Things move because there is a cause that made them move.
You can link things back to each other in an orderly sequence.
The physical universe is finite, therefore infinite regress of moving entities is false.
There was a beginning (to the physical universe), but the universe is not merely
physical. Whatever the prime mover is, it’s not material, nor in motion;
it’s an eternal, static reality that underlies everything.
It does not move, thus infinite regress of cause and effect is nullified.
The unmoved mover would still be a first instance of all motion, A causer of causality? [paradox]
Because the universe is finite, we think reality is, but the universe was itself infinite at one time, so we have to surely see the fundamentals as eternals. Ergo there wont be a prime mover where there is no beginning.
It all just happens and always has and will happen.
I am certain that isn’t true. Why do you think it is true? Because they told you? The same “they” who have been wrong about the cosmos for thousands of years?
I don’t see how those two relate. Whether the universe is finite or not (and again, I am certain that it is not), what does that have to do with infinite regression? Why couldn’t a finite universe have always existed?
That I am certain of.
Again, what does a prime mover have to do with the impossibility of infinite regression of motion???
Because it has a finite amount of energy + entropy + expansion such that particles eventually become to far apart to be affecting. Not to mention that it did have a beginning, which does leave an infinite regress prior to it. if cyclical, then you have to count [and contrast to the infinite] how many cycles could have existed prior to and after it, where there will always be a given amount prior to and after, and a first instance - the very first universe. Then that has the same philosophical problem as only having a single instance of universe, in terms of beginnings.
The “Prime Mover” is the primary cause of all motion and is eternal. Something cannot be a cause of something else without that something else appearing, else it really isn’t the cause. Because the primary cause of all motion is eternal, motion itself must also be eternal.
The Prime Mover did not begin the universe, but rather is at the very foundation of any and all motion (aka “spirit”). The physical universe is made entirely of the changing, the motion itself, physical spirit. And such motion continues eternally because the Prime Mover for it is eternal (yet not itself physical).
You don’t because definitional logic is questionable. That is why movement can not be defined, hence it is not of consciousness, therefore, Parmenidies was right. There is only appearent knowledge. Knowledge of movement is appearance, as is knowledge it’s self. Reality is different.
FYI:
“Definitional Logic” merely means that the words and concepts being used are clearly explained/defined and remain consistent throughout the reasoning. Definitional Logic prevents ambiguity in the language.
Not necessarily. If ausation has always existed, there need not be a cause for it, only a reason for why it has always existed (which turns out to be the impossibility of it not existing).
[quote=“James S Saint”]
FYI:
“Definitional Logic” merely means that the words and concepts being used are clearly explained/defined and remain consistent throughout the reasoning. Definitional Logic prevents ambiguity in the language.[
/quote]
James,
That explanation turns on the relationship between logic and language. If, definitional logic is merely a tool to avoid confusions caused by definition, then it begs the ontological basis of logic per se.
There is no avoiding to this primary conflation, because language is primordial to logic, or, is it?
That’s the problem with trying to define logic, primarily. The definitional explanation is on a less complex level. Which gets back to the problem of the Dasein.
Causation is another form of relationship, between existence, and being. It can be inferred into existence, but it can also be referred to non existence, as is in the case of the uncaused causation. Referential logic has been post-scribed by inference.
I don’t get “it.”