? And if that is the case, would it not be true to say that the universe has itself existed (and will continue to exist) permanently throughout time?

So maybe we need to think about how your first premise is formulated because as it stands it is neither a self-evident axiom nor a testable hypothesis - and given that the universe has apparently been in existence since the "beginning of time", is still in existence now, and is giving every indication that it will continue to exist until "the end of time" - it is quite possibly just wrong.

So how about we say:

1. The universe does indeed exist permanently (it perdures, is a perduring process) within time
2. Everything in the universe requires a prior cause

Therefore, the cause of everything in the universe exists within the universe.

Of course that's not telling us very much - except that there is no need for "the work of an Almighty hand" to cause "the radiant orbs" to "move round the dark terrestrial ball" - they do it all by themselves - as far as we can possibly tell.

Christianity, and indeed all religions, sounds like something a sinner would make up. Everyone i see around has done something crappy. Aquinas mentions in the Summa theologica that some have said only one person in history would get to heaven. Maybe the rest of us miss out. Saying God died so he can take away punishment and turn bad people into good people sounds like the sorrowful conscience of a theologian talking.

First of all, how do you know that nothing can exist permanently within time? — Siti

Because it would have no start / no initial state and therefore no subsequent states so could not exist. Also, you might consider the arguments against the possibility of past infinite time I give here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360596
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360410

1. The universe does indeed exist permanently (it perdures, is a perduring process) within time
2. Everything in the universe requires a prior cause

Therefore, the cause of everything in the universe exists within the universe. — Siti

Your formulation leads to an infinite regress of causes into the past with no first/ultimate cause. Thats impossible - the cause of everything has to be external to time.

Why does the first cause have to be a substance? Buddhism speaks of thoughts without a thinker and action with an actor

Why does the first cause have to be a substance? Buddhism speaks of thoughts without a thinker and action with an actor — Gregory

"For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm" - Psalm 33:9

But the first cause has to be causally efficacious in our material world - a purely spiritual first cause seems impossible - how could it 'talk' a universe into existence? The first cause must be able to interact with matter/energy - so it must be composed of some form of substance (some form of matter/energy).

The BB suggests that spacetime began 14 billion years ago and the cause of this beginning must be eternal to spacetime - so made of a substance from from beyond spacetime.

I don't care what the Bible says

If someone rejects absolute space and time, general relativity says how the world works

The first motion was just that of gravity. There is no space and time before it. Unless there are an infinite set of these motions going into the past. The infinity of the sets is not the prime mover. Each set has its own prime mover: gravity

Your formulation leads to an infinite regress of causes into the past with no first/ultimate cause. Thats impossible - the cause of everything has to be external to time. — Devans99

But how can you prove logically that it is "impossible"? Just because someone - even someone as smart as Aquinas - can't get their head around it doesn't prove its impossible. So far all you and Aquinas and Lane Craig and...the Lord knows how many others who have attempted to make this argument in various ways...have done is to declare that an infinite regress is impossible...maybe it is, maybe it isn't - but you can't prove it. Neither can you disprove perpetual motion - you have failed several times already to name one thing in the entire history of the universe that is not continually moving. We have absolutely zero evidence for anything not moving - heck, according to the most recent science, even space itself is in "motion" - expanding...into? What?

Anyway, can you please provide a logical argument for the impossibility of an infinite regress and then you will have at least one premise for the Prime Mover argument. So far I can't see there any premises on which to base the argument.

But how can you prove logically that it is "impossible"? Just because someone - even someone as smart as Aquinas - can't get their head around it doesn't prove its impossible. — Siti

We have no examples of infinite causal regresses from nature we can examine, so let's examine a finite causal regress. So for example, a car: the driver presses the accelerator pedal, more gas is fed into the cylinders and the car accelerates. If the first cause (driver presses the accelerator pedal) is taken away, does the car still accelerate? No. So if you take the first cause away from a finite causal regression, the rest of the regress disappears. By definition, an infinite causal regression (into the past) has no first cause - so none of the subsequent causes in the regression exist. The existence of an infinite causal regression is therefore impossible.

A belief in the possibility of an infinite causal regress is equivalent to a belief in magic.

