The act of Necessary Existence - my conclusion

[ChainBreaker]

It seems to me we have no rational choice but to accept the existence of a necessary act of existence. This is a being whose essence is identical to its act of existence.

I have come across atheists on this forum who appear to accept this. I have no desire to debate the existence of a necessary existence here; but i do want to debate the claim that a necessary evolving physical universe is just as reasonable as the claim that the physical universe was created.

Here is my problem with this position. Anything that changes has potency, has the potential to become more than what it was. A being that has unrealized potential is never fully actual until all its potential is fully and absolutely real without potency.

A being with unrealized potential cannot be necessarily actual because that which is necessarily real cannot change into something that was not already actual in its necessity.

For example if something is necessarily a peanut, it cannot change in to a human being since that does not reflect the necessity of it being a peanut, and thus if anything the human being would be distinct from the peanut instead of being something intrinsic to its nature.

In a similar fashion, that which is pure actuality cannot become more actual, since any addition to its actuality would not be identical with the essence of what it is necessarily which is necessary existence. Necessary existence is fully actual in what it is and therefore has no potency. It cannot become more; it cannot change.

Therefore we cannot consider the universe as being a necessary being precisely because it changes and is therefore not identical with the act of existence. In other-words existence is something that is given to it; existence is something that the universe is continuously realizing through actuality of its potencies as opposed to it being something intrinsic to physical nature itself.

Hence physical reality is not a candidate for necessary existence.

 

[belorg]

It seems to me we have no rational choice but to accept the existence of a necessary act of existence. This is a being whose essence is identical to its act of existence.

I have come across atheists on this forum who appear to accept this. I have no desire to debate the existence of a necessary existence here; but i do want to debate the claim that a necessary evolving physical universe is just as reasonable as the claim that the physical universe was created.

Here is my problem with this position. Anything that changes has potency, has the potential to become more than what it was. A being that has unrealized potential is never fully actual until all its potential is fully and absolutely real without potency.

A being with unrealized potential cannot be necessarily actual because that which is necessarily real cannot change into something that was not already actual in its necessity.

For example if something is necessarily a peanut, it cannot change in to a human being since that does not reflect the necessity of it being a peanut, and thus if anything the human being would be distinct from the peanut instead of being something intrinsic to its nature.

In a similar fashion, that which is pure actuality cannot become more actual, since any addition to its actuality would not be identical with the essence of what it is necessarily which is necessary existence. Necessary existence is fully actual in what it is and therefore has no potency. It cannot become more; it cannot change.

Therefore we cannot consider the universe as being a necessary being precisely because it changes and is therefore not identical with the act of existence. In other-words existence is something that is given to it; existence is something that the universe is continuously realizing through actuality of its potencies as opposed to it being something intrinsic to physical nature itself.

Hence physical reality is not a candidate for necessary existence.

You are absolutely right IFF it is true that “anything that changes has potency, has the potential to become more than what it was”. If all that means is that anything that changes can become something else, I have no probelm with it, since it is virtually a tautology.
I do have problems, however, with the notion that necessary existence cannot change. There is no reason to think that “the act of existence” has to be static. If existence IS change, then there is no problem with the universe being necessary.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I do have problems, however, with the notion that necessary existence cannot change. There is no reason to think that “the act of existence” has to be static. If existence IS change, then there is no problem with the universe being necessary.

There is a reason to think so.

If necessary existence were to change in any way then it would not be necessary and would involve a contradiction. This can be understood once one accepts that change involves the actualization of potential in a being whether that be expressed in the continuation of that beings existence or the emergence of a new attribute; as opposed to actualizing necessary existence which would involve a contradiction since that which exists necessarily does not need to be actualized. You cannot actualize necessary existence.

That which is necessarily real is real absolutely; it is fully actual in every respect that is true to its nature. It cannot become more and cannot become less than what it is essentially since what it is essentially is necessary in every respect. In other-words it is fully actual in every respect and therefore has no potential to actualize and thus there is no change.

That which is not necessary can become more than what it is because what it is is not necessary existence. Change occurs precisely because that which is changing is not a necessary being and therefore can actualize more potency.

