Free agent is not contingent

[rossum]

Not so. A description of him as ‘creator’ is contingent on the existence of the creation, but not on the creator as such.

I disagree. A “potential creator” or a “creator-to-be” fine. You cannot be a creator of universes if you have not created any universes.

Two strangers are talking at a party:

“What do you do?”

“I’m a creator.”

“So, what do you create?”

“I create … universes.”

“Wow! How many universes have you created?”

“Erm … well …” he shuffles his feet and looks embarrassed, “none actually.”

“Oh my, is that the time. Sorry, I have to rush.”

If there is no creation then there can be no creator, and vice versa. The two are mutually conditioning. You cannot be a film director if you have never directed a film.

 

[quaestio45]

What do you mean with necessary? Water is necessary for human yet it is contingent.

When I mean necessary, I mean that something cannot not be, and thus, always must be. In the case of the water analogy, water can certainly not be (its existence may be other, or not at all), but our dependence on water cannot not be (we must always rely on water). Therefore water is necessary for our sustained existence.

 

[STT]

The content of the Architect’s mind is structured. How do you get from that to the content of the building’s mind being structured? A building does not have a mind, yet a building can be created.

Can God create stars? Do stars have minds?

Can an omnipotent creator create an unstructured part of creation? Of course it can, it is omnipotent.

You need to think through your argument more carefully.

We have minds which each is an irreducible thing. We decide by our minds. Our minds, however, have content. By content, I mean the material at which mind can experience and act upon, like your brain. Brain cannot decide because it has parts and each parts follow laws of nature deterministically.

 

[STT]

When I mean necessary, I mean that something cannot not be, and thus, always must be. In the case of the water analogy, water can certainly not be (its existence may be other, or not at all), but our dependence on water cannot not be (we must always rely on water). Therefore water is necessary for our sustained existence.

I agree. What is next? Are you saying that something that cannot not be is not contingent? The universe as we discussed it in another thread is a must be yet it is contingent.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

OK, then: how do you define ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’, in a philosophical context?

Contingent: Its existence is due to others.
Necessary: It is required.

Close. You got ‘contingent’ correct. ‘Necessary’ would be “its existence is not due to others.”

 

[STT]

Close. You got ‘contingent’ correct. ‘Necessary’ would be “its existence is not due to others.”

I can agree with that definition for necessary. What is next?

 

[quaestio45]

I agree. What is next? Are you saying that something that cannot not be is not contingent? The universe as we discussed it in another thread is a must be yet it is contingent.

Yes, the universe indeed must be because it exists, but as I said in that thread, I don’t think there is sufficient reason for us to believe that the universe exists necessarily on the basis of its own essence precisely because it is contingent. For what is contingent needs something ontologically prior to it to explain why it is the way it is (whether it be a distinction between essence and existence, or perhaps why something exists contingently at all).

 

[STT]

Yes, the universe indeed must be because it exists, but as I said in that thread, I don’t think there is sufficient reason for us to believe that the universe exists necessarily on the basis of its own essence precisely because it is contingent.

How do you know that universe does not exist based on its own essence?

For what is contingent needs something ontologically prior to it to explain why it is the way it is

I agree with this statement.

 

[quaestio45]

How do you know that universe does not exist based on its own essence?

Because nothing can be both contingent and necessary (in any regard) simultaneously. This is because (were I to invoke Aristotelian motion once more) to exist at all is to be in some state of actuality. Now, any contingent being must be one which is finite, and thus not total actuality, but rather a composite of act and potency. If such were to be the case, they may be reduced from any potentiality to actuality, and vise versa. That being the case, however, it is logically possible that a being may be completely reduced from any actuality to no actuality at all, and thus total potency. As such, no finite being, and as an extent, contingent being may be necessary in existence.

Infinite beings, and as an extent, noncontingent beings cannot be reduced to any state of potentiality, however. This is because all actions which lead to a reduction of potentiality to actuality (and vice versa) are, by necessity, brought about by an efficient cause of some sort of actuality. A being of pure, complete actuality, however, already encompass whatever actuality is being used to reduce their actuality. As such, it can have no effect on them (in the same way that adding the number five to infinity adds nothing to infinity; nor if you subtracted five from it). Thus, a being of pure act cannot be reduced to any level of potency.

