mardi 1 mars 2016

What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"?

1) New blog on the kid : GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"? · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW · 4) New blog on the kid : Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes! · 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : One More Quote, if I May, Please! · 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers? · 8) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

Two participants have been anonymised, but since one other was not, I keep my full name too instead of reducing to HGL.

JH (status, giving a quote)
"At the present time we simply don't know. Why don't we know? Because we don't know what dark energy is. In fact, if you were to try to write down a theory of dark energy, your number would not correspond to the data by a mismatch of 10 to the 120. That is the largest mismatch in the history of science. There is no mismatch bigger than 10 to the 120. So this is a mystery. Until we solve the mystery of dark energy, we do not know the ultimate fate of the universe." Michio Kaku

Matt SIngleton
There is no dark energy. It is electromagnetic.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
According to Kepler (who only knew about the magnetic part of electromagnetism).

Riccioli clearly preferred angelic movers.

Matt SIngleton
I don't have a problem with it being called angelic as well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Riccioli was very clear that voluntary movement by angels obeying God is sth other than inanimate movement by a magnetic force, which was the position of Kepler.

Obviously, if magnetism could do it, still magnetism could only do its program.

But if angels are doing it, they can depart from it as soon as Matthew 24 requires it, no change of their powers required.

Riccioli divided explanations (saying all and any are just probable and tentative and more concerned with our knowledge of creator than with our "study" of so distant objects) into : God moving each and all, God creating an inanimate mechanism, God creating stars as alive (intelligent or merely animal) beings, or God delegating movement of celestial bodies to angels.

Obviously, even if the only inanimate mechanism he was dealing with back then was Kepler's suggestion of magnetism, his reply is worthwhile : Heavens are so NOBLE that celestial bodies, after not being of spiritual make themselves, at least ought to be moved by spirits, which is nobler than inanimate matter.

Angelic movers would be outside the scope of the natural sciences?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I fail to see the point of the question.

If that is indeed so, astrophysics as such is outside the scope of the natural sciences, since that is the correct (according to most authors) explanation of movements in celestial bodies.

Indeed, when it comes to natural sciences, astrophysics may very well fall outside natural sciences, since it is about the far off.

But if one is going to include questions about movements of celestial bodies in a package called natural sciences, one should make room for angelic movers in it.

Natural sciences and metaphysics are not watertightly isolated from each other.

Some facts in natural sciences serve to prove metaphysics and some facts in metaphysics serve to explain natural sciences.

It is a very paltry bait and switch to start off knowing supernatural explanation "x" (special creation or angelic movers) is a standard explanation in Christian tradition for observed fact "y" (like diversity of biological life or movements of celestial bodies), then to declare: "y is an observed fact, so we can deal with it in natural sciences, x is a supernatural explanation, so we can not deal with it in natural sciences, therefore we must in natural sciences conclude for an explanation z-instead-of-x for y".

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am saying that Angels are spirits, there is nothing to be subjected to natural experiment. Therefore they are outside the scope of the natural sciences

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, I am aware of that syllogism, and if you take it like that, then so is the correct explanation of celestial movements. Btw, you cannot experiment on the celestial orbits. You cannot stop the motion, pick out one of the bodies, set it in motion again, see how motion changes, stop it, put the body back, take out another and so on.

Astrophysics ALSO is unable to be subjected to natural experiment.

So, again, what exactly is your point?

Hans-Georg Lundahl what happens when you suspended two masses from a ceiling?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I suppose some have, with very great masses, like lead balls, detected attraction?

I suppose some have also identified this attraction with what happens when things fall to the ground.

Fair enough, unless moon landings and space programs are all faked, the astronauts seem to jump up and then land on the moon, not fall down on Earth, as they would if Aristotelic view were the correct and only one on gravitation.

I further suppose you might be going to make some point about this being THE mechanism behind the movements of celestial bodies.

Sorry, a pen may move for TWO different reasons : because it is being dropped and is falling to the floor or the table or the ground OR because it is being held by a hand which is moving it.

So, celestial bodies could, from the pov of these parallels be moving for TWO different reasons - gravitational ones or voluntary movers. How do YOU propose to find out which of these fits celestial bodies best or worst?

The hand guiding the pen and the two objects suspended from a ceiling are both facts you can experience, and neither will in and of itself tell you "I am the reason why celestial bodies move, or the closest parallel to it you know of".

Where is YOUR methodology in this question?

Hans-Georg Lundahl (later)
Meanwhile I can perhaps divulge mine, if you are at all interested, MS?

Hans-Georg Lundahl (later still)
OK, here goes.

    • Argument one for gravitational model : it is possible, as shown with the experiment of the stone on a string.

      My refutation thereof, this experiment shows no such thing, as a string, being a solid, is NOT a parallel to a force.

      The force is supposed to be exactly what it takes to keep centrifugal force in check. It is dynamic, more it draws, further in the object goes. Further in the object goes, the more the force draws it.

      Strings are solids, and they are twisted. Further out the stone is, more the twists are unmade and more the string draws back. Also, strings are stronger than what it takes to keep the centrifugal force in orbit. They have more force in reserve than what is actuated.

      When we come to test a more real parallel, as charged knitting needles and water droplets in space, we get a result in which the "equilibrium" soon breaks down and water droplets cling to knitting needles.

    • Argument two for gravitational model : it FITS the facts eminently.

      It is said that by knowing the masses of the bodies in the solar system, and presuming the gravitational model to be true, we can calculate orbits like the ones we observe.

      Sorry, circular.

      We ONLY "know" the masses of the bodies in Solar system THROUGH the orbits AND THROUGH presuming the gravitational explanation.

      No merely human scientist has ever made an experiment of stopping all movement AND picking out a body of solar system AND putting it on scales before putting it back into its place in orbit and restarting them.

      So, this argument is circular.

  • Arguments FOR angelic movers.

    • I Now, Riccioli presumed we had four basic choices.

      • 1) God moving each body directly (no created causation allowed, just God's own action). 2) God creating an inanimate mechanism (not limited to gravitational, the example in mind was Kepler's magnetic explanation). 3) Stars being alive. 4) Angels moving stars.

      • The first choice ill befits God creating secondary causes in order to cause certain things indirectly through them (note that secondary causes include wills of created persons).

      • The second choice ill befits that celestial bodies are celestial and if inanimate in and of themselves should at least have a nobler than that secondary cause for their movement.

      • The third and fourth are alternative readings of certain Bible passages. This is not mentioned by Riccioli, but the third is actually a more direct reading than the fourth. However, St Thomas rereads at least one of these passages (Job 38:7) as speaking instead of angelic movers.

        And the third has been positively forbidden by Bishop Tempier soon after the death of St Thomas, for the diocese of Paris, while England's bishops also opted for introducing his syllabus as obligatory theology, which leaves us with the fourth.

        Riccioli (to return to him) also said the fourth was the most common one.

        Of course, you might come up with a fifth basic choice?

    • II They work.

      Unlike gravitational model both theoretically (see my objection to stone on string parallel) and practically (see videos of Don Petit's experiment), there is no real objection to angelic movers.


      No obstacle to angelic power.

      Complexity of orbits?

      A minor challenge for angelic artistry.

      Cluttering up?

      Angels aren't as clumsy as mechanics.

    • III They are the solution of St Thomas.

2 commentaires: