The unmoved mover

[Yakuda]

You have no idea what "prime mover" means. It is obvious

Prove I don't. Your word is shit.

 

[Daylight63]

You seem to have the perspective of a strict physical materialist.

Not so. Materialist-curious. Not strict on much of anything about this topic.

From the perspective of a religionist you can't see, measure, or scientifically prove the Tao, Li, or Brahman anymore than you can 'see', physically measure, or scientifically prove freedom or justice.

But freedom is a word used to describe a suite of characteristics. It isn't some thing like a tree or a rock. Justice is just our word to describe a state where we feel that anything wrong is righted.

We can't measure "is", we can't measure "vaguely unsettled feeling". These are all just descriptors of states.

I don't think we need to be able to "measure" it but we should be able to firmly define it. We can easily define what "justice" and then one can look to detect if justice applies to a given situation.

The same cannot be said for Qi. No can detect it but many tell me they can affect its flow. If one can affect the flow of Qi then that person must be able to detect the Qi.

The best way to summarize it is: if I had never heard of Qi, would I be able to independently stumble upon in it without any input from anyone else? Would two independent discoverers of Qi describe it the same?

 

[Cypress]

A lot of Freud's theories were proved wrong, but the fact he brought the idea of psychoanalysis into the mainstream broke the ice for further research and into different branches as explored by B.F. Skinner, Abraham Maslo and Rollo May.

You need pioneers like that even when they are wrong. Asking the right questions is just as important as getting the right answers.

 

[Phantasmal]

Aristotle conceives of a cosmos, a hierarchically ordered world in which things have their places. Human being is the highest animal of all. The highest being of all is God, the unmoved mover of the entire world. God is pure actuality and contains no matter. God is pure thought.

In the Physics, Aristotle argues that there must be a highest being.
He argues that if there is movement in the world, there must be an original source of that movement.
The original source of movement cannot itself be moved. If it were moving, it, too, would require a cause to move it.
There is thus one, primary, unmoved mover.

Aristotle’s God is not like the God of the Jews, Christians, or Muslims.
Aristotle’s God has no moral virtues. It is not generous or loving or just. To be moral implies some sort of lack.
God lacks nothing. Hence, God cannot be moral.
Aristotle’s God is pure thinking, which is the highest activity.

Aristotle’s views on these matters have been debated for centuries. The basic takeaway is Aristotle's views give affirmation to his conviction that the world is an intelligible cosmos. By having a first principle, an unmoved mover, it ultimately makes sense.



sources used:
David Roochnik, Introduction to Greek Philosophy
Robert Bartlett Masters of Greek Thought: Socrates, Plato, Aristole

A first mover is needed by our human minds, limited to what we know and understand.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

A first mover is needed by our human minds, limited to what we know and understand.

While that certainly helps us all cope, especially in dire circumstances, scientific research indicates that the Universe had a clear beginning and based on current knowledge, a definite end of complete entropy; "the Big Chill".

If that remains true, then the Universe did have a "first mover" even if it wasn't some old geezer sitting on a golden throne.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I still haven't discerned the meaning of "mover" in this thread's context.

I guess it wouldn't matter to a randomist, however.

Not being able to imagine a finite universe was probably a life saver for me.

The scientific, mathematical, and all other conceivable metrics of this universe
are prohibitively complex.

In an infinite universe, however, they can still be totally random.
Every that's possible to manifest itself, not matter how complex,
will ultimately do so in an infinite universe.

In a finite universe, however, the likely of it all being a purposeful design
increases exponentially. One would pretty much be inclined to think something that complex
would be purposeful in a finite universe, because the complexity is so massive.

If I had the imagination to think
that the clusterfuck of dumpster fires
that comprises our universe
was manifested on purpose,
I'm pretty sure I could not have stayed alive this long.

 

[Cypress]

A first mover is needed by our human minds, limited to what we know and understand.

I agree our human minds create the need for a first cause.

I think you could remove humans from the universe and the question would still remain: why is there something rather than nothing and what caused it?

 

[Daylight63]

A first mover is needed by our human minds, limited to what we know and understand.