 

[ChainBreaker]

There is a reason to think so.

If necessary existence were to change in any way then it would not be necessary and would involve a contradiction. This can be understood once one accepts that change involves the actualization of potential in a being whether that be expressed in the continuation of that beings existence or the emergence of a new attribute; as opposed to actualizing necessary existence which would involve a contradiction since that which exists necessarily does not need to be actualized. You cannot actualize necessary existence.

That which is necessarily real is real absolutely; it is fully actual in every respect that is true to its nature. It cannot become more and cannot become less than what it is essentially since what it is essentially is necessary in every respect. In other-words it is fully actual in every respect and therefore has no potential to actualize and thus there is no change.

That which is not necessary can become more than what it is because what it is is not necessary existence. Change occurs precisely because that which is changing is not a necessary being and therefore can actualize more potency.

 

[Partinobodycula]

It seems to me we have no rational choice but to accept the existence of a necessary act of existence. This is a being whose essence is identical to its act of existence.

I have come across atheists on this forum who appear to accept this. I have no desire to debate the existence of a necessary existence here; but i do want to debate the claim that a necessary evolving physical universe is just as reasonable as the claim that the physical universe was created.

Here is my problem with this position. Anything that changes has potency, has the potential to become more than what it was. A being that has unrealized potential is never fully actual until all its potential is fully and absolutely real without potency.

A being with unrealized potential cannot be necessarily actual because that which is necessarily real cannot change into something that was not already actual in its necessity.

Therefore we cannot consider the universe as being a necessary being precisely because it changes and is therefore not identical with the act of existence. In other-words existence is something that is given to it; existence is something that the universe is continuously realizing through actuality of its potencies as opposed to it being something intrinsic to physical nature itself.

Hence physical reality is not a candidate for necessary existence.

Ah, but you have a problem, for science tells us that underlying the “classical” reality that we see, is a quantum reality that we don’t see. A reality in which it appears that every potential outcome, of every possible scenario, actually exists. If this is indeed true, then this quantum reality fulfills all of the requirements of a necessary being. Such a quantum reality would contain no potentiality, because every outcome that could potentially exist, does exist. It is in essence, everything that could ever be, and it is in existence, everything that could ever be. Its essence, and its existence, are identical.

If Aquinas’ necessary being is God, then science has found Him.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Ah, but you have a problem, for science tells us that underlying the “classical” reality that we see, is a quantum reality that we don’t see. A reality in which it appears that every potential outcome, of every possible scenario, actually exists. If this is indeed true, then this quantum reality fulfills all of the requirements of a necessary being. Such a quantum reality would contain no potentiality, because every outcome that could potentially exist, does exist. It is in essence, everything that could ever be, and it is in existence, everything that could ever be. Its essence, and its existence, are identical.

If Aquinas’ necessary being is God, then science has found Him.

No peer review science journal tells us that every possible reality is fully actual and thus has no potency. Also quantum events involve change since quantum events and the changing universe is not two distinct things; and yes the macro universe is a potency of micro events and those micro events have to change (quantum fluctuations) otherwise it cannot actualize its potency. Quantum events do not act like macro events but they are events that in happen within the space-time continuum otherwise they would not be susceptible to the empirical method. Quantum events are clearly subject to change, otherwise you would not have a macro universe that changes.

Secondly, the idea that any event or events exists simply because they are possible involves a contradiction in terms of efficient causality because that would mean things bring themselves into existence from nothing into nothing by the power of merely being possible. Its a contradiction because out of nothing comes nothing and thus potential existence requires an eternal existence to actualize it.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Sorry for taking so long to respond, but I wanted to consider your points carefully, and not simply dismiss them. So I spent some time reviewing and contemplating the relevant data, and considering the proper response.

No peer review science journal tells us that every possible reality is fully actual and thus has no potency.

