Could a formless entity cause any changes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bahman

Guest
First what is form? Form is configuration of an entity.
Second what is changes? Changes is reconfiguration of an entity.
Third what can cause changes? What cause changes has to have a form since it has to manifest itself differently to the entity which is the subject of change.

Hence a formless entity cannot cause any changes.
 
First what is form? Form is configuration of an entity.
Second what is changes? Changes is reconfiguration of an entity.
Third what can cause changes? What cause changes has to have a form since it has to manifest itself differently to the entity which is the subject of change.

Hence a formless entity cannot cause any changes.
What “formless entity” did you have in mind? Does any such entity exist? If not, why is the OP Topic a vaild question?
 
What does the bolded part mean?
It means that what cause changes has to appear differently to entity which has a form. For example consider an entity which has a spatial form. What causes changes should have spatial form as well hence it could cause deformation or changes.
 
What “formless entity” did you have in mind? Does any such entity exist? If not, why is the OP Topic a vaild question?
Example could be soul, God and any simple thing which is formless.
 
It means that what cause changes has to appear differently to entity which has a form.
You’ve changed “manifest” to “appear”. That has not really made it clearer.

For example, I can change a stone; say that I hit it with a hammer and it crumbles to dust. (The hammer is an “instrumental cause,” here.) How did I appear or manifest to the stone?
For example consider an entity which has a spatial form. What causes changes should have spatial form as well hence it could cause deformation or changes.
You’re asserting that having the same sort of form is a necessary condition for causing changes. But that’s the whole point of your argument, that a thing without a form can’t change something with a form. So it will require more than assertion to support it, if you are to avoid circularity.
Example could be soul, God and any simple thing which is formless.
The soul is a form, at least on hylemorphic dualism.

God can analogously be said to be a form (or more specifically “Form Itself” or “the limit case form”).
 
If something exists, it has form, period. The form may not be physical, but then “having form” isn’t dependent on being physical. However, I will limit my answer to “If it doesn’t have physical form, is it able to affect change” (If this isn’t what you intended by your question, then please elaborate)

Case in point: wind. Wind has no physical form, but it is able to move dust. Despite being physically formless, wind is able to shape the environment around it.

Another example: Gravity. Gravity itself has no form, and yet it exerts a massive force on each of us every day.
 