Neither can you disprove perpetual motion — Siti

The natural end to any form of dumb gravitational perpetual motion is everything ends up in a black hole due to gravity and orbital decay. Then the black hole evaporates due to Hawking radiation, resulting in a sea of pure energy - thermodynamic equilibrium. So our universe cannot have been in perpetual motion because we would be in thermodynamic equilibrium now. Also see Wikipedia:

"Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

By definition, an infinite causal regression (into the past) has no first cause - so none of the subsequent causes in the regression exist. — Devans99

Well that gets back to - who was it - Russel's (?) - counter argument...there is such a number as -1 (yes?) so in the series of negative integers, what is the first? Answer: there isn't one...the series is infinite, there is no first term, but all the other terms are still there - there is still a -456, and a -217 and -1...right?

So that was my original objection to your argument, and infinite regression does not mean that all the "subsequent" (to what?) causes don't exist, it simply means there is no "first" cause. To use that as an argument in favour of a first cause is self-defeating because it is a circular argument...essentially you are arguing that since there cannot be any cause effect sequence without a first cause there must be a first cause. But you still have not proved that there cannot be a "turtles all the way down" infinite regress of causes. Your argument still lacks a premise.

On the perpetual motion thing - since you are now resorting to using words like "dumb" and quoting Wikipedia, I can only assume that you have not yet thought of anything in the history of the universe that was not/is not moving? Right?

Well that gets back to - who was it - Russel's (?) - counter argument — Siti

Discussed here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360708

But you still have not proved that there cannot be a "turtles all the way down" infinite regress of causes. — Siti

I'm not sure what to say - I've explained it as clearly as possible - including an example a child could follow - I give up. You will just have to continue onwards with your belief in magic.

I can only assume that you have not yet thought of anything in the history of the universe that was not/is not moving? — Siti

I do not see what the lack of a still object demonstrates?

Things are moving in the universe because of the Big Bang - the very fabric of space is expanding - which is most unnatural - it is keeping us out of equilibrium. Very special conditions are needed to avoid equilibrium - and this unnatural expansion provides that. It was IMO engineered by the intelligence that created the universe.

There can be an infinity of material prime movers within nature going into the past

I'm not sure what to say - I've explained it as clearly as possible - including an example a child could follow - I give up. You will just have to continue onwards with your belief in magic. — Devans99

Okey dokey then! We've progressed from "dumb" and Wikipedia, to "child" and "magic"...and still no logical argument establishing the claimed impossibility of an infinite regress. I am beginning to lose hope!

Descartes was smart and he thought an infinite regress possible as he says in the Replies. I want to watch the Craig -Carroll debate

When dealing with how the mover of our universe can be, science fiction is more helpful than Wikipedia

Final thoughts:

If we see the eternal series as staccato/discrete, each segment/set would have its own prime mover. If the motion of the eternal universe is continuous, some of us think there may still be an eternal motion of orbit, which could have given motion and thus life to the eternal series. Union of different moving parts gives variety, and the form of matter (and emptiness) gives the brain life. There is the old Chinese parable that the hole makes the cup. So perhaps with the brain and its trillions of internal shapes.

"We can no longer know of nature whether what seems to have being per se is not in fact a chance accident. What bears the imprint of a confused or immature feeble structure, barely evolving from the stage of elementary indeterminateness, cannot even claim to be described." Hegel

Okey dokey then! We've progressed from "dumb" and Wikipedia, to "child" and "magic"...and still no logical argument establishing the claimed impossibility of an infinite regress. I am beginning to lose hope! — Siti

I have already given you several logical arguments. To reference the last I gave, your ‘belief’ in the possibility of an infinite regress of causes is akin to believing that a car can accelerate without the driver pressing the pedal down - how do exactly do you justify such a belief?

Here is the basic argument I gave, this time expressed as an induction proof:

1. If there is no first cause
2. Then there can be no second cause (because the 2nd cause is caused by the first cause)
3. Likewise, if there is no second cause, there is no third cause
4. And so by induction out to infinity, there can be no current causes in the universe
5. So nothing exists.

Do you see any flaws in the above logic?



The rest of the quote from Wikipedia:

"Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.

These laws of thermodynamics apply regardless of the size of the system. For example, the motions and rotations of celestial bodies such as planets may appear perpetual, but are actually subject to many processes that slowly dissipate their kinetic energy, such as solar wind, interstellar medium resistance, gravitational radiation and thermal radiation, so they will not keep moving forever.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Devans99, I've answered those objections with discrete segment prime movers and pointing out that our physics don't apply at all to a meta-universe. Maybe your 5 steps refute continuous infinite motion. But that's a minor point. Gooood bye