Obviously no peer reviewed article presents such an argument as fact, but that’s not something that articles on theoretical physics ever do. However a large number of articles do indeed address this unavoidable conclusion of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. A lack of potentiality is an inescapable attribute of MWI. MWI has been around for over fifty years and is based upon reams of peer reviewed experiments and mathematical models, stretching back over two hundred years. It incorporates one of the possible options in theories concerning the decoherence, or collapse, of the probability wave, and advocates that every potential outcome actually exists. In other words, every “potential” outcome is in fact actualized. Now according to Aquinas, it’s impossible for something to be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect. So if MWI is correct and every outcome actually exists, then potentially simply can’t exist in such a quantum reality.

Also quantum events involve change since quantum events and the changing universe is not two distinct things; and yes the macro universe is a potency of micro events and those micro events have to change (quantum fluctuations) otherwise it cannot actualize its potency. Quantum events do not act like macro events but they are events that in happen within the space-time continuum otherwise they would not be susceptible to the empirical method. Quantum events are clearly subject to change, otherwise you would not have a macro universe that changes.

This idea is based upon a false assumption, and a misunderstanding of quantum fluctuations.

The false assumption is that that which lacks potentiality can’t give rise to something which possesses potentiality. This simply isn’t true. It’s all a matter of perspective. You’re looking at the world with a temporal perspective. For you, events proceed in a linear fashion, one after the other. For you events either “were”, “are”, or “will be”. So from your perspective, things have potentiality, they have the potential to change. But from a non-temporal quantum perspective everything simply “is”, there’s no “were”, and there’s no “will be”. Nothing changes. Nothing moves. Everything is actualized, and thus there can be no potentiality.

All that’s necessary for potentiality to arise from actuality is for there to be a differentiation in perspective. Or to put it another way, potentiality is an attribute of the observer, not the observed. To a temporal observer things have the potential to be this “or” that, while in reality they’re actually this “and” that. So if anything can be considered to be external, it’s the observer’s perspective. It’s as if your mind is separate from God’s mind, and you see reality only in part, whereas God knows it in its entirety. It’s your perspective that could be considered external, and it’s this perspective which gives the world potentiality.

You’re second mistake is a misunderstanding of quantum fluctuations. On the surface, the notion of quantum fluctuations would clearly seem to indicate that the underlying quantum world changes. But it doesn’t. Once again it’s a matter of perspective. From your perspective all of reality is in a constant state of change, including those mysterious quantum fluctuations. But such change is simply a product of your temporal perspective. This idea is easy enough to understand using Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. HUP tells us that the position of a particle can never be known beyond a certain degree of precision known as Planck’s constant. From your perspective a particle can be anywhere within an area defined by Planck’s constant, but from a quantum perspective the particle is in all of these locations at the same time. Which means that they’re not potential locations at all, they’re actual locations. From a quantum perspective all of these “potential” particles actually exist, so it can’t possibly fluctuate from one position to another.

It’s only your existence as a temporal being that produces the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations. In the quantum world, such fluctuations simply don’t exist.

Secondly, the idea that any event or events exists simply because they are possible involves a contradiction in terms of efficient causality because that would mean things bring themselves into existence from nothing into nothing by the power of merely being possible. Its a contradiction because out of nothing comes nothing and thus potential existence requires an eternal existence to actualize it.

You seem to be missing the point, I’m showing that the quantum world underlying our classical world has all of the attributes required by Aquinas’ necessary being. In other words, it has all the attributes of God. Any argument that you could possibly make as to the irrationality of such a necessary being would be exactly the same as the arguments that an atheist would make concerning the existence of God. Using Aquinas’ arguments, God, and the quantum world underlying our own, are identical.

It’s strange, Christians teach that the existence of God can be known through reasoning, evidenced by the world around us. Catholics also believe that the greatest authority regarding such reasoning is St. Thomas Aquinas.

So why do Christians reject the evidence that Aquinas was right?

