The act of Necessary Existence - my conclusion

[ChainBreaker]

Most scientists do not observe the kind of teleology you porpose, so this teleology may exist, but is most certainly not obvious.

Empirical science cannot measure teleology in principle because science as a method is grounded in methodological naturalism. So either you don’t understand how science works, or you don’t understand how science works. Either way a red face is appropriate.

It really is a circular argument to say that scientist do not observe teleology. Of course they don’t. Science is not metaphysics.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Change is the result of fundamental instability. That’s all there is to it.

You don’t need to prove what you are proposing. You just need to show us that the idea of a necessary being that changes is logically consistent in itself and with what we observe. Otherwise it is just an arbitrary statement that may be grammatically consistent but is essentially meaningless.

Right now what you are proposing is no different to somebody saying that a square-triangle can exist. If that is how far one has to go in-order to avoid the consequences my argument then you might as well give up on rationality altogether. The fact that you would go to such lengths as to deny the distinction between potency and act makes no sense in terms of what we observe; you might as well deny the existence of change while your at it. Not to mention that your definition of ontological necessity is meaningless and arbitrary in function lacking any discernible logic.

 

[belorg]

Because the concept of change without potency is ridiculous and meaningless.

That’s what you have asserted many times already. Tha doesn’t make it right.

If change is necessarily actual and physical reality is necessarily actual then every index of change and everything that physical reality is changing into is necessarily actual and therefore fully actual with no beginning or potency.

Change is not necessarily actual, but every existing being is necssarily capable of changing.

This is a contradiction since there should be no change if every index of change necessarily exists - fully actual in and of itself.

I am not talking about indices of change.

 

[belorg]

Empirical science cannot measure teleology in principle because science as a method is grounded in methodological naturalism. So either you don’t understand how science works, or you don’t understand how science works. Either way a red face is appropriate.

It really is a circular argument to say that scientist do not observe teleology. Of course they don’t. Science is not metaphysics.

They propose a consistent model without teleology, hence teleology is not obvious.

 

[belorg]

You don’t need to prove what you are proposing. You just need to show us that the idea of a necessary being that changes is logically consistent in itself and with what we observe. Otherwise it is just an arbitrary statement that may be grammatically consistent but is essentially meaningless.

There is nothing contradictory about it.

Right now what you are proposing is no different to somebody saying that a square-triangle can exist. If that is how far one has to go in-order to avoid the consequences my argument then you might as well give up on rationality altogether. The fact that you would go to such lengths as to deny the distinction between potency and act makes no sense in terms of what we observe; you might as well deny the existence of change while your at it. Not to mention that your definition of ontological necessity is meaningless and arbitrary in function lacking any discernible logic.

Potency is nothing but the necessary instability of every existing being. To exist is to be changeable. Unless you presuppose all kinds of teleology there is nothing contradictory about this.

 

[ChainBreaker]

There is nothing contradictory about it.

I have shown you why a necessary nature that changes into another nature is contradictory. I have shown you why a necessary act of existence cannot have indexes of change and cannot be both act and potency. You are merely asserting that i have not.

Potency is nothing but the necessary instability of every existing being.

I have shown you why a necessary being that has instability in the nature of its existence involves a contradiction.

Redefining words to suite yourself won’t change anything. It’s a shame that you are having difficulty understanding or accepting this.

It’s been a plum pleasing pleasure discussing this with you. I grant you freedom from further embarrassment.

 

[belorg]

I have shown you why a necessary nature that changes into another nature is contradictory. I have shown you why a necessary act of existence cannot have indexes of change and cannot be both act and potency. You are merely asserting that i have not.

That a necessary nature cannot change into another nature is a tautology and has nothing to do with my claim.And a necessary being cannot be both act and potency IFF there really is such a distinction between the two concepts. But since that is what you are supposed to prove, you haveactually been begging the question.

I have shown you why a necessary being that has instability in the nature of its existence involves a contradiction.

Only in a question-begging manner.

Redefining words to suite yourself won’t change anything. It’s a shame that you are having difficulty understanding or accepting this.

