Free agent is not contingent

[STT]

Yes, the material cause trans forms into the formal cause.

What do you mean?

 

[quaestio45]

What do you mean?

Its exactly what it says. The material is one way, then it becomes another way because it has the potentiality to become the way it ended up becoming.

 

[STT]

Its exactly what it says. The material is one way, then it becomes another way because it has the potentiality to become the way it ended up becoming.

Could you give an example? What you are saying does not make any sense given the definitions of material and formal cause.

 

[quaestio45]

Could you give an example? What you are saying does not make any sense given the definitions of material and formal cause.

A pile of wood has the potentiality of being ash. A man, the efficient cause, lights the wood on fire. The wood then transforms into ash thus actualizing its potentiality. I don’t believe this to be a betrayl of any of the definitions.

 

[Gorgias]

prime matter bears some similarities to what modern philosophy has called a “bare particular”

Bare particular is defined in wiki as

This is starting to feel like an episode of Ancient Aliens – “bears similarities” doesn’t mean that they’re the same thing, so you cannot take the definition of a ‘bare particular’ (or worse yet, of ‘gunk’!) and claim that it’s talking about ‘prime matter’.

Are you suggesting that nothing once it become part of a being is not nothing anymore?

Prime matter is potentiality, not actuality. When it is actualized, it is at that point ‘something’.

 

[STT]

A pile of wood has the potentiality of being ash. A man, the efficient cause, lights the wood on fire. The wood then transforms into ash thus actualizing its potentiality. I don’t believe this to be a betrayl of any of the definitions

This I understand. This is basically change of wood, material cause, to ash by a man, efficient cause. What you were talking was the material cause transformation into the formal cause.

 

[STT]

This is starting to feel like an episode of Ancient Aliens – “bears similarities” doesn’t mean that they’re the same thing, so you cannot take the definition of a ‘bare particular’ (or worse yet, of ‘gunk’!) and claim that it’s talking about ‘prime matter’.

Similar to this or that but not nothing.

Prime matter is potentiality , not actuality . When it is actualized, it is at that point ‘something’.

This is a good picture of what prime matter look likes: What it means to call prime matter “pure potentiality” is that it is capable of taking on any form whatsoever, and thus is completely without any essential properties of its own. It exists eternally, since, if it were capable of being created or destroyed, there would have to be some even lower matter to underlie those changes. Because it is the matter of the elements, which are themselves present in all more complex bodies, it is omnipresent, and underlies not only elemental generation and destruction, but all physical changes.

 

[quaestio45]

This I understand. This is basically change of wood, material cause, to ash by a man, efficient cause.

Exactly

What you were talking was the material cause transformation into the formal cause.

The final form the material took. In this case, the material of wood became the form of ash. Thus, there was a change in form based from potentiality.

What it means to call prime matter “pure potentiality” is that it is capable of taking on any form whatsoever, and thus is completely without any essential properties of its own.

Isn’t existence something to which is the most essential property of a thing? If it posses existence, it therefore isn’t pure potentiality as it is actualized in at least one manner, in at least one property, that being existence. As such, pure potentiality must be nonbeing. Now, something which is almost pure potentiality yet has an actuality of existence is something similar to the gunk you speak of. But thats most certainly different then pure potentiality.

It exists eternally, since, if it were capable of being created or destroyed, there would have to be some even lower matter to underlie those changes.

Aristotle derived prime matter from an inability to explain how something can be fundementally transformed from one thing to another. Thus, he saw a transition matter which bears no properties as a solution, thus prime matter. But I don’t believe he saw the logical conclusion of such an idea. To say it holds no properties simply can’t be true simultaneously with the idea that its a particle type of entity. After all that would be falling into an actual existent category, which betrays pure potency. Further, I agree prime matter can’t be created, but thats because saying that nonbeing can be created is like saying I filled a pool with nothing. No, what happened was either the pool was at first filled with nothing or I emptied it, not that I filled it with nothing. In that same way, I think its better to say something was destroyed rather than say nothing was created.