Wow! Bahman can keep this thread going for years! 😃

Look at all the definitions to pick from and confuse 👍.
form [fawrm]
noun
1.
external appearance of a clearly defined area, as distinguished from color or material; configuration: a triangular form.
2.
the shape of a thing or person.
3.
a body, especially that of a human being.
4.
a dummy having the same measurements as a human body, used for fitting or displaying clothing: a dressmaker’s form.
5.
something that gives or determines shape; a mold.
6.
a particular condition, character, or mode in which something appears: water in the form of ice.
7.
the manner or style of arranging and coordinating parts for a pleasing or effective result, as in literary or musical composition: a unique form for the novel.
8.
Fine Arts.
a.
the organization, placement, or relationship of basic elements, as lines and colors in a painting or volumes and voids in a sculpture, so as to produce a coherent image; the formal structure of a work of art.
b.
three-dimensional quality or volume, as of a represented object or anatomical part.
c.
an object, person, or part of the human body or the appearance of any of these, especially as seen in nature: His work is characterized by the radical distortion of the human form.
9.
any assemblage of things of a similar kind constituting a component of a group, especially of a zoological group.
10.
Crystallography . the combination of all the like faces possible on a crystal of given symmetry.
11.
due or proper shape; orderly arrangement of parts; good order.
12.
Philosophy .
a.
the structure, pattern, organization, or essential nature of anything.
b.
structure or pattern as distinguished from matter.
c.
( initial capital letter ) Platonism. idea ( def 7c ) .
d.
Aristotelianism. that which places a thing in its particular species or kind.
13.
Logic. the abstract relations of terms in a proposition, and of propositions to one another.
14.
a set, prescribed, or customary order or method of doing something.
15.
a set order of words, as for use in religious ritual or in a legal document: a form for initiating new members.
16.
a document with blank spaces to be filled in with particulars before it is executed: a tax form.
17.
a typical document to be used as a guide in framing others for like cases: a form for a deed.
18.
a conventional method of procedure or behavior: society’s forms.
19.
a formality or ceremony, often with implication of absence of real meaning: to go through the outward forms of a religious wedding.
20.
procedure according to a set order or method.
21.
conformity to the usages of society; formality; ceremony: the elaborate forms prevalent in the courts of renaissance kings.
22.
procedure or conduct, as judged by social standards: Such behavior is very bad form. Good form demands that we go.
23.
manner or method of performing something; technique: The violin soloist displayed tremendous form.
24.
physical condition or fitness, as for performing: a tennis player in peak form.
25.
Grammar .
a.
a word, part of a word, or group of words forming a construction that recurs in various contexts in a language with relatively constant meaning. Compare linguistic form.
b.
a particular shape of such a form that occurs in more than one shape. In I’m, 'm is a form of am.
c.
a word with a particular inflectional ending or other modification. Goes is a form of go.
26.
Linguistics . the shape or pattern of a word or other construction (distinguished from substance ).
27.
Building Trades. temporary boarding or sheeting of plywood or metal for giving a desired shape to poured concrete, rammed earth, etc.
28.
a grade or class of pupils in a British secondary school or in certain U.S. private schools: boys in the fourth form.
29.
British . a bench or long seat.
30.
Also, British, forme. Printing. an assemblage of types, leads, etc., secured in a chase to print from.
 
First what is form? Form is configuration of an entity.
Second what is changes? Changes is reconfiguration of an entity.
Third what can cause changes? What cause changes has to have a form since it has to manifest itself differently to the entity which is the subject of change.

Hence a formless entity cannot cause any changes.
You have to start with nature. Everything in the world that exists has a nature. That is a self-evident fact, a basic assumption of philosophy and science. However, science looks on the physical properties of a thing as the nature of a thing. So it tends to identify a substance’s form with its external appearance.

Philosophy, on the other hand, sees nature as the source of all that is physical, all that is characteristic of a substance’s behavior.

Aristotle identified two principles of a substance’s nature. Its matter and its form. Matter was seen as the potency principle of a nature and form was seen as the actualizing principle of a nature. Form was seen as that which identified a substance according to genus, species, and difference, while matter is what received and limited form to particular individuals.

In order to cause a change in an individual the cause had to have the power to cause the change, it did not necessarily have to have the same form.

For example, fire or heat can cause wood to turn to charcoal. But fire and heat are not charcoal. They merely have the power to cause a new form to exist in the matter of the wood.

In the same way, God, who possesses infinite power over all things, can create, move, govern, and order all things, by his power, although he is has no form as such. He simply Is. And that which is Pure Existence, is beyond every genus and species and differance. As such, he has power over all, for all other extants have an existence which is limited by their form and their matter. And since their existence is limited, they must get it from Him.

Linus2nd
 
You’ve changed “manifest” to “appear”. That has not really made it clearer.

For example, I can change a stone; say that I hit it with a hammer and it crumbles to dust. (The hammer is an “instrumental cause,” here.) How did I appear or manifest to the stone?
That is in fact hammer which manifest itself as a formed entity to change the form of stone and you manifest yourself as a formed entity to change the form of hammer.
You’re asserting that having the same sort of form is a necessary condition for causing changes. But that’s the whole point of your argument, that a thing without a form can’t change something with a form. So it will require more than assertion to support it, if you are to avoid circularity.
That is correct that having a form is a necessary condition to cause any change. The sufficient condition is that the entity that causes changes has to manifest itself as a entity that exist to another entity as it happen in example of hammer and stone.