There is a lot of potential truth to that. I think it is the source of almost all religious thought. Human brains (and probably those of most animals with a sufficiently advanced brain) are essentially "pattern matching machines" whose sole job is to keep us alive.

A lot of our behavior is driven by base instincts (like fight or flight should you see something potentially scary out of the corner of your eye) but we also are able to take some time out to try to create predictive models and explanatory models for the setting we find ourselves in. Given our limitations (especially when we were a young species without benefit of science) we came up with stories to explain why we are here and why things are as they are.

Plus, I believe there are studies that find that sort of "religious" component may be in-built in the human brain. I suspect it is probably this very aspect of us (the need to create the models to explain the setting) is how we came up with religious thought.

I think the "first uncaused cause" is attractive to us because we are unaware of anything in our surroundings that doesn't have a predicate cause so we assume there must be a cause for everything. The hard limit is the first uncaused cause. This is why it is often unsatisfying from a philosophical sense (due to the special pleading necessary) but it "works" for us.

It's a model whose outputs in the end don't really much impact our ability to stay alive and they do little to make our chances worse so we keep it. It helps our natural need for a model of the universe and it is an excellent placeholder until something more can be found.

 

[Phantasmal]

While that certainly helps us all cope, especially in dire circumstances, scientific research indicates that the Universe had a clear beginning and based on current knowledge, a definite end of complete entropy; "the Big Chill".

If that remains true, then the Universe did have a "first mover" even if it wasn't some old geezer sitting on a golden throne.

I guess we need to define “mover”

 

[Cypress]

Not so. Materialist-curious. Not strict on much of anything about this topic.



But freedom is a word used to describe a suite of characteristics. It isn't some thing like a tree or a rock. Justice is just our word to describe a state where we feel that anything wrong is righted.

We can't measure "is", we can't measure "vaguely unsettled feeling". These are all just descriptors of states.

I don't think we need to be able to "measure" it but we should be able to firmly define it. We can easily define what "justice" and then one can look to detect if justice applies to a given situation.

The same cannot be said for Qi. No can detect it but many tell me they can affect its flow. If one can affect the flow of Qi then that person must be able to detect the Qi.

The best way to summarize it is: if I had never heard of Qi, would I be able to independently stumble upon in it without any input from anyone else? Would two independent discoverers of Qi describe it the same?

There is not one, exact narrative definition of the Big Bang either. Even scientists grapple with a precise narrative description of the Big Bang.

You should not be shocked that there are very few things outside of mathematical equations that humans have 100 percent universal agreement on narrative definitions.


This is the "definition" of the Dao in my translation of the Daodejing. The Daodejing is poetry, so you will have to humble yourself to accept the literary style used by Lao Tzu.

There is something formlessly created
Born before Heaven and Earth
So silent! So ethereal!
Independent and changeless
Circulation and ceaseless
It can be regarded as the mother of
the world
I do not know its name
Identifying it, I call it Tao
Forced to describe it, I call it great.
Humans follow the laws of Earth
Earth follows the laws of Heaven
Heaven follows the Laws of Tao
Tao follows the laws of nature

Ultimately, the Tao follows the natural laws which arise from the Tao itself.
This is basically a literary description of the circularity, harmony, and completeness of the Tao.

If you are genuinely interested learning what these people thought, you can literally read the Daodejing in one afternoon.


Now, you need to explain precisely exactly how you want it described. Socrates and Wittgenstein demonstrated how we place way too much emphasis on language being the arbiter of truth. What kind of description do you want? Physical measurements? Photo documentation? Material properties?

Those questions only a valid in a strictly materialistic view of reality. Immaterial and incorporeal reality exists too. The Pythagorean theorem and the universal law of gravity were true as incorporeal realities long before humans drew a triangle or wrote down an equation. The first cause, the Tao, the unmoved mover are metaphysical questions that do not lend themselves to physical descritions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I guess we need to define “mover”

Agreed. IMO, it's the "Cause" in "cause and effect". The impetus that gave birth to the Universe be it a natural one of the multiverse, eternal computer programmers or "God" AKA an unknown but intelligent force.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. IMO, it's the "Cause" in "cause and effect". The impetus that gave birth to the Universe be it a natural one of the multiverse, eternal computer programmers or "God" AKA an unknown but intelligent force.

