Potency

[polytropos]

Suppose an event E occurs. Prior to E’s occurring, was there necessarily a potential for E to occur?

To put it differently, can state of affairs A transform into state of affairs B if A did not have B in potency?

Will anyone dispute that what has happened would not have happened if it could not have happened?

 

[sealoch]

In the current state of the universe the laws of physics apply. Obviously you are trying to reference the big bang.

Could alpha exist before existence did? Where did the alpha come from?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the current state of the universe the laws of physics apply. Obviously you are trying to reference the big bang.

Could alpha exist before existence did? Where did the alpha come from?

The First Way

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Your question is typical of those who misunderstand the arguments. " What it ( and others show ) is that if there is to be an explanation of things, then there must be a cause of eveything else which not onlyhappens to exist but which could not even in principle have failed to exist. And that which cannot have failed to exist cannot in principle have had a cause. ( Edward Feser, in " So You Think You Understand the Cosmological Argument? ", in his blog spot edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011…nderstand.html .

There simply is no way out of the Atheist delimma. They don’t want God to exist. So they are left with a universe that cannot explain itself. Well, fine. I have no objection to that if they would just leave it at that, they are free to think or believe whatever they want.
But when they run around the world attempting to destroy people’s Faith in God and their religion I object. How can it hurt them if people believe in God? So I tell the atheist, he can’t prove there is no God, nor can he prove that the universe caused itself, and keeps itself in existence or that it causes the obvious order we see every where. The Atheist lives in an irrational universe, in spite of all his science. And please don’t quote to me any more science fiction stories about " quantum fluctuations, " the " Casimir Effect, " " multi-universes, " etc.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

In the current state of the universe the laws of physics apply. Obviously you are trying to reference the big bang.

Could alpha exist before existence did? Where did the alpha come from?

Actually, I was not referring to the big bang, just asking something about causality in general. Take any object A. Do something to it such that it becomes B. The very fact that something can go from A to B validates the general principles of actuality and potentiality.

I don’t really mean to make any claims about the big bang, or insist that it must have been caused by God. That would not be my preferred route for demonstrating God’s existence. (If it were caused by God, it would be slightly different than what I referred to in the OP. In the OP I am talking about an actual object A having the potential for B if it can become B. Absolutely nothing would not be analogous to this, as absolutely nothing would have neither potentiality nor actuality. But, again, I am not making claims about absolute nothingness nor the big bang in this thread.)

 

[sealoch]

The First Way

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Your question is typical of those who misunderstand the arguments. " What it ( and others show ) is that if there is to be an explanation of things, then there must be a cause of eveything else which not onlyhappens to exist but which could not even in principle have failed to exist. And that which cannot have failed to exist cannot in principle have had a cause. ( Edward Feser, in " So You Think You Understand the Cosmological Argument? ", in his blog spot edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011…nderstand.html .

There simply is no way out of the Atheist delimma. They don’t want God to exist. So they are left with a universe that cannot explain itself. Well, fine. I have no objection to that if they would just leave it at that, they are free to think or believe whatever they want.
But when they run around the world attempting to destroy people’s Faith in God and their religion I object. How can it hurt them if people believe in God? So I tell the atheist, he can’t prove there is no God, nor can he prove that the universe caused itself, and keeps itself in existence or that it causes the obvious order we see every where. The Atheist lives in an irrational universe, in spite of all his science. And please don’t quote to me any more science fiction stories about " quantum fluctuations, " the " Casimir Effect, " " multi-universes, " etc.

Linus2nd

Actually the universe does continue on with out a prime mover.

Is there harm in believing in a god? For some people that answer is yes, but to be honest i do believe that the world is better off for the fact that some people do believe in god.

It really puts me at odds with many of my atheist cohorts and schemers. That even if i could stamp out belief in a god I wouldn’t.
I still admit to the overwhelming good that is accomplished in the name of gods. Until we have a separate system that is superior. Well there would be no overall benefit to removing it.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Actually the universe does continue on with out a prime mover.

Fideism returns with avengeance: Beware the dogmatic atheist! But this thread is not about the Prime Mover.

Will anyone dispute that what has happened would not have happened if it could not have happened?

Sane people will not. Atheists will if it threatens their faith.

 

[Portofino]

Actually, I was not referring to the big bang, just asking something about causality in general. Take any object A. Do something to it such that it becomes B. The very fact that something can go from A to B validates the general principles of actuality and potentiality.

I think that actuality/potentiality does invokes paradoxes of a nominalist versus realist nature. They are concepts that are seemingly wired into our understanding of the world, perhaps like causality or like the experience of time itself.

If it is possible for snow – at some future time – to melt and to become slush, or water, then the form of H20 that we call “snow” has the potential to become what we call “water” proper, liquid H20, given the right conditions.