 

[ChainBreaker]

Sorry for taking so long to respond, but I wanted to consider your points carefully, and not simply dismiss them. So I spent some time reviewing and contemplating the relevant data, and considering the proper response.Obviously no peer reviewed article presents such an argument as fact, but that’s not something that articles on theoretical physics ever do. However a large number of articles do indeed address this unavoidable conclusion of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. A lack of potentiality is an inescapable attribute of MWI. MWI has been around for over fifty years and is based upon reams of peer reviewed experiments and mathematical models, stretching back over two hundred years. It incorporates one of the possible options in theories concerning the decoherence, or collapse, of the probability wave, and advocates that every potential outcome actually exists. In other words, every “potential” outcome is in fact actualized. Now according to Aquinas, it’s impossible for something to be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect. So if MWI is correct and every outcome actually exists, then potentially simply can’t exist in such a quantum reality.
This idea is based upon a false assumption, and a misunderstanding of quantum fluctuations.

The false assumption is that that which lacks potentiality can’t give rise to something which possesses potentiality. This simply isn’t true. It’s all a matter of perspective. You’re looking at the world with a temporal perspective. For you, events proceed in a linear fashion, one after the other. For you events either “were”, “are”, or “will be”. So from your perspective, things have potentiality, they have the potential to change. But from a non-temporal quantum perspective everything simply “is”, there’s no “were”, and there’s no “will be”. Nothing changes. Nothing moves. Everything is actualized, and thus there can be no potentiality.

All that’s necessary for potentiality to arise from actuality is for there to be a differentiation in perspective. Or to put it another way, potentiality is an attribute of the observer, not the observed. To a temporal observer things have the potential to be this “or” that, while in reality they’re actually this “and” that. So if anything can be considered to be external, it’s the observer’s perspective. It’s as if your mind is separate from God’s mind, and you see reality only in part, whereas God knows it in its entirety. It’s your perspective that could be considered external, and it’s this perspective which gives the world potentiality.

You’re second mistake is a misunderstanding of quantum fluctuations. On the surface, the notion of quantum fluctuations would clearly seem to indicate that the underlying quantum world changes. But it doesn’t. Once again it’s a matter of perspective. From your perspective all of reality is in a constant state of change, including those mysterious quantum fluctuations. But such change is simply a product of your temporal perspective. This idea is easy enough to understand using Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. HUP tells us that the position of a particle can never be known beyond a certain degree of precision known as Planck’s constant. From your perspective a particle can be anywhere within an area defined by Planck’s constant, but from a quantum perspective the particle is in all of these locations at the same time. Which means that they’re not potential locations at all, they’re actual locations. From a quantum perspective all of these “potential” particles actually exist, so it can’t possibly fluctuate from one position to another.

It’s only your existence as a temporal being that produces the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations. In the quantum world, such fluctuations simply don’t exist.

You seem to be missing the point, I’m showing that the quantum world underlying our classical world has all of the attributes required by Aquinas’ necessary being. In other words, it has all the attributes of God. Any argument that you could possibly make as to the irrationality of such a necessary being would be exactly the same as the arguments that an atheist would make concerning the existence of God. Using Aquinas’ arguments, God, and the quantum world underlying our own, are identical.

It’s strange, Christians teach that the existence of God can be known through reasoning, evidenced by the world around us. Catholics also believe that the greatest authority regarding such reasoning is St. Thomas Aquinas.

So why do Christians reject the evidence that Aquinas was right?

You need physical change in order to do real science. You are expressing a purely philosophical interpretation that does not even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. the idea being that there is no change; change is an illusion. That is not a genuine scientific hypothesis or theory.

You also make the blunder of saying that human minds change in so far as our perspective is concerned.

And you keep making this assumption that Quatum events and macro events are two distinct ontological things, rather than two aspects of the exact same thing - physical reality.

.

 

[Partinobodycula]

You need physical change in order to do real science.

Science is a process which involves three things, observation, explanation, and experimentation. Quantum physics is capable of doing all three of these things. It does however have one major obstacle, which is referred to as the measurement problem. In a nutshell, the measurement problem results from the fact that in order to observe a system, or particle, you have to interact with it. But in the case of quantum systems, interacting with them affects what you see. So you can never measure a quantum system without affecting the results. You can however still gather information about the system by the nature of those results. So although we can’t change the quantum world, we can, by observation, better understand it.