It’s also a shame that you are having difficulties leaving your own presupposed perspective.

It’s been a plum pleasing pleasure discussing this with you. I grant you freedom from further embarrassment.

At least I don’t embarrass myself by making the contradictory claim,as you do, that a necessary immutable reality can lead to the changing universe we observe. Speaking about square circles…

 

[ChainBreaker]

That a necessary nature cannot change into another nature is a tautology.

It seems to me that you reject metaphysical knowledge in principle and have taken on this idea that for all you know there is no such thing as the ontologically impossible.

Is the idea that a “square-triangle” cannot exist a tautology?

Is the idea that nothing is not an “actual being” a tautology?

Is the metaphysically impossible a tautology?

Let me guess, you have this idea in your head that anything that cannot be measured empirically is a tautology. Are you a positivist?

Like it or not, we observe actualized potential everyday in the real world; unless of course you don’t live there. Therefore the potential actualized was at one point not actual and therefore not necessary-actuality. The event actualized now was at one point not actual, thus the index of change you are experiencing now is not necessary-actuality. Therefore it is true knowledge to state that a necessary being does not change.

and has nothing to do with my claim.

Assertion 2 - displaying either a lack of attention to my argument or a failure to understand the concepts being argued

And a necessary being cannot be both act and potency

A necessary being cannot have both act and potency - this is true. The problem is you have been arguing that a necessarily being can have both act and potency, by saying that a necessary being can change.

IFF there really is such a distinction between the two concepts.

The distinction is evident, you simply lack the conceptual capacity to understand the concepts being discussed and how they relate to our experiences - assuming you are not simply fronting any claim that allows you avoid acknowledgement of my argument. In any case you don’t seem to really grasp what is being discussed.

But since that is what you are supposed to prove, you have actually been begging the question.

Assertion 3. Actually it is you that is prosing that a necessary being can change. I have never heard of such a thing. Since that is your rebuttal, you need to give a rational explanation of this idea, because right now it seems to me like your talking nonsense, and its not very convincing nonsense.

Only in a question-begging manner.

Assertion 4. You don’t understand what question begging is.

It’s also a shame that you are having difficulties leaving your own presupposed perspective…

Assertion without substance 5

At least I don’t embarrass myself by making the contradictory claim, as you do, that a necessary immutable reality can lead to the changing universe we observe. Speaking about square circles…

Straw-man.

I am simply arguing that a truly necessary being is fully actual in every aspect of its being, since every aspect of its being necessarily exists, and thus it makes no rational/logical/ontological sense to claim that such a being has the potential to either change into some other form or nature, have emergent properties, or change from 1 event to a potentially actual event, precisely because a necessary being by definition is fully actual (It does not have potency). A being is not necessary if it has potentials in its nature that are being actualized. Therefore you cannot claim that the universe is a necessary being.

There is no question begging; assertion; or empty rhetoric all of which you have expressed from the get go by simply asserting that a necessary being can change.

What does fundamental change even mean and how does it relate to a being that necessarily exists? You are merely demanding acknowledgement of an idea that is meaningless in so far as it relates to what it means for something to necessarily exist. It is empty rhetoric on your part.

Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[belorg]

It seems to me that you reject metaphysical knowledge in principle and have taken on this idea that for all you know there is no such thing as the ontologically impossible.

Is the idea that a “square-triangle” cannot exist a tautology?

Is the idea that nothing is not an “actual being” a tautology?

Is the metaphysically impossible a tautology?

Let me guess, you have this idea in your head that anything that cannot be measured empirically is a tautology. Are you a positivist?

No. A tautology is when you say the same thing twice. I have never denied e.g. that something that is necessarily red can be green. And I have likewise never argud that a necessarily immutable being can change, because saying that X is necessarily immutable is the same as saying X cannot possibly change. That’s why saying that a necessary nature cannot change into another nature is a tautology.

Like it or not, we observe potential actualized everyday in the real world; unless of course you don’t live there. Therefore the potential actualized was at one point not actual and therefore not necessary-actuality. The event actualized now was at one point not actual, thus the index of change you are experiencing now is not necessary-actuality.