It's a logical deduction that a lawfully ordered and rationally intelligible universe had to come from a rational first principle or first cause.

A logical deduction doesn't have to be correct. It just has to follow the rules of formal logic.

The first principle can be anyone of the things you mentioned.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's a logical deduction that a lawfully ordered and rationally intelligible universe had to come from a rational first principle or first cause.

A logical deduction doesn't have to be correct. It just has to follow the rules of formal logic.

The first principle can be anyone of the things you mentioned.

Exactly. It's a big unknown limited by our simian minds and the laws governing our Universe.

 

[Daylight63]

There is not one, exact definition of the Big Bang either Even scientists grapple with a precise narrative description of the Big Bang.

Ah but i f we had someone who had never heard of the Big Bang. They could still find evidence of the event. Maybe not the nature of exactly what was happening but it could be detected by independent observers.

This is the "definition" of the Dao in my translation of the Daodejing. The Daodejing is poetry, so you will have to humble yourself to accept the literary style used by Lao Tzu.

Not a huge fan of poetry (LOL ) but thanks for providing this

There is something formlessly created
Born before Heaven and Earth
So silent! So ethereal!
Independent and changeless
Circulation and ceaseless
It can be regarded as the mother of
the world
I do not know its name
Identifying it, I call it Tao
Force to describe it, I call it great.
Humans follow the laws of Earth
Earth follows the laws of Heaven
Heaven follows the Laws of Tao
Tao follows the laws of nature

It is a beautiful bit of writing. No doubt. I'm just curious if Lao Tse had not written it would I also come to the conclusion that there is this "additional" bit that is something that I cannot describe and has no form?

This is an interesting bit:

Humans follow the laws of Earth
Earth follows the laws of Heaven
Heaven follows the Laws of Tao

I see how the first one works. And I'll assume that the "laws of heaven" are a proxy for "natural laws" like gravity etc. (?) but I'm uncertain what the Laws of Tao are.

And more importantly how can one confirm independent of Lao's words the existence of this?

One more bit to add: what if I were to propose that there is something which I'll call the "Super-Tao" which resides above the Tao and is that which generates the force that is the Tao (forgive me if I'm messing up the language, it is hard to nail down a real meaning in this) but I think you can see the question I'm asking.

Let's introduce the Tao to Occam's Razor. Is it necessary for the Tao to exist? If not then it is more parsimonious to assume it doesn't exist unless there is some reason to assume it does.

(I know that sounds a bit convoluted but it gets to the heart of my question about something like the Tao, for example).

If you are genuinely interested learning what these people thought, you can literally read the Daodejing in one afternoon.

Might just do that. (Gotta answer some e-mails first but it sounds like fun. I had a friend in college who got heavily into the Tao at a time when I was a young dude who was kind of a jerk and I really didn't give much attention when he went on about the Tao. It's taken me a long time to grow up and become more open to the larger world. I hope I can continue this growth).

You need to explain precisely exactly how you want it described. Socrates and Wittgenstein demonstrated how we place way to much emphasis on language being the arbiter of truth. What kind of description do you want? Physical measurements? Photo documentation? Material properties?

I think I want some reason to believe that this "something" is objectively real. That it could be discovered by someone who had never heard of the Tao.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "Carcinization" in biology? It's basically the observation that crab-like features have developed in life multiple times independently. We don't necessarily know exactly why it happens but it certainly shows the existence of some driver for the process. Perhaps it is due to some efficiency in the design. But it is still an indicator of some unknown "force" (if you will) that has an observable effect.

I am looking for somethign about the Tao or Qi, etc., that says "Hey, something is going on here and we all see it, what is it?"

The Pythagorean theorem

This is where the conversation gets super deep and I'm not sure it will necessarily lead to any insight. Does the Pythagorean Theorem really have an independent existence apart from triangles (or as an extension multidimensional vectors which can still be solved using the same type of approach)?

Apart from a triangle (or the other multidimensional vectors) is there a necessary reason that a^2 + b^2 = c^2?

and the universal law of gravity were true as incorporeal realities long before humans drew a triangle or wrote down an equation.