There’s no need for the underlying quantum system to change in order to do real science. All that’s necessary, is for what I see, to change. And based upon what scientists see, it’s completely feasible that the quantum world is one in which every possible version of reality actually exists, and nothing ever changes.

You are expressing a purely philosophical interpretation that does not even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. the idea being that there is no change; change is an illusion. That is not a genuine scientific hypothesis or theory.

Actually the Many-Worlds Interpretation is a perfectly legitimate, widely accepted theory of quantum physics, the implications of which are that underlying our own reality that we see, is an all encompassing reality in which nothing ever changes, because everything that could ever possibly be, already is. Some would agree however that this borders on being a philosophical discussion, as much as a scientific one.

But this is after all a thread which directly or indirectly concerns Aquinas’ unmoved mover. A proposed necessary being, which coincidentally has exactly the same attributes as the quantum world which appears to underlie our own. Your only objection seems to be that this quantum world can’t be the necessary being because it isn’t “external” to our own world. But this raises a number of questions. Here are a few that I can think of right off hand.

Does Aquinas say that this necessary being must be external?
Is that even possible?
If so, what does externality look like?
If God is omnipresent then in what way is He external?
If God is the existential cause of the world, then isn’t He an integral part of the world?

You also make the blunder of saying that human minds change in so far as our perspective is concerned.

Would you not agree that our minds, our perspectives, are different than God’s. If you do agree then you admit that the minds/perspectives of contingent beings, such as us, need not be the same, and most likely can’t be the same, as a necessary being like God. You and I are temporal beings and as such our perspectives are different than God’s, whose perspective isn’t temporal, but eternal. But the underlying quantum world is also eternal. It encompasses everything that has ever been, or will ever be. So like God, the quantum world’s perspective is different than ours.

Our perspective doesn’t change. We see things in terms of what was, or what will be. Whereas God sees things only as what is.

And you keep making this assumption that Quatum events and macro events are two distinct ontological things, rather than two aspects of the exact same thing - physical reality.

The relationship between us and the underlying quantum world is exactly the same as the relationship between us and God. Yes, we draw our sustaining cause from the underlying quantum world, so in some small sense we must be the same. But in the same manner, God is said by Aquinas to be the sustaining cause. Yet you wouldn’t claim that we and God must be the same. Although the bible does say that we are made in His image. So like the underlying quantum world, we and God must in some way be the same. The relationship between us and the underlying quantum world is EXACTLY the same as the relationship between us and Aquinas’ God.

You seem to think that admitting that the underlying quantum world fulfills Aquinas’ description of God, would somehow negate God’s existence. But the opposite may just as well be true, that rather than negate His existence, it affirms it. After all, almost 750 years ago a Catholic priest posited the attributes of a necessary being, whom he deemed to be God, and it turns out that he was right.

Two thousand years ago men looked to miracles and prophecies for evidence of God. Yet when that evidence was presented to them, they rejected it. Today men look to science for such evidence, the question is, will they reject it again?

 

[belorg]

There is a reason to think so.

If necessary existence were to change in any way then it would not be necessary and would involve a contradiction. This can be understood once one accepts that change involves the actualization of potential in a being whether that be expressed in the continuation of that beings existence or the emergence of a new attribute; as opposed to actualizing necessary existence which would involve a contradiction since that which exists necessarily does not need to be actualized. You cannot actualize necessary existence.

I don’t accept that change involves the actualization of potential in being. There is no such thing as actuality and potentiality. To exist is to change.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I don’t accept that change involves the actualization of potential in being. There is no such thing as actuality and potentiality. To exist is to change.

To change is to actualise potential.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Science is a process which involves three things, observation, explanation, and experimentation. Quantum physics is capable of doing all three of these things. It does however have one major obstacle, which is referred to as the measurement problem. In a nutshell, the measurement problem results from the fact that in order to observe a system, or particle, you have to interact with it. But in the case of quantum systems, interacting with them affects what you see. So you can never measure a quantum system without affecting the results. You can however still gather information about the system by the nature of those results. So although we can’t change the quantum world, we can, by observation, better understand it.