Lots of things we see now were not the same yesterday. That’s fine, I have never denied the change exists.

Therefore it is true knowledge to state that a necessary being does not change.

Unless changeability is part of the necessary nature of this being.

Assertion 2 - displaying either a lack of attention to my argument or a failure to understand the concepts being argued

I fully understand the concept that’s being argued. That a being that has a necessarily imutable nature cannot change is not what’s under discussion here. What’s under discussion is whether a changeable ( or unstable) nature can be necessary.
You haven’t even begun to prove that it can’t.

A necessary being cannot have both act and potency - this is true. The problem is you have been arguing that a necessarily being can have both act and potency, by saying that a necessary being can change.

No, I have been denying that changing involves acy and potency.

The distinction is evident, you simply lack the conceptual capacity to understand the concepts being discussed and how they relate to our experiences - assuming you are not simply fronting any claim that allows you avoid acknowledgement of my argument. In any case you don’t seem to really grasp what is being discussed.

I am, but I don’t think you are.

Assertion 3. Actually it is you that is prosing that a necessary being can change. I have never heard of such a thing.

Never herad of the Kalam Cosmological argument? Never heard of William Lane Craig? He seems to think a necessary being can change.
Actually, the view that God cannot change is a minority position, which, again, doesn’t make it wrong. It just means it is by no means as obvious as you make it sound.

Since that is your rebuttal, you need to give a rational explanation of this idea, because right now it seems to me like your talking nonsense, and its not very convincing nonsense.

I don’t really care about convincing you.

Assertion 4. You don’t understand what question begging is.

Question-begging is assuming from the outset what you want to prove and use that assumption in your actual proof. And that is what you have been doing.

Assertion without substance 5

Well, you! don’t seem to be able to think outside the box.

Straw-man.

I am simply arguing that a truly necessary being is fully actual in every aspect of its being, since every aspect of its being necessarily exists, and thus it makes no rational/logical/ontological sense to claim that such a being has the potential to either change into some other form or nature, have emergent properties, or change from 1 event to a potentially actual event, precisely because a necessary being by definition is fully actual (It does not have potency). A being is not necessary if it has potentials in its nature that are being actualized. Therefore you cannot claim that the universe is a necessary being.

Again, this is question-begging. I have bolded an exmaple of something you use in your proof, but which you actually need to prove.

There is no question begging; assertion; or empty rhetoric all of which you have expressed from the get go by simply asserting that a necessary being can change.

As long as you don’t disprove it, I can assume it is possible.

What does fundamental change even mean and how does it relate to a being that necessarily exists? You are merely demanding acknowledgement of an idea that is meaningless in so far as it relates to what it means for something to necessarily exist. It is empty rhetoric on your part.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Your claim is that fundamental reality is necessary and therefore immutable? From there it is simply logically impossible to get to the changing reality we all observe. That is something that is “obvious” and believing that immutable reality can become chnaging reality (which is what your position entails) is like believing square circles can exist.
I could call this “ridiculous”, but I don’t think that will help the discussion at all.

 

[ChainBreaker]

No. A tautology is when you say the same thing twice. I have never denied e.g. that something that is necessarily red can be green. And I have likewise never argud that a necessarily immutable being can change, because saying that X is necessarily immutable is the same as saying X cannot possibly change. That’s why saying that a necessary nature cannot change into another nature is a tautology.

A tautology is a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable.

I am not arguing that a necessarily immutable being cannot change.

I am arguing that a nature that necessarily exists cannot change.

 

[belorg]

A tautology is a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable.

I am not arguing that a necessarily immutable being cannot change.

I am arguing that a nature that necessarily exists cannot change.

You said, “I have shown you why a necessary nature that changes into another nature is contradictory.” I agree with that. A nature that necessarily exists cannot change into another nature. That is tautologically true.
But I have never argued that it is false. What I argue is that instability is a necessary nature, and it cannot change into stability. There are no stable things and there can’t be any stable things, because to say that something exisst (or is a thing) is the same as to say it is unstable.
You may think I am just making this up, but that’s not true. String theory, e.g. says that on a basic level, what we call matter and energy is actually a kind of vibration. If theere were no vibration, there would be nothing, but that is impossible due to the fundamental instability of reality.

