Is motion like the following?
December 29, 2015 at 4:18 am
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2015 at 4:19 am by Mudhammam.)
When I think of motion, I think change. It seems to me that change occurs by logical necessity following two of the most sublime concepts, the lack of which are unimaginable for any reality in which intellectual beings like ourselves are capable of abstraction, though this is often called into question, perhaps(?) with some justification: temporal succession and spatial movement. In other words, you can't imagine the absolute absence of space and time. The very attempt seems to require the involvement of at least one of these. From this follows motion, which in the world experienced by us was described by Heraclitus as "perpetual flux," by Zeno as non-existent, the latter which just seems too weird. If the world of motion, spatially and temporally, is something like a river in which the singular instance overlaps with something of "past time" or "future time," apparently always co-joined with some object that is relocating its precise position in space, then motion, I contend, must be one of two kinds:
Moved by a mover or self-moved. In the first case, motion always involves mover and moved, or rather it is determined by a prior mover, its antecedent, and each motion includes something that is both moved and mover, and this in some sense is similar to the ambiguous connection between this moment and that moment in succession. There is, in this case, an infinite regress of moved movers. Otherwise, the chain of movement must ultimately terminate in self-motion, indeterministic, random, resulting from an internal principle or impulse, that, if it had any type of cause or mover to move it, externally, would necessarily be determined by the mover, and not random per se. The difference between motion that I call both moved and mover is the presence of a necessary connection between two distinct states, either physical or logical, while idea of the self-motion as such is that it only relates two distinct states by a relation of temporal succession; it is the creation ex niliho, in contradistinction to its counterpart, the ancient rule that "from nothing, nothing comes."
Is it possible to conceive of a third option vis-à-vis motion?
Moved by a mover or self-moved. In the first case, motion always involves mover and moved, or rather it is determined by a prior mover, its antecedent, and each motion includes something that is both moved and mover, and this in some sense is similar to the ambiguous connection between this moment and that moment in succession. There is, in this case, an infinite regress of moved movers. Otherwise, the chain of movement must ultimately terminate in self-motion, indeterministic, random, resulting from an internal principle or impulse, that, if it had any type of cause or mover to move it, externally, would necessarily be determined by the mover, and not random per se. The difference between motion that I call both moved and mover is the presence of a necessary connection between two distinct states, either physical or logical, while idea of the self-motion as such is that it only relates two distinct states by a relation of temporal succession; it is the creation ex niliho, in contradistinction to its counterpart, the ancient rule that "from nothing, nothing comes."
Is it possible to conceive of a third option vis-à-vis motion?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