 

[STT]

Because nothing can be both contingent and necessary (in any regard) simultaneously. This is because (were I to invoke Aristotelian motion once more) to exist at all is to be in some state of actuality. Now, any contingent being must be one which is finite, and thus not total actuality, but rather a composite of act and potency. If such were to be the case, they may be reduced from any potentiality to actuality, and vise versa. That being the case, however, it is logically possible that a being may be completely reduced from any actuality to no actuality at all, and thus total potency. As such, no finite being, and as an extent, contingent being may be necessary in existence.

There is no potency in physical and therefore it is all actuality. Material just seems to change but the truth is that just their properties that change over time. An electron goes from A to B. The electron is the same electron but just its position changed so as you can see there is no potency in electron itself.

Infinite beings, and as an extent, noncontingent beings cannot be reduced to any state of potentiality, however. This is because all actions which lead to a reduction of potentiality to actuality (and vice versa) are, by necessity, brought about by an efficient cause of some sort of actuality. A being of pure, complete actuality, however, already encompass whatever actuality is being used to reduce their actuality. As such, it can have no effect on them (in the same way that adding the number five to infinity adds nothing to infinity; nor if you subtracted five from it). Thus, a being of pure act cannot be reduced to any level of potency.

There are infinities larger than infinity according to Cantor.

 

[quaestio45]

There is no potency in physical and therefore it is all actuality.

If by “physical” you mean “physics” then I’d have to disagree, for the science of physics is based on descriptive understanding of the natural ways the universe operates, and not a set of prescriptive dictates on how the universe must operate. In that case, the way in which phenomena in the scientific lens function is indeed in a state of potentiality, for it could act in a different manner.

Now if you are talking about the laws of physics themselves as descriptions, then yes, they have no real “potentiality”, but then again, no definitions, or essences more broadly, have potentiality, for such a term is applicable only to those things which hold definitions and essences (so the definition of a triangle may not have potency, but a triangular figure does, as it could be quadrilateral).

Material just seems to change but the truth is that just their properties that change over time.

What do you mean by their properties? The things they hold? Or their manifestation in form? Either way, I don’t think its unreasonable to say that any material can and does change in reduction from potency to act or vise versa, even if not in a deep atomic sense (though, these too occur).

An electron goes from A to B. The electron is the same electron but just its position changed so as you can see there is no potency in electron itself.

Yes, that is what we call a change in motion, and it doesn’t change the electron itself in terms of material, indeed. However, to say that there was no change of the electron at all can’t be true, for it had potency to B, and it actualized said potency, which thus caused A to be its new state of potency. This does follow that there is potentiality in the electron; potentiality of location, to which only an infinite being who is everywhere can be in total actualization of. Furthermore, I’m not entirely sure, but if I remember correctly from my chemistry class, I do believe that depending on the state of the quarks inside said electron it can change to a proton or neutron, though I could very well be wrong (to which, if were the case, feel free to correct me).

There are infinities larger than infinity according to Cantor.

That is true, isn’t it. Isn’t the biggest infinity aleph null? Or… no, thats the smallest, yes? In any case, it doesn’t take away from my example, which is that adding any number to what is infinite well not alter infinity one bit, in the same way that using actuality to reduce actuality in a purely act being alters it not one bit.

 

[STT]

These are off topic but I answer them.

If by “physical” you mean “physics” then I’d have to disagree, for the science of physics is based on descriptive understanding of the natural ways the universe operates, and not a set of prescriptive dictates on how the universe must operate. In that case, the way in which phenomena in the scientific lens function is indeed in a state of potentiality, for it could act in a different manner.

Now if you are talking about the laws of physics themselves as descriptions, then yes, they have no real “potentiality”, but then again, no definitions, or essences more broadly, have potentiality, for such a term is applicable only to those things which hold definitions and essences (so the definition of a triangle may not have potency, but a triangular figure does, as it could be quadrilateral).

By physical I mean the stuff which exists separate from us, objects for example. They don’t change only their properties change.

What do you mean by their properties? The things they hold? Or their manifestation in form? Either way, I don’t think its unreasonable to say that any material can and does change in reduction from potency to act or vise versa, even if not in a deep atomic sense (though, these too occur).

