The Instigator
ace_of_spades
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
alpha3031
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Unmoved Mover Paradox

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,220 times Debate No: 30414
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

ace_of_spades

Pro

Basically if something is moved in the universe then it was moved by something else and so on, but a series of infinite movers is not possible under the laws of cosmology. So somewhere down the line there has to be a mover that moves things but is not moved by anything (including time and space).

The unmoved movers, if they were anywhere, were said to fill the outer void, beyond the sphere of fixed stars:

"It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self sufficient of lives" From [the fulfilment of the whole heaven] derive the being and life which other things, some more or less articulately but other feebly, enjoy."[13]

" Aristotle, De Caelo

Anyone wanna argue its turtles all the way down? Or just let me hear what you think is at the source of this predicament.
alpha3031

Con

sorry but I'll have to get in to quantum mechanics here. matter is consisted of two types of particle bosons which are constantly moving and fermions which are inertial. bosons such as photons, gluons, pions, W and Z, gravitons and the higgs boson are force carriers, while the fermions are the constituents of everyday matter. a bouncing ball for example is a exchange of gravitons and photons. when the ball falls the ball is moved by its exchanging of gravitons with the earth, this force is called gravity; when it bounces it momentarily exchanges photons and the electrons repel each other by means of EM force
Debate Round No. 1
ace_of_spades

Pro

To respond to the comment muzebreak made:

"I'd take this one, but with the way you phrased it, It's to easy. Matter's natural state is to be in motion, hence light never stopping except through our intervention. But because of gravity's effect on mass, matter is not constantly in motion. An unmoved mover is not required in a universe where motion is the natural state."
I agree with what you say and yes because motion is the natural state of matter, after an initial movement by an unmoved mover futher movements by that mover are not nessessary. Perhaps I should have phrased the queston better. I was not trying to debate if a universe constantly needed an unmoved mover but rather the existence of an unmoved mover to make the initial movement. I had heard of a story of a king who was asked what holds up the earth, to which he responded, "A turtle." When people wanted to know what held up that turtle he told them, "Another turtle." When asked what held up that turtle he yelled, "Its turtles"turtles all the way down." I just wanted to see if anyone would try to debate that a series of infinite movers was plausible.

To respond to alpha3030:
I apologize for not making the question clear.

If you look at Einstein's special relativity, you will know that matter and energy are coupled together, and it is impossible to say whether one appeared before the other. We are in need of a quantum theory of gravity, and if one exists, then gravity force (energy) can be represented by matter particles, as you have explained. It would then make no sense to think that gravity was there before or after matter existed. If gravity existed, matter existed, and if matter existed, then gravity existed. The best current physics theories suggest that three of the four known forces were fused in a single type of particle shortly after the big bang. The fourth one "gravity" probably was fused with them but we don't know for sure because we don't have a sound quantum theory of gravity. Speaking of physics before the big bang is ridiculous because all of our physics (even relativity) is bound within the space-time continuum of our universe. Talking about the concepts of space, time, forces, matter, or mechanics outside this realm counts as philosophy, or at most, "philosophical physics" like string theory, which is why I placed the debate under this category rather than science. The unmoved mover could be considered the big bang, but if was just a mover itself then what could have moved that. Just let me know whatever you think.

To public: All comments welcome.
alpha3031

Con

um... ok, if that's what you mean then the answer is simple, the energy of the big bang was divided into different places and one of the places was kinetic energy.
Debate Round No. 2
ace_of_spades

Pro

ace_of_spades forfeited this round.
alpha3031

Con

alpha3031 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ace_of_spades

Pro

ace_of_spades forfeited this round.
alpha3031

Con

last argument, might as well not argue
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by alpha3031 3 years ago
alpha3031
oh great
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
I'd take this one, but with the way you phrased it, It's to easy. Matter's natural state is to be in motion, hence light never stopping except through our intervention. But because of gravity's effect on mass, matter is not constantly in motion. An unmoved mover is not required in a universe where motion is the natural state.
No votes have been placed for this debate.