Causality as Given in Observation

[Grames]

Does the primacy of existence then imply that the natural state of existence is inert?

No. As far as we know everything is always acting and interacting in one way or another.

It's my understanding that motion isn't a property of matter... is this correct??

That is not correct. Motion cannot exist apart from some matter having that attribute. Action cannot exist apart from what exists and acts. That is what "being comes before acting" means.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

No,it wouldn't be perpetual motion, because that term is delimited to a specific machine, let's say, that cannot continue in motion without some input of new energy (primarily due to friction). This concept does not apply to the universe as a whole. Motion (or momentum) is conserved -- that is, while one thing is slowing down the lost energy is being transferred to something else. So, it is not as if you can have a universe with all of the entities slowing down at once because where would all that energy go? What would it be transferred to? If you have a roller skate and push it, it will continue to roll until friction stops it, but that motion is not lost, it was transferred into the concrete sidewalk in the form of heat (the molecules of the concrete get more agitated). Similarly, if, due to the interaction, of say, the Earth and the Moon, the Moon began to slow down, either the Earth would have to speed up or the energy would have to go somewhere else and that thing would speed up. The universe as a whole was never at rest and as a whole will never be at rest, if one is talking about things inside the universe being in motion relative to one another.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

No,it wouldn't be perpetual motion, because that term is delimited to a specific machine, let's say, that cannot continue in motion without some input of new energy (primarily due to friction). This concept does not apply to the universe as a whole. Motion (or momentum) is conserved -- that is, while one thing is slowing down the lost energy is being transferred to something else. So, it is not as if you can have a universe with all of the entities slowing down at once because where would all that energy go? What would it be transferred to? If you have a roller skate and push it, it will continue to roll until friction stops it, but that motion is not lost, it was transferred into the concrete sidewalk in the form of heat (the molecules of the concrete get more agitated). Similarly, if, due to the interaction, of say, the Earth and the Moon, the Moon began to slow down, either the Earth would have to speed up or the energy would have to go somewhere else and that thing would speed up. The universe as a whole was never at rest and as a whole will never be at rest, if one is talking about things inside the universe being in motion relative to one another.

[Devil's Advocate]

Thank you all for responding. I'm trying to draw off your comments as a group to ask the following:

So motion is a property of matter, i.e. a ball rolls because its nature is to roll, is this correct?

Is a ball at rest an illusion then, or is its apparent inactivity non-existent in a universe where "we know everything is always acting and interacting in one way or another"?

Does an expanding universe imply that matter (or something) is contracting inversely?

[Grames]

A ball has some attributes that are entirely intrinsic and other attributes that are relative to other existents. One of the ways in which even a motionless ball is always acting and interacting is by gravitationally attracting every other thing in the universe and being attracted by them. Scientists have inferred an intrinsic attribute of matter called mass from the relative attribute which is the attractive force measured between two bodies with mass. The weight you feel when holding a ball in your hand is not entirely due to the ball's intrinsic attribute of mass but also due to the planet Earth's mass which attracts it. It is further known that the distance between the ball and Earth is factor that changes the observed weight. The conclusion from this is that relationships are real and must be counted among the existents (things that exist) even while they are not 'things in themselves' . A ball at rest is not an illusion, it is actually at rest relative to some observer even while some other observer measures the ball (and first observer) as in motion.

Intrinsic and relative attributes affect our understanding the concept of identity. A ball has some attributes that are entirely intrinsic and other attributes that are relative to other existents, but all of the attributes constitute a particular ball's identity. As Aristotle correctly asserted only particulars exist. There are no free-floating abstractions or 'types of things' in existence. Therefore the habit of mind of considering only the intrinsic attributes or 'things in themselves' as the whole of identity is an error because it leads to regarding relations as independent things in themselves, as heat was once theorized to be a substance called phlogiston, and as you were left considering causality affecting motion apart from things that move.

An expanding universe does not imply anything is contracting. See the wikipedia article Metric expansion of space

[Devil's Advocate]

I'll have to reflect on this information a bit more, but I really appreciate what's been offered so far. I've gone back to the beginning twice to try to understand these ideas. For my own clarity, I gather that Objectivism considers causality to be the behavior of being, and that a first (or primary) cause isn't valid because there could never have been a moment of being where no behavior existed...

... at least that's what I think is being expressed here. Thanks for your efforts to enlighten me.

[Devil's Advocate]

Existence appears to be sustained in motion, but science dismisses perpetual motion ~ re-posted

No,it wouldn't be perpetual motion, because that term is delimited to a specific machine, let's say, that cannot continue in motion without some input of new energy (primarily due to friction). This concept does not apply to the universe as a whole. Motion (or momentum) is conserved -- that is, while one thing is slowing down the lost energy is being transferred to something else. So, it is not as if you can have a universe with all of the entities slowing down at once because where would all that energy go? What would it be transferred to? If you have a roller skate and push it, it will continue to roll until friction stops it, but that motion is not lost, it was transferred into the concrete sidewalk in the form of heat (the molecules of the concrete get more agitated). Similarly, if, due to the interaction, of say, the Earth and the Moon, the Moon began to slow down, either the Earth would have to speed up or the energy would have to go somewhere else and that thing would speed up. The universe as a whole was never at rest and as a whole will never be at rest, if one is talking about things inside the universe being in motion relative to one another.