A scientist is measuring change when they measure quantum events. You cannot cause an effect in that which does not change/has no potency. Science presupposes change, change is the very means by which we are able to do anything, let alone do science.

There’s no need for the underlying quantum system to change in order to do real science.

You are clearly mistaken. It is meaningless to speak of an observer effecting that which is observed without presupposing the existence of change.

What you are claiming is that all potential is fully actual and has never changed, never had a beginning or end, and quantum events are not being observed as coming in an out of a fluctuating energy field. You are saying that change is an illusion, but illusions of change require real change in order to be possible.

Everything you are saying flies in the face of real science. Its not even a hypothesis. You are holding to a view that is purely philosophical and illogical.

Actually the Many-Worlds Interpretation is a perfectly legitimate, widely accepted theory of quantum physics, the implications of which are that underlying our own reality that we see, is an all encompassing reality in which nothing ever changes, because everything that could ever possibly be, already is. Some would agree however that this borders on being a philosophical discussion, as much as a scientific one.

Its not a scientific discussion at all. Science observes real change. Change is required even to begin talking about cause and effect. And while there may be a legitimate hypothesis of many worlds it is not one where change does not exist.

But this is after all a thread which directly or indirectly concerns Aquinas’ unmoved mover. A proposed necessary being, which coincidentally has exactly the same attributes as the quantum world which appears to underlie our own.

It clearly does not have the same attributes because physical reality changes and evolves. energy changes.

Your only objection seems to be that this quantum world can’t be the necessary being because it isn’t “external” to our own world.

It is meaningless to speak of temporal events in your philosophical theory, since there is no change in your view.

The universe is made up of quantum events; we are made of quarks. The micro and macro world is simply two perspective of the same thing which is energy. They are not two distinct things. Energy changes. Energy vibrates. That’s what real science teaches

But the underlying quantum world is also eternal. It encompasses everything that has ever been, or will ever be. So like God, the quantum world’s perspective is different than ours.

I don’t know what your talking about. Whatever it is, it is evidently wrong.

 

[belorg]

To change is to actualise potential.

Prove it.

 

[Partinobodycula]

I don’t know what your talking about. Whatever it is, it is evidently wrong.

It’s clear at this point that we’re simply going to have to agree to disagree. But I’ll make one more attempt to explain my position, because I’m quite certain that there are people on this forum who can understand and appreciate the reasoning behind it, even if they have difficulty accepting it. So for them, I’ll make one more attempt to clarify.

You seem to have no difficulty accepting the idea that underlying the world in which we live is a “necessary being” which never changes, has always existed, and is both the source, and the sustaining cause of everything that we see around us. This is after all what Aquinas describes as a necessary being. The only difficulty that you appear to have, is with the notion that men may have actually glimpsed such a necessary being, and that it appears to be so unsupernatural, that it fails to live up to your conception of God.

Men have been probing ever deeper into the nature of our world. If there is indeed a necessary being that underlies it, then it’s inevitable that men should one day find it. Whether they recognize it, or accept it for what it really is, who’s to say. Men have their preconceptions, they see what they want to see.

The simple facts are this, the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics posits a reality underlying our own. A reality in which every possible outcome actually exists, and time as we know it, doesn’t. In our world things change. Particles fluctuate in and out of existence. But these are temporal things. Such concepts have no meaning in a quantum world. In such a world everything that could ever have been, or may ever be, is. Every act of kindness. Every moment of repentance. Every possible work, and every possible prayer, actually exist. The fullness of everything that could ever be, in one place, and in one time. That’s the quantum world. This may seem like philosophy to you, but it’s the inevitable implication of MWI, and it seems like Aquinas’ necessary being to me.

Now it may be that we’ll never be able to confirm the existence of such an underlying world. We are after all stuck in our temporal reality. But the fact that men today seriously ponder the existence of something which Aquinas proposed seven hundred and fifty years ago, should give men reason to pause. Theists shouldn’t be dismissing quantum physics, they should be at the forefront of understanding it.

As I say though, men see what they want to see, and there’s very little that you or I can do to change that.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Theists shouldn’t be dismissing quantum physics, they should be at the forefront of understanding it.

