Remembering Aristotle's
Metaphysics because it came up in a few discussions I've been having with myself. First the summary, then the questions.
1. Science seeks knowledge
2. Knowledge is of causes
3. Thus, science seeks causes
Question: Are there an infinite or finite amount of causes?
Assume: there are infinite causes
1. If there are infinite causes, then science must have knowledge about an infinite number of things.
2. To know an infinite amount requires an infinite duration to obtain.
3. An infinite duration never comes to be (never ends).
4. To know an infinite amount will never come to be.
5. Hence, science can never know an infinite amount.
6. Science cannot have knowledge. (Since knowledge is of causes)
Assume: there are finite causes
1. Finite knowledge requires finite time.
2. Finite time can be achieved.
3. Finite knowledge can be achieved.
Statement: So if causes are limitless, then we cannot have knowledge, but if causes are limited, then perhaps we can.
Statement 2: The first argument can be used in a similar turn to show that there cannot be an infinite number of causes:
1. Either there are an infinite or a finite number of causes.
2. If infinite, then things would take an infinite duration to come into being.
3. An infinite duration never occurs.
4. Things would never come to be.
5. Things
are.
6. Hence, there are not an infinite number of causes.
7. Ergo, there are a finite number of causes.
8. Therefore, knowledge is possible.
1. If there are a finite number of causes, then there is a 1st cause.
2. If knowledge is of causes, then to know the 1st cause is to know it's cause.
3. Either the 1st cause is self-caused or has a separate cause.
4. To suggest it has a cause outside itself slips back into an infinite regression (never-ending problem), so it cannot be the case.
5. The 1st cause's cause is itself.
6. Therefore, knowledge of the 1st cause is knowledge of the 1st cause.
Statement:
This last conclusion is a tautology (x is x) which is obvious to some but reluctantly not to others. I recently read a Yale academic journal by a graduate student who suggested, much like Kierkagaard I believe, that to ask for knowledge of the 1st cause resulted in contradiction. If the search for possible causes was logically exhaustive then I can see that conclusion, unfortunately they forgot that the 1st cause might be self-caused, that is that it always
is.
Observation:
It would appear that there are many types of causes. We are apt to say things like:
(1) The curvature of the plane is what
causes it to fly so well (2) The statue is heavy
because it's made out of marble
. (3) I visited the Himalayas
because I wanted to see some abominable snowman (4) I
caused the car crash because I hit the gas instead of the brake pedal.
Analysis:
Proposition (1) shows that the shape or ordering of the plane's parts is the reason for it being so aerodynamic. The shape and/or ordering is not the matter of the plane, that is, it is not the metal or plastic, although those might be factors, the claim is that the mere shape of the thing
causes something. What I'm essentially saying is, one can touch matter, but they cannot touch the "order" or "form" of it. This is what Aristotle calls a
formal cause.
Prop. (2) says that the matter itself is what causes the attribute of heaviness in the statue. We call this a
material cause.
Prop. (3) uses cause to mean, the reason for doing a thing; the end; purpose. These are
final causes.
Prop. (4) suggests that something behaves as an agent for something else; the reason for something occurring.