I think this is the correct argument now:

First what is form? Form is configuration of an entity.
Second what is changes? Changes is reconfiguration of an entity.
Third what can cause changes? What cause changes has to have a form and has to have the ability to manifest itself as an entity that exist to the entity which is the subject of change. The latter quality, namely existence, should be mediated with something virtual so called force.
The soul is a form, at least on hylemorphic dualism.

God can analogously be said to be a form (or more specifically “Form Itself” or “the limit case form”).
That is correct but the meaning of form is different from what I use here. Moreover God doesn’t have any body so I don’t understand how hylemorphic dualism could apply to God. I also have problem with hylemorphic dualism since it cannot resolve the problem of immortality of soul since the form is gone upon death hence soul.
 
If something exists, it has form, period. The form may not be physical, but then “having form” isn’t dependent on being physical. However, I will limit my answer to “If it doesn’t have physical form, is it able to affect change” (If this isn’t what you intended by your question, then please elaborate)

Case in point: wind. Wind has no physical form, but it is able to move dust. Despite being physically formless, wind is able to shape the environment around it.

Another example: Gravity. Gravity itself has no form, and yet it exerts a massive force on each of us every day.
Wind has a physical form as you can imagine it as a nonuniform gas that moves. A uniform gas that moves also has a form which is the movement.

Gravity is caused by mass and inform another mass exist. It is a virtual being so called gravity force. It is virtual since it owes its existence to mass.
 
You have to start with nature. Everything in the world that exists has a nature. That is a self-evident fact, a basic assumption of philosophy and science. However, science looks on the physical properties of a thing as the nature of a thing. So it tends to identify a substance’s form with its external appearance.

Philosophy, on the other hand, sees nature as the source of all that is physical, all that is characteristic of a substance’s behavior.
That is correct. I change the argument slightly to elaborate on the concept of nature as well, namely:Third what can cause changes? What cause changes has to have a form and has to have the ability to manifest itself as an entity that exist to the entity which is the subject of change. The latter quality, namely existence, should be mediated with something virtual so called force.
Aristotle identified two principles of a substance’s nature. Its matter and its form. Matter was seen as the potency principle of a nature and form was seen as the actualizing principle of a nature. Form was seen as that which identified a substance according to genus, species, and difference, while matter is what received and limited form to particular individuals.
They are matter, form and force which the latter one owes its existence to existence of entity since the necessary and sufficient condition for existence of an entity is the experience actualization of the entity hence we need forces.
In order to cause a change in an individual the cause had to have the power to cause the change, it did not necessarily have to have the same form.
That is force.
For example, fire or heat can cause wood to turn to charcoal. But fire and heat are not charcoal. They merely have the power to cause a new form to exist in the matter of the wood.
Fire is force.
In the same way, God, who possesses infinite power over all things, can create, move, govern, and order all things, by his power, although he is has no form as such. He simply Is. And that which is Pure Existence, is beyond every genus and species and differance. As such, he has power over all, for all other extants have an existence which is limited by their form and their matter. And since their existence is limited, they must get it from Him.
Linus2nd
Do you want to conclude that God is force/
 
That is correct. I change the argument slightly to elaborate on the concept of nature as well, namely:Third what can cause changes? What cause changes has to have a form and has to have the ability to manifest itself as an entity that exist to the entity which is the subject of change. The latter quality, namely existence, should be mediated with something virtual so called force.
There is nothing " virtual " about the action of a cause, whether a natural cause or the direct causality of God. A natural cause does not necessarily have to " manifest " itself. Although every cause does have to exist. " Force " is not virtual, it is real.
They are matter, form and force which the latter one owes its existence to existence of entity since the necessary and sufficient condition for existence of an entity is the experience actualization of the entity hence we need forces.
Whatever " forces " a natural cause has is real and flows from its form or nature. It is not separate from its nature. So every natural substance is composed of matter and form which exist in a single unit we call a thing, a substance, of a being. The exception would be spiritual beings like the human soul, angels. and God. Souls and angels are spirits which have limited existence. God is a Spirit which is Existence, Unlimited and the csause of the existence of all other beings which exist.