 

[STT]

The final form the material took. In this case, the material of wood became the form of ash. Thus, there was a change in form based from potentiality.

This is basically change in form. It is not transformation of material cause into formal cause.

Isn’t existence something to which is the most essential property of a thing? If it posses existence, it therefore isn’t pure potentiality as it is actualized in at least one manner, in at least one property, that being existence. As such, pure potentiality must be nonbeing. Now, something which is almost pure potentiality yet has an actuality of existence is something similar to the gunk you speak of. But thats most certainly different then pure potentiality.

First I have to say that I don’t understand how something with some properties could be made from something which does not have any property, including nothing. For what regard whether existence is a property or not I have to say it is not since the properties are set of things which define a thing which exists.

Aristotle derived prime matter from an inability to explain how something can be fundementally transformed from one thing to another. Thus, he saw a transition matter which bears no properties as a solution, thus prime matter. But I don’t believe he saw the logical conclusion of such an idea. To say it holds no properties simply can’t be true simultaneously with the idea that its a particle type of entity. After all that would be falling into an actual existent category, which betrays pure potency. Further, I agree prime matter can’t be created, but thats because saying that nonbeing can be created is like saying I filled a pool with nothing. No, what happened was either the pool was at first filled with nothing or I emptied it, not that I filled it with nothing. In that same way, I think its better to say something was destroyed rather than say nothing was created.

I don’t think that hylomorphic dualism is correct since you can have something with properties which is made of something which does not have any property.

 

[quaestio45]

This is basically change in form. It is not transformation of material cause into formal cause.

Please examin the root of the word formal cause. Formal cause is simply the form by which material takes after a change.

First I have to say that I don’t understand how something with some properties could be made from something which does not have any property, including nothing.

Something is not made from nothing. You’re misunderstanding what I am fundementally attempting to communicate, which is that if there is potentiality there can be an actualization of potentiality. As such, nothing can be transformed into something because nothing is simply pure potentiality. No one is claiming that nothing is the building blocks of existence. Instead, it is claimed that nothing was created into something.

For what regard whether existence is a property or not I have to say it is not since the properties are set of things which define a thing which exists.

So you can remove existence from properties, yes? But existence in and of itself without properties is ubsurd, for properties are themselves existences. They are not simply abstractions. Further, that which doesn’t exist yet could is most definitely seen as a potentiality, for it does not have something (existence) yet could have that something (existence). This of course falls right into the idea of potentiality however. Thus, existence cannot be excluded from the act/potency dualism.

I don’t think that hylomorphic dualism is correct since you can have something with properties which is made of something which does not have any property.

In the same way that nothing can make up something?

 

[STT]

Please examin the root of the word form al cause. Formal cause is simply the form by which material takes after a change.

That I know.

Something is not made from nothing. You’re misunderstanding what I am fundementally attempting to communicate, which is that if there is potentiality there can be an actualization of potentiality. As such, nothing can be transformed into something because nothing is simply pure potentiality. No one is claiming that nothing is the building blocks of existence. Instead, it is claimed that nothing was created into something.

I think we have to make a distinction between creation and making. I think the prime matter can be used to make something instead you create something out of nothing.

So you can remove existence from properties, yes? But existence in and of itself without properties is ubsurd, for properties are themselves existences.

No, it is not absurd. Something which exists without property does not have the ability to interact with the rest of the world though. Aristotle believed in such a thing as the prime matter which I think he was wrong.

They are not simply abstractions. Further, that which doesn’t exist yet could is most definitely seen as a potentiality, for it does not have something (existence) yet could have that something (existence). This of course falls right into the idea of potentiality however. Thus, existence cannot be excluded from the act/potency dualism.

I think Aristotle was thinking of making instead of creating otherwise he would mention nothing instead of prime matter. Needless to say that I don’t think that something with properties can be made from something without properties.

In the same way that nothing can make up something?

I already mention the difference between creating and making.

 

[quaestio45]

I think we have to make a distinction between creation and making.