I wanted to be sure I understood your comment... Are you saying the universe cannot be viewed as a closed system (mechanism) of perpetual motion because it would require the input of new energy, or that the universe is slowing down and there's no evidence where the energy is being transferred? What's confusing to me is the reference in your 1st sentence, "that cannot continue in motion without some input of new energy", which appears to me at odds with the definition of 'perpetual motion' as, "the motion of an ideal mechanism that could continue to operate indefinitely without drawing upon an external source of energy" ~ Merriam-Webster

Perhaps I'm just missing something more obvious in your last comment??

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Yes, you insist on applying a *delimited concept* to the universe as a whole. The reason the roller skate slows down above is due to friction with the sidewalk and the fact that the sidewalk takes up some of the energy of the skate.This cannot happen to the universe as a whole as it is not "rubbing" against anything. We do not live inside a box and the galaxies et al rub against the sides of the box and will thus slow down. Ain't happening and never will happen, because that is not the nature of the universe. Again, within the universe, as one thing slows down something else speeds up.There is no way to stop everything.

[Devil's Advocate]

So your objection to applying a "delimited concept" (perpetual motion) to the universe as a whole, is that the universe (by definition) isn't inputing or outputing energy, unless I'm totally missing it...

...but is the definition of 'perpetual motion' delimited to open-ended systems, as opposed to self-sustaining systems? When I Google "definition perpetual motion" I get:

per·pet·u·al mo·tion

Noun:

• A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing.
  
  
• The motion of a hypothetical machine that, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear.
  

Given there is no force external to the universe, how does an eternally active universe not meet the definition? If I'm wearing your patience, I'll let it go. I just can't seem to grasp the Objectivist view on this.

[Grames]

So your objection to applying a "delimited concept" (perpetual motion) to the universe as a whole, is that the universe (by definition) isn't inputing or outputing energy, unless I'm totally missing it...

...but is the definition of 'perpetual motion' delimited to open-ended systems, as opposed to self-sustaining systems? When I Google "definition perpetual motion" I get:

per·pet·u·al mo·tion

Noun:

• A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing.
  
  
• The motion of a hypothetical machine that, once activated, would run forever unless subject to an external force or to wear.
  

Given there is no force external to the universe, how does an eternally active universe not meet the definition? If I'm wearing your patience, I'll let it go. I just can't seem to grasp the Objectivist view on this.

Thomas has a background in physics and assumed you meant perpetual motion machine of the kind that are impossible due to the violation of the first law of thermodynamics (which is the conservation of energy). The Universe as a whole is closed, so considered as a perpetual motion machine that cannot lose energy then your comparison would be correct if there were nothing else to know about the subject. But wait, there is more to know! There are perpetual motion machines of the first kind and second kind, explained at Wikipedia. The Universe has the property called entropy which is always increasing (and is possibly related to the expansion of the Universe) so it will run down and stop changing eventually, so it will not be in perpetual motion. It won't stop existing though because that would violate the first law about the conservation of energy.

None of this discussion about perpetual motion machines is particularly Objectivist or even in the field of metaphysics, it is standard physics.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

There are actually a lot of unchecked premises behind the idea that the universe is expanding, especially since non-Big Bang theorists can find other explanations for the so-called effects of the post Big Bang era. But if one could show that it was the internal energy of the universe that was leading to the expansion, then in a sense the energy of the universe could be used up or so defused that there would not be energetic areas within the universe (no hot spots). But no one has been able to show that and according to the latest theories that even claim that, it would be something like 10 trillion years before the universe expanded so much that "everything would stop". So, if you think they can predict out 10 trillion years, then have at it.

The point is that even for entropy, one must be losing energy somewhere for the machinery to slow down and to stop, or the energy must become so dispersed that there is no longer any place for high energy to move to low energy areas. And like I said, maybe after 10 trillion years, so I'm not going to take them at their word for that one.

One reason I am not going to take their word at that is the fact that given our current advanced knowledge about how the solar system began and how it behaves using the latest mathematical models, they can't even predict other solar systems, which are turning out to be very strange according to our models. I'm not faulting scientists for this lack of knowledge, considering they have only had one solar system to study over the past 300 years, but it just goes to show that it's reality first, not mathematical models first.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[Devil's Advocate]

"Once spun up, objects in the vacuum of space—stars, black holes, planets, moons, spin-stabilized satellites, etc.—continue spinning almost indefinitely with no further energy input." ~ perpetual motion machines of the first kind and second kind

"Almost indefinitely" but not perpetually... still, pretty darn close. Given our current level of knowledge, an eternally (if not perpetually) active universe seems preferable to me, to one that's eventually so strung out that everything grinds to a halt.

"... it just goes to show that it's reality first, not mathematical models first." ~ Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

I like that; trust but verify. Thanks again for some terrific information. I'm kinda like that annoying kid who keeps asking why, so I'll give it a rest for now.