That is force.

Fire is force.

Do you want to conclude that God is force/

Natural causes, which Aristotle calls secondary causes, apply some kind or force. But the First Cause, God, operates through Will. So God is not a " force. " Remember, God is a Spirit, which has no matter. And a soul is a spirit also. When it causes the operations of the body, it operates by a power which is not a " force " as science understands the meaning of the word. It operates through its nature. But much of its operations occur unconsciously while the intellect is doing other things. God’s action could be called " force " only in an anological way - by comparison. God operates through Intellect and Will only.

Linus2nd
 
From Bahman:
What cause changes has to have a form …
A gamma ray burst can destroy a planet hundreds of light years away,
which I would consider a change,
but in no way can you say gamma rays moving through space has a form.

So this meaningless and pointless thread’s question has been answered. 😃
Time to close it down. 🙂
 
There is nothing " virtual " about the action of a cause, whether a natural cause or the direct causality of God. A natural cause does not necessarily have to " manifest " itself. Although every cause does have to exist. " Force " is not virtual, it is real.
Forces are virtual/temporary since their duty is just to inform two entities that they exist.
Whatever " forces " a natural cause has is real and flows from its form or nature. It is not separate from its nature. So every natural substance is composed of matter and form which exist in a single unit we call a thing, a substance, of a being. The exception would be spiritual beings like the human soul, angels. and God. Souls and angels are spirits which have limited existence. God is a Spirit which is Existence, Unlimited and the csause of the existence of all other beings which exist.
There are a few problems here:
  1. Two things must have the same nature to interact with each other, in another word one cause a change in another one and vice versa, hence God could only cause a change on something which has the same nature as God. The same applies to soul and angel. Unless otherwise you have to accept a hierarchy of being one can affect and cannot be affected. I remember that I have a discussion about hierarchy of mind which I have never been able to convince you.
  2. Is God, soul and angels are formless? If yes they cannot cause anything regardless of what nature they have.
Natural causes, which Aristotle calls secondary causes, apply some kind or force. But the First Cause, God, operates through Will. So God is not a " force. " Remember, God is a Spirit, which has no matter. And a soul is a spirit also. When it causes the operations of the body, it operates by a power which is not a " force " as science understands the meaning of the word. It operates through its nature. But much of its operations occur unconsciously while the intellect is doing other things. God’s action could be called " force " only in an anological way - by comparison. God operates through Intellect and Will only.
Linus2nd
How God could have intellect if it is formless? It could be formless from our perspective but not from itself since God’s mind contains thoughts and thoughts have form from a person perspective which is self-aware.
 
From Bahman:

A gamma ray burst can destroy a planet hundreds of light years away,
which I would consider a change,
but in no way can you say gamma rays moving through space has a form.

So this meaningless and pointless thread’s question has been answered. 😃
Time to close it down. 🙂
Have you ever imagine yourself on a single photon to see how existence look like? You travel none and you experience no time hence your existence is virtual. 😃 You should read some special relativity to understand what I mean. 😉
 
To confuse people,
keep a useless thread going forever,
waste everybody’s time,
and divert attention from things of God,
change the topic with each post. 😃

Example:
Have you ever imagine yourself on a single photon to see how existence look like? You travel none and you experience no time hence your existence is virtual. You should read some special relativity to understand what I mean.
 
To confuse people,
keep a useless thread going forever,
waste everybody’s time,
and divert attention from things of God,
change the topic with each post. 😃
Example:
I am going to ignore your post from now on unless you put some effort to understand. 😃
That was you who brought the example of gamma ray, weren’t you? And I gave my answer which you apparently either ignore or didn’t understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top