The Unmoved Mover

[Lightkeeper]

The unmoved mover is a philosophical concept described by Aristotle as the first cause that sets the universe into motion. As is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" is not moved by any prior action. In his book Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. The Unmoved Mover is also referred to as the Prime Mover.

Aristotle's argument for the existence of the unmoved mover progresses as follows:

1. There exists movement in the world.
2. Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.
Unmoved mover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does this reasoning hold up?

[Amergin]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Does this reasoning hold up?

1. There exists movement in the world.

OK but movement is relative. It is a change in the apparent distance between objects at two points. Practical experience is that we observe what our minds call movement. Most movement is heat energy. It makes strings vibrate, particles, atoms, and living things move. Brownian movement is the result of heat.

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

2. Things that move were set into motion by something else.
3. If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.

Maybe it does happen? Matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter is movement even when an object is sitting on a table. Atoms move unless the temperature reaches absolute Zero degrees Kelvin. Movement might be viewed as the vibration of the 5 major very tiny energy superstrings which make up everything that we know of. Those energy strings unite to form larger more powerful "particles" (which are actually energy fields.) Intense heat at the beginning of the Universe was required to create movement in particles, merger of particles, atoms, molecules, stars, planets, and talking bipedal apes on a small planet.

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

4. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.

The something that caused the movement we see, was started by the heat of the Big Bang. Was even that the first movement? How do we know what was there before the Big Bang? We simply do not know what ignited the Big Bang. Some people believe that they know but they do not KNOW, they BELIEVE.

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.

That is your assumption. I do not concede that there was a first cause or something that does not move caused movement. It is an invalid speculative premise.

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

The Unmoved mover is an unsupported conclusion. Unsupported assumptions are not valid points to making the assumption that there must be an unmoved mover. If it moves it is not unmoving. If it is unmoving, it can not cause movement.

The more popular argument is that if there is a first cause, and all things are caused, then who or what caused the first cause, which is then no longer a first cause. There may be an infiinity of causes. I just use the only proven conclusion. "I do not KNOW." I know with certainty that I do not know what caused the Big Bang and what preceded. All answers are pure speculation without evidence.

Theism is an assumption that some mysterious thing called God created everything. Yet few agree on what God is. Is it a giant human for Christians, a vague Higgs Field throughout the Universe for Buddhists, spirits for many Africans, and an impersonal force or collection of forces for Einstein or Hawking and perhaps me?

Amergin

[metis]

If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.

Says who?

[aged hippy]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Does this reasoning hold up?

Yes.

.... at least.... in my opinion.

[metis]

Originally Posted by aged hippy

Yes.

.... at least.... in my opinion.

If I may ask, do you also agree with:

If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.

If so, what can't there hypothetically be infinity?

[aged hippy]

I think that the reasoning holds up, metis.... i didn't say that i actually agree with it, nor with its statements.



Peace, Love, & Light

[metis]

Originally Posted by aged hippy

I think that the reasoning holds up, metis.... i didn't say that i actually agree with it, nor with its statements.

OK, I was just trying to pick your brain a bit. No worries.

[Amergin]

I suppose there could be an infinite series of movers, each caused by another mover by another mover, in an infinite sequence. It means that we must abandon the laws of physics as we know them. Yet, perhaps beyond our universe "our" laws of physics may not apply. I have heard theoretical physicists like Khalil, Green, and Weinberg suggest that other universes might have different properties of matter.

So I amend my statement "it can't happen." It could happen but I do not know how that would occur. It may be more plausible than the Christian God Hypothesis.

Amergin

[shaw-n]

Proof that Aristotle liked to get stoned.

[metis]

Originally Posted by Amergin

I have heard theoretical physicists like Khalil, Green, and Weinberg suggest that other universes might have different properties of matter.

Even within our own universe this well be true as well, such as what the research cosmologist Michio Kaku tends to think is most likely.