By property I mean a thing like position of an electron. Material has essence and properties. They have essence because they exists. But only their properties change.

Yes, that is what we call a change in motion, and it doesn’t change the electron itself in terms of material, indeed. However, to say that there was no change of the electron at all can’t be true, for it had potency to B, and it actualized said potency, which thus caused A to be its new state of potency. This does follow that there is potentiality in the electron; potentiality of location, to which only an infinite being who is everywhere can be in total actualization of. Furthermore, I’m not entirely sure, but if I remember correctly from my chemistry class, I do believe that depending on the state of the quarks inside said electron it can change to a proton or neutron, though I could very well be wrong (to which, if were the case, feel free to correct me).

I am talking about an electron in which only its properties change.

That is true, isn’t it. Isn’t the biggest infinity aleph null? Or… no, thats the smallest, yes? In any case, it doesn’t take away from my example, which is that adding any number to what is infinite well not alter infinity one bit, in the same way that using actuality to reduce actuality in a purely act being alters it not one bit.

Infinity is smaller than 2^infinity therefore infinity+2^infinity is not infinity.

 

[quaestio45]

Material has essence and properties.

So properties are that which lie beyond the essence, yet are harmonious with the essence, yes? So what you call properties I call accidents; would you take that as fair? In that case, the question of “why is there any distinction between essence and existence to where accidents are allowed at all” is still valid. Now the only possible solutions may come from itself or an externality; the being itself clearly cannot be the answer for such question, because it is by its own lack of an answer by which the question arose in the first place. Therefore, it must be an externality that answers the question.

Now, the externalities explanation of the distinction can come in one of two places: what is ontologically prior to it, and what is subsequent to it. It cannot be something subsequent to it, for that would imply that there was at one point an absolute union between essence and existence that was disrupted later on; however, that can’t be the case, for if something is completely explicable through its essence, such is a lasting effect that has permance through time and as such can never then have accidental qualities. Therefore, it must be something ontologically prior to a being that the reason of distinction between essence and existence (and the allowing of accidents) is brought about. If you continue this line of inquiry all the way through, you must therefore land on something which had absolutely no distinction between essence and existence, to which we call a noncontingent reality.

Infinity is smaller than 2^infinity therefore infinity+2^infinity is not infinity.

Well, sure, that may be true. But allow me to switch up what I meant to satisfy whatever objections you may have. A definate number, if added or subtracted to infinity, will always result in infinity no matter how large the number, of course.

 

[rossum]

Infinity is smaller than 2^infinity therefore infinity+2^infinity is not infinity.

Better to talk in terms of aleph numbers than just “infinity”:

aleph-0 < 2^aleph-0

That reduces ambiguity but leaven open the question of whether the continuum = aleph-1.

 

[STT]

So properties are that which lie beyond the essence, yet are harmonious with the essence, yes?

Yes. Properties are different from essence. Something that has essence but no property is completely mute.

So what you call properties I call accidents; would you take that as fair?

No problem my friend.

In that case, the question of “why is there any distinction between essence and existence to where accidents are allowed at all” is still valid.

I already answered that. Existence is an idea that tells us something exists. It does not exist as a being. A it is a thing, a mental construct, as you called. A thing simply exists because it has an essence.

Now the only possible solutions may come from itself or an externality; the being itself clearly cannot be the answer for such question, because it is by its own lack of an answer by which the question arose in the first place. Therefore, it must be an externality that answers the question.

Now, the externalities explanation of the distinction can come in one of two places: what is ontologically prior to it, and what is subsequent to it. It cannot be something subsequent to it, for that would imply that there was at one point an absolute union between essence and existence that was disrupted later on; however, that can’t be the case, for if something is completely explicable through its essence, such is a lasting effect that has permance through time and as such can never then have accidental qualities. Therefore, it must be something ontologically prior to a being that the reason of distinction between essence and existence (and the allowing of accidents) is brought about. If you continue this line of inquiry all the way through, you must therefore land on something which had absolutely no distinction between essence and existence, to which we call a noncontingent reality.

For free being, I invite you to read OP. There I prove that free being cannot be contingent. I am still waiting for your criticisms.

