Aristotle's The Unmoved Mover

[Someone here]

Some people view the world and how it works as a series of causes and effects, with one thing causing another thing, which in turn causes something else, which in turn causes yet another thing, like the butterfly effect(not the movie). Similarly, you can look at the universe as a series of causes and effects. However, if you go all the beginning, you seem to come to a first thing, which itself has no cause. What was this first event, this effect that has no cause, this mover of occurrences who has itself never been moved? Is it God? An external force such as the Big Bang? And how does the universe exists? 

From non-duality perspective there is no beginning or end to reality. So there is no such thing as the first cause or unmoved mover 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Someone here

[Gesundheit2]

??

[Someone here]

Back you move ..you won't find the beginning. 

Ahead you move ..you won't find the end.

It's beginning less  endless creative energy. 

[Someone here]

16 minutes ago, Ludwigvan said:

That’s an intriguing idea = the unmoved mover. I do think non duality is true and agree that there is no beginning nor end. Knowing that, that would imply there is not a "first" cause but an unmoved mover always existing. @Someone here would you say this is also similar to the panantheism view of the world? Panentheism claims divine exists in all and simultaneously exists beyond space and time itself in a more abstract existence that has with no basis in reality. The unmoved mover is a new concept for me. I usually think of this as panentheism. 

From Wikipedia there’s this on the unmoved movers:

Aristotle's theology

The unmoved movers, if they were anywhere, were said to fill the outer void, beyond the sphere of fixed stars:

It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self sufficient of lives… From [the fulfillment of the whole heaven] derive the being and life which other things, some more or less articulately but other feebly, enjoy." — Aristotle, De Caelo, I.9, 279 a17–30

What if there is only a continuous dynamic flow which never had a beginning, of which the Big Bang, which hasn't actually been confirmed as THE BEGINNING, is merely a manifestation? The Unmoved Move paradigm is simply based on a cause & effect motive, an archetype which amounts to a humanly devised sequential view of understanding vis-a-vie a holistic one where cause and effect motives were never part of the equation.

That's a wonderful question, indeed ....a couple thoughts:

If there is an ever expanding universe (multiverse, etc.) and we are just a bubble/baby universe as part of an eternally expanding system, then too, the idea of 'eternity' makes a bit more sense.
Nonetheless, causation would still rear its head because we would still wonder who, what, where, why... caused eternity

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Someone here

[Someone here]

36 minutes ago, Ludwigvan said:

@Someone here Wow, that is utterly profound. Believe it or not I'm actually following your train of thought. The "continuous dynamic flow which never had a beginning," as you put it, could exist and supersede a manifestation. I'm with you on that. That's honestly brilliant. You're also questioning cause and effect as a man-made paradigm that's dualistic and potentially illusory in order to make sense of an undifferentiated whole. Meanwhile this whole time the non-dual perspective of sequence itself is a silly thing too cling to. On a higher level (1) function is similar to the way we may think of using our brain. We're not usually aware of all the depth, intricacy, and distinction of the brain when its doing an integral function. We just think of it as (1) function to do some mundane, ordinary thing. The distinctions are simply gone if you don't think of it and it's all whole. Yeah, I'd like to think that's true but… hold on would you care to expand on that idea of just what cause and effect means to you;

How do you think of cause and effect while being mindful of the truth of non-duality? (assuming its not just a man-made paradigm that's dualistic and potentially illusory)

Perhaps we can think of that non-dual perspective by integrating two classic views of cause and effect on "opposite" spectrums. There's the original schism of randomness vs. determinism concerning cause and effect. Randomness asserts there is no underlying intelligence in nature, matter is unconscious, the whole universe is made of unconscious matter, nature is purposeless or directionless, and it's mechanical or machine like. Determinism asserts change is impossible & action is meaningless because occurrences are pre-ordained and free will does not exist. Determinism says cause and effect is an artifice on-top of something far deeper. Causes could precede effects on a different timeline then we normally think. We could be living in a teleological world where everything is being pulled into the future and our notion of causation is completely backwards.