Where I hesitate – and I suppose Kant might approve! – is in not being sure to what extent our own understanding, our own intellect, is not filling in some blanks, here. The mind is capable of contemplating not only the past, but also the future. It is capable of imagining and anticipating possibilities. Our use of the conditional tense is rather metaphysical, I suppose, insofar as posit “such and such a thing is possible; there is potential for it to happen.” Potential, for me, is a future-oriented word and also presupposes an intellectual apprehension of what that future state could actually be, based on an understanding of prior experience.
So, if you put a chocolate bar in your pocket, it has the potential to melt.

I personally would have a hard time separating the “mental or conceptual” component of understanding the properties of chocolate in that way – and the properties of the interaction of chocolate with heat – and understanding the extent to which potential is an objectively existing quality, a material reality.

But insofar as causality and time are hard-wired into our understanding, insofar as these things structure experience – and thus are presupposed even in any appeal to what is empirical – I suppose I would say that there is irreducible logic in having a conceptual understanding of “actuality” versus “potentiality,” as well.

 

[sealoch]

Fideism returns with avengeance: Beware the dogmatic atheist! But this thread is not about the Prime Mover.

Sane people will not. Atheists will if it threatens their faith.

With a vengeance I was unaware that I required vengeance, but even so you should beware of me.

Atheism is a faith in the same way that off is a channel

 

[1AugustSon7]

I think that actuality/potentiality does invokes paradoxes of a nominalist versus realist nature. They are concepts that are seemingly wired into our understanding of the world, perhaps like causality or like the experience of time itself.

If it is possible for snow – at some future time – to melt and to become slush, or water, then the form of H20 that we call “snow” has the potential to become what we call “water” proper, liquid H20, given the right conditions.

Where I hesitate – and I suppose Kant might approve! – is in not being sure to what extent our own understanding, our own intellect, is not filling in some blanks, here. The mind is capable of contemplating not only the past, but also the future. It is capable of imagining and anticipating possibilities. Our use of the conditional tense is rather metaphysical, I suppose, insofar as posit “such and such a thing is possible; there is potential for it to happen.” Potential, for me, is a future-oriented word and also presupposes an intellectual apprehension of what that future state could actually be, based on an understanding of prior experience.
So, if you put a chocolate bar in your pocket, it has the potential to melt.

I personally would have a hard time separating the “mental or conceptual” component of understanding the properties of chocolate in that way – and the properties of the interaction of chocolate with heat – and understanding the extent to which potential is an objectively existing quality, a material reality.

But insofar as causality and time are hard-wired into our understanding, insofar as these things structure experience – and thus are presupposed even in any appeal to what is empirical – I suppose I would say that there is irreducible logic in having a conceptual understanding of “actuality” versus “potentiality,” as well.

Interesting. But I think the idea of potency is not in the first place a word about the future as it is a declaration of the past: i.e., that you know things have changed. You anticipate certain changes exactly because you saw those changes happen in similar circumstances to similar things in the past.

A natural philosopher of the Aristotelian variety would probably say that you harbour a rational hesitation about whether or not we have exactly identified the specific causes of things (i.e. of certain effects).

For Aristotle, the job of the natural philosopher was mostly to identify as exactly as possible the underlying causes of effects. When things don’t do what we have seem them do in the past, it is probably because we too vaguely identified a cause: it’s not so much that A itself causes B (say, coffee causes me to “wake up”) as it is the caffeine in the coffee that causes me to “wake up”. Hence for a while when one of my co-workers thought it would be amusing to replace the coffee with decaf - because he knew I had neither need nor love of coffee in the morning - for a while I doubted whether or not coffee really did have the effect of waking me up. But once I realized the game I also realized that my doubting was just confusion and so I would make my co-worker’s coffee very special for him henceforward in the morning, such that he was surprised by the coffee’s sudden power to make him spend a lot of time in the bathroom. And the causes of this lost productivity was speculated upon by our boss for a while until he figured out the real cause of it (not personal issues at home, for example), and henceforth the coffee maker was strictly managed and regulated to prevent any causal deviancies that might adversely affect productivity.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Atheism is a faith in the same way that off is a channel

Well onwards Offism.

And to be sure, I said that it was Fideism that had returned “with avengeance” - not “sealoch”.

 

[belorg]

Suppose an event E occurs. Prior to E’s occurring, was there necessarily a potential for E to occur?

To put it differently, can state of affairs A transform into state of affairs B if A did not have B in potency?

No, that is impossible. And that is why creatio ex nihilo is impossible since nothing does not have potency.

 

[polytropos]

No, that is impossible. And that is why creatio ex nihilo is impossible since nothing does not have potency.

Nothing also does not not have potency either. Nothing is { }. It is not some thing which can or cannot be actualized. It is just a complete absence of existence. Creation ex nihilo is a matter of Pure Actuality, which is not nothing, generating something distinct from itself, not a matter of Pure Actuality acting on something which does not exist, which would not make much sense.

