How would you measure actualization of potential? Do some objects have more potential than others? For which objects would it be easier to actualize their potential, and for which would it be more difficult. How do you measure all of this?
That is also my question. What experiment can you perform to show the actualization of a potential.
When one moves from ignorance to knowledge, he at first has the capacity to learn(potential) then while learning, being informed (filling the capacity to learn) he is being moved to being informed , to knowledge, (act). but it must be kept in mind that achieving knowledge is not achieving all knowledge, so ones potential is never complete. If the potential to learn was never a reality, then it would be impossible to be informed. There are countless demonstrations. It can be seen as the ability to have, to the actual having. The question arises “Do we move ourselves when being informed?” It certainly appears that way, but upon deeper analysis, if we trace our abilities to their source, then we find that we do not move ourselves, we didn’t cause ourselves, and that we take things for granted. For if we could initially move ourselves we wouldn’t have to be moved by another, and reality demonstrates that when things are moved, they are moved by another. We need to understand the nature of movement, its purpose, what movement accomplishes. It would be easier to understand movement in material objects, then movement is living things, I gave one from moving things (having life) which is harder to understand.
This seems like equivocation.to me. We’re talking about actualizing potential. It has been suggested (by me) that a person could, by their nature (e.g. having a rational intelligence capable of learning), actualise their own potential (e.g. by learning something). We’re not talking about ultimate sources of abilities or ultimate causes of something’s existence. This being the case, has the person that learns something ‘moved herself’?
It’s called free will. We participate in the creation of our eternal being from what we have been given. We had no choice as to our intellectual potential. What we do with it, and whether we help it grow or wither, is up to us. And, our free will is given to us.
As a secondary mover, we are given power to move, we did not cause that power eg. Its LIKE kinetic energy that is passed on. Causing motion in the second object by striking it. We are moved to study by willing it, desiring the knowledge. We are not the cause of our desires, the desire for knowledge is the appetite of the mind, it is a power of the soul, its in our nature, and we sure didn’t didn’t design or create our nature. So desire for knowledge is natural to man, it is motivation of the mind, and we didn’t cause it, we are moved by another, the designer of our nature.
If God took nothing and made something, or made something from nothing, then God would be a maker and not a creator.
This ^^ is just an arbitrary definition and distinction.
:twocents:
And what’s the difference between that and a “maker”?
“God made the world out of nothing” sounds like perhaps “nothing” is some sort of building material. “No-thingness” has been understood by some to be a mental state of pure awareness in which the illusoriness of things is realized, so such an interpretation may not be as weird as it may come across.And what’s the difference between that and a “maker”?
“God made the world” and “God created the world” are 2 completely different statements?
Could you please answer my question?
I added a bit to the post after this quote.
The altermodernist Tower of Babel that is the Internet makes words pointless as we speak past each other, clutching our own meanings. Sigh indeed! Cya.
Out of nothing comes nothing. You cannot get essentially more from that which is essentially less. So how is it metaphysically possible to create something that was nothing at all to begin with?
Synergy proves that you can have a complex whole which is greater than the simple sum of its parts. So you can get more from less.
In what respect is more essentially coming from less in this respect?
Mathematically, the whole is equal to the sum of its parts, neither more nor less. But according to Aristotle, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Emergence is a process whereby patterns, and complex features arise through interactions among simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties.
Synergy: meaning: the interaction of two or more agents or force so that their combined effects is greater than the individual effects. This makes sense if we add effect to effect, it is greater by number, quantity But not necessarily by quality.