Another proof of mind

[RCSaunders]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing
P2 Nothing can move or change itself ...

"P2," is wrong. Aristotle made the same mistake. Neither understood momentum.

Everything that moves only moves itself and will continue to move unless something prevents it. In actuality, all change (change of position: motion, and change in motion: acceleration) is entirely due to the changing entities own nature. All change is the result of an entity reacting to other entities.

Since, "P2," is a false premise, the entire argument if fallacious.

In the case of change in position, the first law of Newton, the object keeps its speed and move with constant speed if it is not forced. This is however just happens in abstraction when there is one object in the whole empty universe. Regardless, you can always choose a framework that the object is static within that framework. In the case of acceleration, however, this is always due to the interaction of objects with other objects. Therefore, P2 is correct.

Err, I suppose if you've only had high school physics you'd still look at acceleration that way, but the fact is, an entity's acceleration is determine entirely by the entities own mass and momentum in reaction to other entities. Relative to any mass, every other mass will accelerate toward that mass depending on it's own mass, not the mass of the body it is accelerating toward.

A body in orbit around another stays in orbit because of it's own mass and momentum, not the mass of the body it is orbiting. If either the mass or momentum of the orbiting body were different, the orbit would be different or not at all.

Remembering that an acceleration is a change motion, either it's velocity or direction, a body in orbit is in constant acceleration, without ever changing it's speed. "P2" is just wrong.

[attofishpi]

But, the problem or difficulty of appealing to the first causes is, it begs the question of, if you need a first cause then surely this applies to your prime mover, I.e. god also needs a cause.

What is more primary, god, or the demand that everything has a cause?

What if one cannot infinitely regress through chaos, perhaps that is where God came from, and then causality came into play, what we comprehend as logic.

By chaos do you mean the ungraspability of complexity? If that is what you mean by chaos then I would agree,

Sort of. I think we need to go beyond even the scope of ungraspable complexity (as we know it), since there is a lot we still find ungraspable right now but we are pretty darn certain things are a result of causality since we can apply logic. Something that is complex can still have logic to it, I'm imagining something beyond comprehension as there simply is NO logic that a human can apply to it.

the concept of an infinite regress is just that, a concept, not an actual possibility for calculation or discovering antecedent causes.

What if, we apply the idea of god as, that in which causation occurs? It would seem to me that in that case, god would not require cause, as god would be the totality in which all seeming change occurs.

So then, it would not be that god causes all to happen, but that, god IS causality itself, viewed in the relative sense. In such a perspective, causality is simply what is. As to what started it, if we imagine that time itself began with the first cause, then, to ask a question what caused the first cause does not make sense, because causality requires change, which requires time.

Well said.

[bahman]

"P2," is wrong. Aristotle made the same mistake. Neither understood momentum.

Everything that moves only moves itself and will continue to move unless something prevents it. In actuality, all change (change of position: motion, and change in motion: acceleration) is entirely due to the changing entities own nature. All change is the result of an entity reacting to other entities.

Since, "P2," is a false premise, the entire argument if fallacious.

In the case of change in position, the first law of Newton, the object keeps its speed and move with constant speed if it is not forced. This is however just happens in abstraction when there is one object in the whole empty universe. Regardless, you can always choose a framework that the object is static within that framework. In the case of acceleration, however, this is always due to the interaction of objects with other objects. Therefore, P2 is correct.

Err, I suppose if you've only had high school physics you'd still look at acceleration that way, but the fact is, an entity's acceleration is determine entirely by the entities own mass and momentum in reaction to other entities. Relative to any mass, every other mass will accelerate toward that mass depending on it's own mass, not the mass of the body it is accelerating toward.

The mass of the object is not relevant in the case of gravitational force. Mass of the object matters in the case of electromagnetic force. Regardless the acceleration is due to the existence of other objects that exert a force on the object. Therefore, P2 is correct.

[RCSaunders]

The mass of the object is not relevant in the case of gravitational force.

You obviously know nothing about physics.

What is Gravitational Force?

Each body in this universe attracts other bodies towards itself with a force known as Gravitational Force, thus gravitation is a study of the interaction between two masses. Out of the two masses, the heavier one is called source mass and the lighter one is called test mass.

Gravitational force is a central force which depends only on the position of test mass from the source mass and always acts along the line joining the centres of the two masses.

...

According to Newton’s law of gravitation, “Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force whose magnitude is,

Directly proportional to the product of their masses i.e. F ∝ (M1M2) . . . . (1)

[Sculptor]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing

That is not what you say on other threads.
in fact you deny that motion is possible

[bahman]

The mass of the object is not relevant in the case of gravitational force.

You obviously know nothing about physics.

What is Gravitational Force?

Each body in this universe attracts other bodies towards itself with a force known as Gravitational Force, thus gravitation is a study of the interaction between two masses. Out of the two masses, the heavier one is called source mass and the lighter one is called test mass.

Gravitational force is a central force which depends only on the position of test mass from the source mass and always acts along the line joining the centres of the two masses.

...

According to Newton’s law of gravitation, “Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force whose magnitude is,

Directly proportional to the product of their masses i.e. F ∝ (M1M2) . . . . (1)

I know enough. I mean the acceleration related to gravitational force does not relate to the mass of the object.

[bahman]

This is Aquinas argument for the existence of God which I think is more appropriate to replace God with the mind.

P1 Everything in the world is moving or changing

That is not what you say on other threads.
in fact you deny that motion is possible

I mean that continuous motion is impossible. I have never said that motion is impossible.

[RCSaunders]

The mass of the object is not relevant in the case of gravitational force.

You obviously know nothing about physics.

What is Gravitational Force?

Each body in this universe attracts other bodies towards itself with a force known as Gravitational Force, thus gravitation is a study of the interaction between two masses. Out of the two masses, the heavier one is called source mass and the lighter one is called test mass.

Gravitational force is a central force which depends only on the position of test mass from the source mass and always acts along the line joining the centres of the two masses.

...

According to Newton’s law of gravitation, “Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force whose magnitude is,

Directly proportional to the product of their masses i.e. F ∝ (M1M2) . . . . (1)

I know enough. I mean the acceleration related to gravitational force does not relate to the mass of the object.

If you know it, you're contradicting it.

Basic physics formulas: F = MA (Force equal mass times acceleration), A=F/M (Acceleration equals the force divided by the mass), M = F/A (Mass equals force divided by the acceleration). The rate of acceleration is inversely proportional to the mass and directly proportional to the force.

[bahman]

You obviously know nothing about physics.

I know enough. I mean the acceleration related to gravitational force does not relate to the mass of the object.

If you know it, you're contradicting it.

Basic physics formulas: F = MA (Force equal mass times acceleration), A=F/M (Acceleration equals the force divided by the mass), M = F/A (Mass equals force divided by the acceleration). The rate of acceleration is inversely proportional to the mass and directly proportional to the force.

The gravitational force is proportional to mass too.