 

[polytropos]

If it is possible for snow – at some future time – to melt and to become slush, or water, then the form of H20 that we call “snow” has the potential to become what we call “water” proper, liquid H20, given the right conditions.

Uh… yes. I don’t think one has to be a realist, though, to admit that snow and liquid water are not the same thing, even though they have the same chemical composition. That which is snow (water at a specific temperature, or perhaps under a certain atmospheric pressure) has the potential to become water, which definitely has different qualities and molecular arrangements, even though they are both H2O.

Where I hesitate – and I suppose Kant might approve! – is in not being sure to what extent our own understanding, our own intellect, is not filling in some blanks, here. The mind is capable of contemplating not only the past, but also the future. It is capable of imagining and anticipating possibilities. Our use of the conditional tense is rather metaphysical, I suppose, insofar as posit “such and such a thing is possible; there is potential for it to happen.” Potential, for me, is a future-oriented word and also presupposes an intellectual apprehension of what that future state could actually be, based on an understanding of prior experience.
So, if you put a chocolate bar in your pocket, it has the potential to melt.

But again, you don’t have to realize or conceptualize potentials for them to be valid. Changes are happening all over the universe, but have never been observed by humans. It is still necessarily true that that which goes from A to B had the potential to do so as A. A potential is just what can happen. The fact that certain things do happen is irrefutable evidence that certain things can happen. It seems to me like it is a logical truth that actualities are a subset of potentialities.

The definition of actuality and potentiality has never struck me as controversial part of the principle of motion.

I personally would have a hard time separating the “mental or conceptual” component of understanding the properties of chocolate in that way – and the properties of the interaction of chocolate with heat – and understanding the extent to which potential is an objectively existing quality, a material reality.

It seems like it is intrinsic to chocolate that it can melt. I don’t know. If the price of empiricism is maintaining that the quality of chocolate that it might melt is inseparable from our mental understanding of chocolate… then I suppose that’s why I’m no longer an empiricist.

(But honestly, I don’t think that even the staunchest of empiricists are committed to this. As I’ve said, actuality and potentiality do not seem to me to be at all controversial, so the notion that they are “arcane” or may not actually represent reality has confused me. Though I would disagree with him, I can somewhat understand why someone could try to deny that changes are reductions from potency to act by something else in act, but the position that changes are not at least reductions from potency to act seems incoherent to me.)

 

[JohnMichaels]

There simply is no way out of the Atheist delimma. They don’t want God to exist.
Linus2nd

I assume you base this on people you encountered. Also, I can’t argue some may feel this way. Just to throw a wrench into your argument…I do not want as you claim I want. So now it’s most don’t want. I am the anomaly!

 

[belorg]

Nothing also does not not have potency either. Nothing is { }. It is not some thing which can or cannot be actualized. It is just a complete absence of existence. Creation ex nihilo is a matter of Pure Actuality, which is not nothing, generating something distinct from itself, not a matter of Pure Actuality acting on something which does not exist, which would not make much sense.

Sure, nothing is a complete absense of existence, and hence there is no potency anywhere.
The main problem for the Thomist is accounting for potency.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, that is impossible. And that is why creatio ex nihilo is impossible since nothing does not have potency.

And that is just why God is necessary. If the universe had an absolute beginning, only God could have pulled off that trick. And even if the universe always has existed it would have been necessary for God to have been continuously creating it, for it cannot account for its own existence.

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

And that is just why God is necessary. If the universe had an absolute beginning, only God could have pulled off that trick. And even if the universe always has existed it would have been necessary for God to have been continuously creating it, for it cannot account for its own existence.

Linus2nd

Which does not account for potency.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, that is impossible. And that is why creatio ex nihilo is impossible since nothing does not have potency.

That does not disprove creation ex nihilo. It has nothing to do with creation at all. We are speaking of beings that already exist. And clearly if water had no potential to become H2 and O, it could not happen. So the principle of potency is well established. And while certain philosophers since Hume have denied it, science accepts in intuitively. For if it was not true science would be impossible.

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

That does not disprove creation ex nihilo. It has nothing to do with creation at all. We are speaking of beings that already exist. And clearly if water had no potential to become H2 and O, it could not happen. So the principle of potency is well established. And while certain philosophers since Hume have denied it, science accepts in intuitively. For if it was not true science would be impossible.

Linus2nd

And you still haven’t accounted for potency.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And you still haven’t accounted for potency.

I guess then I would just have to say that that is the way God created every thing. He created the universe according to a plan, that it should unfold according to that plan. And it could not do so if it lacked the ability to improve itself. That means that every being not only existed by that it has the potential for moving toward the completion of God’s plan.

Linus2nd