Sure, there is a distinction. To create is specifically to bring rise to something from nothing, whilst making presupposes actual material. However, these both fall under the category of change, and change is always the reduction of potency to act and act to potency. Now, if nonbeing is pure potency, and being id an act, then you have the elements for change there, for nonbeing maybe reduced to being.

No, it is not absurd.

You don’t address the reason I think its upsurd, which is because properties are existences, thus you cannot remove property without some existence of an entity. If you remove all properties you remove all existence.

Aristotle believed in such a thing as the prime matter which I think he was wrong.

If I’m not mistaken, I don’t think he thought prime matter was real, but he thought of it as a logical necessity for change.

 

[STT]

Sure, there is a distinction. To create is specifically to bring rise to something from nothing, whilst making presupposes actual material. However, these both fall under the category of change, and change is always the reduction of potency to act and act to potency. Now, if nonbeing is pure potency, and being id an act, then you have the elements for change there, for nonbeing maybe reduced to being.

The problem resolve if you make distinction between making and creating since prime matter is pure potentiality when you are making something whereas nothing is pure potentiality when we are talking of creating.

You don’t address the reason I think its upsurd, which is because properties are existences, thus you cannot remove property without some existence of an entity. If you remove all properties you remove all existence.

Something which exist and has no property simply does not interact with the rest of the world, so it is useless. You cannot even prove empirically that it exists.

If I’m not mistaken, I don’t think he thought prime matter was real, but he thought of it as a logical necessity for change.

Really?

 

[quaestio45]

The problem resolve if you make distinction between making and creating since prime matter is pure potentiality when you are making something whereas nothing is pure potentiality when we are talking of creating.

Well we need to agree whether or not pure potentiality can constitute as an existent entity or if it must be nonexistence in order to have this resolved. If it the former than it is making; if its the latter, its creating.

Something which exist and has no property simply does not interact with the rest of the world, so it is useless. You cannot even prove empirically that it exists.

This doesn’t seem in any way distinct from simple nonexistence to me. I guess at this point I’d have to ask the question of what exactly makes prime mater ‘exist’? Why can’t we just say it is nonexistence?

Really?

That’s what I remember from my introduction to Aristotle. He needed it as an explanation for why one thing can become something completely different. He reasoned that it must be that matter is most fundementally pure potentiality. He thought, however, that you can never get the matter to such state of pure potentiality as he assumed it to be impossible. Now I only think he was right to some degree, in that the building blocks of reality are so full of potentiality that it makes up all actual material, but I would never say its pure potentiality.

 

[STT]

This doesn’t seem in any way distinct from simple nonexistence to me. I guess at this point I’d have to ask the question of what exactly makes prime mater ‘exist’? Why can’t we just say it is nonexistence?

Prime matter is different from nothing because it exists. It is similar to nothing because it cannot affect anything and cannot be affected.

 

[quaestio45]

Prime matter is different from nothing because it exists.

Yes, but what exactly does ‘exist’ mean to you? What denotes existence?

 

[STT]

Yes, but what exactly does ‘exist’ mean to you? What denotes existence?

it means and denotes to be.

 

[quaestio45]

it means and denotes to be.

So can we agree it has to be more than simple possibity or potential? For example, I potentially and possibly could have a son right now, but does that automatically mean I do? No, that possibility and potential must be actualized, yes?

 

[STT]

So can we agree it has to be more than simple possibity or potential?

Yes, the amount of possibility is possibly infinite.

For example, I potentially and possibly could have a son right now, but does that automatically mean I do?

Yes.

No, that possibility and potential must be actualized , yes?

The possibility could be actualized.

 

[quaestio45]

Yes, the amount of possibility is possibly infinite.

Nice.

Yes.

Cool

The possibility could be actualized.

Of course, I agree. Now, I assume thus we both think that there had to be an actualized element in any given entity for it to be existent in more than just a conceptual manner. As such, something which is nothing but potentiality and not actuality cannot be existent. Thus, prime matter, being pure potentiality, cannot be existent.