Well, sure, that may be true. But allow me to switch up what I meant to satisfy whatever objections you may have. A definate number, if added or subtracted to infinity, will always result in infinity no matter how large the number, of course.

Yes. That is more correct. What I am arguing is however that you can always find a bigger number than infinity therefore there is no ultimate infinity or God.

 

[quaestio45]

I already answered that. Existence is an idea that tells us something exists. It does not exist as a being. A it is a thing, a mental construct, as you called. A thing simply exists because it has an essence.

Maybe my word choics was rather poor in that point then; my mistakes. Instead of a distinction between eseence and existence as being the terms I’ll use, I’ll keep it to what has been agreed upon; essence and accidents. To have accidents is to be beyond the essence, but as I’ve said, tbat requires an explanation prior to it. Therefore, my argument seems to still stand.

For free being, I invite you to read OP. There I prove that free being cannot be contingent. I am still waiting for your criticisms.

I will admit, I was honestly waiting to see what other people would say in attack of your reasoning, and then I would come to a stance once I’ve garnered a little more understanding of the view you hold and a total of the best opposing views. However, it doesn’t seem as if anyone has been bantering about your opening for a while now, so I might as well give my hand to it, ay?

What I am arguing is however that you can always find a bigger number than infinity therefore there is no ultimate infinity or God.

Hmm… that might indeed be a fair point good sir…

I must admit, I haven’t dug too deep into the principles of infinitude, and as a result I’ve never contemplated that particular line of thought… perhaps it is something I’d have to research and consider tonight.

 

[STT]

Maybe my word choics was rather poor in that point then; my mistakes. Instead of a distinction between eseence and existence as being the terms I’ll use, I’ll keep it to what has been agreed upon; essence and accidents. To have accidents is to be beyond the essence, but as I’ve said, tbat requires an explanation prior to it. Therefore, my argument seems to still stand.

Yes, there is a distinction between essence and accidents. Something which has essence but accident is mute. The externality only allows experience of material/external and causation upon it.

I will admit, I was honestly waiting to see what other people would say in attack of your reasoning, and then I would come to a stance once I’ve garnered a little more understanding of the view you hold and a total of the best opposing views. However, it doesn’t seem as if anyone has been bantering about your opening for a while now, so I might as well give my hand to it, ay?

I can wait for you my friend.

Hmm… that might indeed be a fair point good sir…

I must admit, I haven’t dug too deep into the principles of infinitude, and as a result I’ve never contemplated that particular line of thought… perhaps it is something I’d have to research and consider tonight.

Cool. The truth is build upon skepticism.

 

[Gorgias]

However, it doesn’t seem as if anyone has been bantering about your opening for a while now, so I might as well give my hand to it, ay?

Well… once you refute the assertion that the moon isn’t made of green cheese, there’s not much reason to keep talking about it…

STT:

What I am arguing is however that you can always find a bigger number than infinity therefore there is no ultimate infinity or God.

Hmm… that might indeed be a fair point good sir…

Actually… it isn’t. It misunderstands what the concept of “infinity” really means. It’s not a single discrete number, such that there are other numbers greater than it. Such a construction betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics.

 

[STT]

Well… once you refute the assertion that the moon isn’t made of green cheese, there’s not much reason to keep talking about it…

That is a mere assertion which doesn’t apply to me.

Actually… it isn’t. It misunderstands what the concept of “infinity” really means. It’s not a single discrete number, such that there are other numbers greater than it. Such a construction betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics.

Now you are better than Cantor. Could you please tell us what is wrong with his theorem?

 

[quaestio45]

• Creation requires knowledge
• Knowledge is structured
• Therefore, any created thing is structured
• Free-agent does not have any structure
• Therefore, free-agent cannot be created

The first thing I’ll have to ask is that you define the terms “structured” and “free agent”, that way we can be on the same page.

Well… once you refute the assertion that the moon isn’t made of green cheese, there’s not much reason to keep talking about it…

To be totally fair Gorgias, the topic kinda went off rails a little after you said that an entity doesnt have to be composite, which for one, I don’t think can be true, and second, I don’t think collapses the argument of STT because there is a difference between an entity having the capability of being simple and a free agen in particular being simple.

Something which has essence but accident is mute.

Im not entirely sure what you mean by this.