I am not asking you to believe this, ChainBreaker. And there are arguments against this, but up to now, to my knowledge, nobody has been able to disprove it.

 

[ChainBreaker]

No. A tautology is when you say the same thing twice. I have never denied e.g. that something that is necessarily red can be green. And I have likewise never argud that a necessarily immutable being can change, because saying that X is necessarily immutable is the same as saying X cannot possibly change. That’s why saying that a necessary nature cannot change into another nature is a tautology.

I am not arguing that a necessarily immutable being cannot change.

I am arguing that a nature that necessarily exists cannot change.

You are arguing that it can change if change is a necessary aspect of its nature.

But i am saying that if new potential forms, essences, events, states or other become actual, then these things were not fully actual to begin with and are therefore not necessarily actual.

It’s very simple, i am not saying anything controversial here.

**If every aspect ** of a things nature is necessary, it cannot potentially become another nature or another form or be subject to a sequence of potential events or become a new essence or whatever is conceivable.

Because of that fact, claiming that a nature that necessarily exists can change in anyway involves a contradiction no-matter how you slice it. You cannot just say that change is fundamental to its nature because this does not avoid the contradiction. A necessary being cannot have potency. You cannot challenge this rationally without undermining rationality itself.

Thus you have to agree, logically and ontologically speaking, that the nature of a necessary being is fully actual in every respect, and therefore does not change.

 

[ChainBreaker]

You said, “I have shown you why a necessary nature that changes into another nature is contradictory.” **I agree with that A nature that necessarily exists cannot change into another nature. **That is tautologically true.

It’s not tautologically true. It logically true in principle regardless of whether a necessary being exists or not. A nature that is necessary in every aspect of its being but nonetheless changes into another nature cannot exist just like a square-triangle cannot exist, I do not need to empirically verify those statements in order to know that it is true ontologically speaking. If that is a tautology then you might as well argue that rational inquiry itself is a tautology insofar as as it relates to what is possible and impossible in objective reality. In which case you are a positivist.

But I have never argued that it is false. What I argue is that instability is a necessary nature, and it cannot change into stability.

What are you saying? Are you saying that its in the nature of the universe to change, or are you saying that its **logically possible **that a changing being necessarily exist without a cause?

If its the former then i do not object and neither does it affect my argument. However if its the latter then this is patently false and does involve a contradiction in terms. It’s no different then saying that a square triangle can possibly exist.

There are no stable things and there can’t be any stable things, because to say that something exisst (or is a thing) is the same as to say it is unstable.

This is a circular argument.

You may think I am just making this up, but that’s not true. String theory, e.g. says that on a basic level, what we call matter and energy is actually a kind of vibration. If theere were no vibration, there would be nothing,

Nothing physical for sure.

but that is impossible due to the fundamental instability of reality.

The universe by its very nature changes. So? The fact that a natures existence is dependent on change in-order to exist and does not cease to exist altogether because it is in its nature to change, does not mean that the nature in question necessarily exists; the two statements do not operate in the same context.

When a scientist makes a statement they are operating in the context of methodological naturalism. Thus if they claim that a thing changes necessarily according to its nature, they can only mean that it is in a things nature to change. If scientists were to further claim that therefore the universe necessarily exists because its vibrating nature is the reason why it continues to be real and not simply cease to exist, not only does it not follow logically that the universe necessarily exists on that basis but also those scientist are no-longer operating in the context of the scientific method but instead they are operating in the context of metaphysics. The fact that a thing changes necessarily is not evidence that vibrating strings have to exist in the first place. There is no logical connection between the two concepts. And neither does this fact override the truth that potential is being actualized in the universe; which is something that a necessary being cannot do.

String theory may be valid. But your argument fails both as a scientific hypothesis and as a metaphysical argument.