I do not reject quantum physics. I reject philosophical arguments that only have a hope of validity insofar as they pose as having the authority of a real scientific theory. In fact I don’t think you really understand what you are talking about, let alone the principles of science.

From God’s perspective the entirety of all physical reality is fully actualised and exists absolutely, and I don’t need science in order to agree with that position. But that is only possible because God is not an object in space-time. God is not physical at all which means God’s nature is not bound by physical laws. And so it is impossible for there to be a time where God’s knowledge is not actually present.

However the idea that all of space-time is present and fully actual to God is not a description of the nature of space time as it actually exists in and of itself, but rather it is a description of space time as it exists relatively to God’s knowledge and nature. God’s transcendence of space-time does not mean that time/change does not exist.

A Quantum Event is an intrinsic aspect of a changing universe. It is not something separate or unaffected from temporal events.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Prove it.

You have to be able to understand the proof in order for it to be of any use to you.

 

[belorg]

You have to be able to understand the proof in order for it to be of any use to you.

Well, why don’t you give it a try? Let’s see whether I am able to understand it.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Well, why don’t you give it a try? Let’s see whether I am able to understand it.

The event that you are experiencing now, did this event exist at the moment of the big-bang?

 

[belorg]

The event that you are experiencing now, did this event exist at the moment of the big-bang?

That depends on what you mean by “event”, by “at the moment of”, and more importantly which theory of time you adhere to. On a B-theory of time, e.g. , all events are simultaneous, so in that case, the event existed at the moment of the big bang.

But let’s say this event didn’t exist at the moment of the big-bang. All that proves is that change is real, not that change is the actualiztion of potentialily. Unless by “potentiality” you merely mean the ability to change, which would be trivillay true.

The main problem with the act - potency distinction is that it presupposes teleology, which is, to say the least, a very controversial concept.

 

[ChainBreaker]

That depends on what you mean by “event”, by “at the moment of”, and more importantly which theory of time you adhere to.

On a B-theory of time, e.g. , all events are simultaneous, so in that case, the event existed at the moment of the big bang.

I accept the idea of a block universe. However, even if events are “happening” simultaneously this can only be a matter of observational perspective and cannot result in the rejection of change itself if we are to make scientific and logical sense of relativity. Relativity is meaningless if there is no change, but it is meaningful if we are speaking about different rates of change that may appear simultaneous depending on how and where you observe time.

If a B theory of time necessitates an exclusion of change, then it rejects a meaningful idea of time entirely and therefore I have to reject it since change clearly exists. And it is clearly illogical to claim the big bang is actually identical with what you are experiencing now even if the actuality of that event is simultaneous with this one. In fact from a b-theory perspective as you put it, words like time and event becomes meaningless, and our experience of change becomes impossible; even an illusion of change is impossible without true change. Not only that, such a position isn’t even a measurable hypothesis let alone a scientific theory; more like a metaphysical statement about time itself that flies in the face of logic and observation and refutes itself. It clearly goes against current big bang cosmology, evolution, all things that only make scientific sense in terms of change, so I will let you take your pick.

I do believe that because of relativity there is no unique present as such and that time is a forth dimension, and also that if you were to stand outside the universe you would see that all that will happen is fully actual. But in order for that to be possible there has to be such a thing as change even if due to relativity things are changing at different rates.

But let’s say this event didn’t exist at the moment of the big-bang. All that proves is that change is real, not that change is the actualiztion of potentialily. Unless by “potentiality” you merely mean the ability to change, which would be trivillay true.

Well I think its plain to see that if some event was not actual (not real, but potentially real) and becomes actual in relation to another event, then what you have is a potential event being actualised. Even if events occur simultaneously that is still an actuality of potential regardless. If something is not necessary-existence then it is by definition an actualised potential regardless of whether its existence is simultaneous with an event or not.

The main problem with the act - potency distinction is that it presupposes teleology, which is, to say the least, a very controversial concept.

That is not true. The act and potency distinction presupposes change. Teleology is just a necessary truth that arises out of the fact that things are changing in a goal directed manner rather than arbitrarily.