Oh for sure! But it still feels like the math describing it doesn't exist apart from the thing described.

 

[Cypress]

I still haven't discerned the meaning of "mover" in this thread's context.

I guess it wouldn't matter to a randomist, however.

Not being able to imagine a finite universe was probably a life saver for me.

The scientific, mathematical, and all other conceivable metrics of this universe
are prohibitively complex.

In an infinite universe, however, they can still be totally random.
Every that's possible to manifest itself, not matter how complex,
will ultimately do so in an infinite universe.

In a finite universe, however, the likely of it all being a purposeful design
increases exponentially. One would pretty much be inclined to think something that complex
would be purposeful in a finite universe, because the complexity is so massive.

If I had the imagination to think
that the clusterfuck of dumpster fires
that comprises our universe
was manifested on purpose,
I'm pretty sure I could not have stayed alive this long.

I don't think an infinite universe rescues us from the questions Aristotle, Lao Tzu, and the Hindu philosophers were asking.

We still wouldn't have an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

 

[Yakuda]

I don't think an infinite universe rescues us from the questions Aristotle, Lao Tzu, and the Hindu philosophers were asking.

We still wouldn't have an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

And not just something but a highly designed and intricately precise something.

 

[Cypress]

And not just something but a highly designed and intricately precise something.

You could invoke hypotheses like eternal inflation or the multiverse to explain how we got lucky to live in a little corner of reality where the mathematical properties of nature tuned perfectly to certain values allowing matter and life to exist. But to me that always vaguely felt like an attempt to sweep fine tuning under the carpet. I don't think invoking luck or infinitesimal probability is the basis of good scientific conjecture.

 

[Yakuda]

You could invoke hypotheses like eternal inflation or the multiverse to explain how we got lucky to live in a little corner of reality where the mathematical properties of nature tuned perfectly to certain values allowing matter and life to exist. But to me that always vaguely felt like an attempt to sweep fine tuning under the carpet. I don't think invoking luck or infinitesimal probability is the basis of good scientific conjecture.

Lol the multiverse hypothesis is nothing but invoking luck or infinitesimal probability. The presence of a highly tuned universe presents major problems for people seeking to dismiss the unmoved mover that is God.

 

[Cypress]

Lol the multiverse hypothesis is nothing but invoking luck or infinitesimal probability. The presence of a highly tuned universe presents major problems for people seeking to dismiss the unmoved mover that is God.

I don't completely rule out the multiverse, although we cannot really call it a tangible scientific hypothesis yet.

But history teaches us that we once thought the Earth was the center of the universe, then we once thought there was only one galaxy in the universe, then we found out there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe.

The unfolding of human intellectual history has surprised us again and again that reality is far larger and far stranger than we ever previously expected.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horation, than are dreamt of in your philosophies." - Shakespear's Hamlet


One other possibility I have not ruled out is that there is some fundamental property of reality we have not discovered yet that dictates that the mathematical laws of physics and the universal constants can't be any other way than the way they are. However, that still does not allow us to escape the question about why the physical laws and universal constants exist and where they come from.

 

[Yakuda]

I don't completely rule out the multiverse, although we cannot really call it a tangible scientific hypothesis yet.

But history teaches us that we once thought the Earth was the center of the universe, then we once thought there was only one galaxy in the universe, then we found out there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe.

The unfolding of human intellectual history has surprised us again and again that reality is far larger and far stranger than we ever previously expected.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horation, than are dreamt of in your philosophies." - Shakespear's Hamlet


One other possibility I have not ruled out is that there is some fundamental property of reality we have not discovered yet that dictates that the mathematical laws of physics and the universal constants can't be any other way than the way they are. However, that still does not allow us to escape the question about why the physical laws and universal constants exist and where they come from.

I don't necessarily disagree but people are going an awful long way to avoid something that only becomes more apparent as we learn more about the universe. The universe doesn't become less complicated it becomes more complicated and more intricate as we learn more suggesting it is designed and not the result of chance. Once someone learns all the systems of an automobile it becomes less mysterious but it's still the product of a designer.