In a practical sense, isn't integrating these two schisms equally as valid of an absolute non-dual perspective and actionable than just calling it a paradigm? When you say its just a paradigm it somehow undermines it and I don't know how to work with that.

(thanks for your feedback on the unmoved movers and panentheism. They are compatible. It may seem like a tedious distinction at first but makes more sense the longer you think about it. The idea of the divine "outside" the universe as with the left picture "theism" is a significantly different meaning. Since unmoved movers also claims to be "outside" I thought making the distinction that "outside" unmoved movers more accurately still within the universe is non-dual unlike two separate bubbles of the divine and the world.)

Thanks for the quality response. 

The idea of movement in Aristotle seems to go beyond the displacement of an object, it also includes other processes such as the evolution of potentiality to actuality, the modifications of things, the processes of development, growth, change, etc. Aristotle argues that in order to explain the movement of things in a solid way, we need a first unmoved mover, that is, a cause of the movement of another entity that in turn does not move, is fixed, that is, remains unchanged and nothing is the cause of it. I develop similar concepts in a certain way, but with marked specific differences. Aristotle seems to speak for example of the motionless cause or the first immobile motor as an end, that is, that moves entities in terms of a goal, as something that attracts something, that generates or induces its movement but that in itself does not change.

If we think about the causes of the movement of the entities, to explain it we have to see what led to their movement, and we probably find a reason that generated it that in turn has another cause that generates the movement of the latter and so on. However, to continue infinitely we would have problems to explain the movement, something should be the basis, which means that the latter is not in turn moved or affected, hence the idea of an unmoved mover. This has been identified with God and many times the argument of the unmoved mover is used to justify the existence of it since if it did not exist, the movement would not be possible, and therefore the reality would not be as we observe it. For many it seems that this also has moral or ethical repercussions to the point that we can only argue an ethical conduct based on purposes or goals given by God or this unmoved mover, and that without it we would live in a universe not only impossible but also without moral sense.

In the thought of Aristotle this unmoved mover comes to be conceived as something eternal composed of pure thought, beyond matter. But outside of this, what I want to reflect on here is the idea of something in some way additional or external to our material universe to explain the movement, that God is necessary for the existence of our universe and how then all this has repercussions by extension in moral issues.

Well, the first thing is to consider that such an unmoved mover, at least in an interpretation of it as a fundamental cause to explain processes in reality, is not something separated from reality in a certain way but part of the structure of reality itself, something embedded in reality, so that the entities themselves are merged with it, so to speak, so the argument does not become a necessity to explain the movement of the entities of the universe, but the unmoved mover is the movement itself to put it in a way, the movement is such given the very structure of reality, that is, movement is part of reality itself and has no need to be explained or sustained by any unmoved mover. And that this is so is necessary in fact in the sense that to generate the movement of something, apart from the way in which something moves, we need to talk about movement previously (in the broad sense of the term, as the change of things), so that the concept of movement is already presupposed in our reasoning, so that it is something axiomatic, it is part of reality and something not caused, and ultimately, it does not need to be caused.

Stephen Hawking, in his book 'A brief History of Time' infamously wondered what 'breathes fire into the equations'. As such, the notion of a prime mover or first cause (cause behind the BB theory) has puzzled science/physics for centuries... .

Philosophically, using logic, the most we have is the notion of a necessary being (cosmological argument, ontological argument, etc.). However, since human consciousness itself is beyond pure reason (yet exists), understanding the nature of existence becomes somewhat illogical, and beyond or transcends that same sense of reason. As it should be.

Perhaps this 'moving force or particle' (thing-in-itself) has some semblance of the 'God particle'/Higgs Boson energy field... .

I don't really know 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Someone here

[Adamq8]

Well I think it is good arguments for God's existence, I especially love Thomas Aquinas 5 ways, he is using aristotelian language, he is one of the most profound philosphers in Western history.

A Italian catholic.

Secunda Via: The Argument of the First CauseEdit

Summary

In the world, we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God.[7][14]

Explanation

As in the First Way, the causes Aquinas has in mind are not sequential events, but rather simultaneously existing dependency relationships: Aristotle's efficient cause. For example, plant growth depends on sunlight, which depends on gravity, which depends on mass.[8] Aquinas is not arguing for a cause that is first in a sequence, but rather first in a hierarchy: a principal cause, rather than a derivative cause.[16]

Tertia Via: The Argument from ContingencyEdit

Summary

In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.[7][14]

Explanation

The argument begins with the observation that things around us come into and go out of existence: animals die, buildings are destroyed, etc. But if everything were like this, then, at some time nothing would exist. Some interpreters read Aquinas to mean that assuming an infinite past, all possibilities would be realized and everything would go out of existence. Since this is clearly not the case, then there must be at least one thing that does not have the possibility of going out of existence.[14] However, this explanation seems to involve the fallacy of composition (quantifier shift). Moreover, it does not seem to be in keeping with Aquinas' principle that, among natural things, the destruction of one thing is always the generation of another.[17] Alternatively, one could read Aquinas to be arguing as follows: if there is eternal change, so that things are eternally being generated and corrupted, and since an eternal effect requires an eternal cause (just as a necessary conclusion requires necessary premises), then there must exist an eternal agent which can account for the eternity of generation and corruption. To hold the alternative, namely that an infinite series of contingent causes would be able to explain eternal generation and corruption would posit a circular argument: Why is there eternal generation and corruption? Because there is an eternal series of causes which are being generated and corrupted. And why is there an infinite series of causes which are being generated and corrupted? Because there is eternal generation and corruption. Since such an explanation is not acceptable, there must be (at least one) eternal and necessary being.

The First Way: Motion

1. All bodies are either potentially in motion or actually in motion.
2. "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality" (419).
3. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect.
4. Therefore nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality with respect to motion
5. Therefore nothing can move itself; it must be put into motion by something else.
6. If there were no "first mover, moved by no other" there would be no motion.
7. But there is motion.
8. Therefore there is a first mover, God. 

 

[WokeBloke]

@Adamq8 Thank you for this post. First mover and only mover. That so-called God determines everything including this post being written and your response and so forth.

[The Lucid Dreamer]

In the absolute sense, there is no such thing as a cause or an effect.  The notion that there are quantized causal “events” within reality is philosophically vacuous.  

[WokeBloke]

5 minutes ago, The Lucid Dreamer said:

In the absolute sense, there is no such thing as a cause or an effect.  The notion that there are quantized causal “events” within reality is philosophically vacuous.  

Could you expand on your reasoning?

[Someone here]

Having this in mind, then with the simple fact of alluding to structures of reality we can explain how things move or behave. There would be basic structures in terms of existence, where we no longer find inferior structures, this is necessary for a solid basis of the behavior of things, but they are structures of reality as such, which could be said to move, but as basic structures movement is all of their property, besides their form (see in work “Propositions”). This is in general terms different from the idea of the unmoved mover, and we can allude to this to explain the movement, so that we do not need to speak of a first unmoved mover in the Aristotelian sense. In a way what I propose is similar to logic in the world, it is part of reality, is embedded in it to say it in a way, and it is not necessary to go beyond reality to talk about it, there are axiomatic things of reality that simply are. In the same way the basic structures of reality plus the change of state of things (the change of state as the closest thing to the movement in terms of Aristotle) would explain how things manifest in the universe, that is, we have movement that simply is and the form of it, which would be given by the form of the structures of reality, so that the movement and everything that in Aristotelian terms refers to actuality and potentiality of things is contained in the things themselves, in the material universe that we inhabit.