I am not asking you to believe this, ChainBreaker. And there are arguments against this, but up to now, to my knowledge, nobody has been able to disprove it.

Show me a peer review scientific statement claiming that the universe necessarily exists. **There is no such statement and to claim otherwise would be an exercise in deception. **Your argument seems to be an exercise in scientism. Science can only tell us that a thing exists; it cannot tell us whether or not a thing necessarily-exists. It is not something a scientist can observe empirically in principle of that method. Metaphysical truth is not subject to the scientific method.

 

[belorg]

It’s not tautologically true. It logically true in principle regardless of whether a necessary being exists or not. A nature that is necessary in every aspect of its being but nonetheless changes into another nature cannot exist just like a square-triangle cannot exist, I do not need to empirically verify those statements in order to know that it is true ontologically speaking. If that is a tautology then you might as well argue that rational inquiry itself is a tautology insofar as as it relates to what is possible and impossible in objective reality. In which case you are a positivist.

Yes, a nature that is necessary in every aspect of its being cannot change into another nature. But the nature of reality on my view is instability and nothing else. There are no other aspects to the nature of reality.

What are you saying? Are you saying that its in the nature of the universe to change, or are you saying that its **logically possible **that a changing being necessarily exist without a cause?

If its the former then i do not object and neither does it affect my argument. However if its the latter then this is patently false and does involve a contradiction in terms. It’s no different then saying that a square triangle can possibly exist.

It is the latter and it is not a contradiction in terms if the necessary nature of reality is instability. There are no other aspects of the nature of reality.

This is a circular argument.

It isn’t an argument.

Nothing physical for sure.

Depends on how you define physical.

The universe by its very nature changes. So? The fact that a natures existence is dependent on change in-order to exist and does not cease to exist altogether because it is in its nature to change, does not mean that the nature in question necessarily exists; the two statements do not operate in the same context.

No, it does not necessarily mean this, but it *can *mean this.

When a scientist makes a statement they are operating in the context of methodological naturalism. Thus if they claim that a thing changes necessarily according to its nature, they can only mean that it is in a things nature to change. If scientists were to further claim that therefore the universe necessarily exists because its vibrating nature is the reason why it continues to be real and not simply cease to exist, not only does it not follow logically that the universe necessarily exists on that basis but also those scientist are no-longer operating in the context of the scientific method but instead they are operating in the context of metaphysics. The fact that a thing changes necessarily is not evidence that vibrating strings have to exist in the first place. There is no logical connection between the two concepts. And neither does this fact override the truth that potential is being actualized in the universe; which is something that a necessary being cannot do.

Of course it’s metaphysics. I have never argued it wasn’t.

String theory may be valid. But your argument fails both as a scientific hypothesis and as a metaphysical argument.

It is not a scientific hypothesis, it is a metaphysical argument and it doesn’t fail. You are simply approaching it from the wrong angle.

Show me a peer review scientific statement claiming that the universe necessarily exists. **There is no such statement and to claim otherwise would be an exercise in deception. **Your argument seems to be an exercise in scientism. Science can only tell us that a thing exists; it cannot tell us whether or not a thing necessarily-exists. It is not something a scientist can observe empirically in principle of that method. Metaphysical truth is not subject to the scientific method.

Necessity is not a scientific concept, it’s a metaphysical conept.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Yes, a nature that is necessary in every aspect of its being cannot change into another nature. But the nature of reality on my view is instability and nothing else. There are no other aspects to the nature of reality.

So now only change exists in your view.

Even if this were true, even though it blatantly contradicts what we experience, how can a nature be necessarily actual and unstable at the same time belorg? It is not enough to simply say that a being is change even though you keep insisting that it is. A being that changes involves indexes of change, It is sequential and thus each index of change is potentially actual in relation to one another. It is not fully actual but instead it is continuously actualized; - It is in a state of becoming, and therefore cannot be considered necessarily actual precisely because its very nature is made up of contingent sequences. Thats why your concept involves a contradiction. That which is necessarily actual does not have non-actualized potency in its nature full-stop.

You are basically arguing for the necessary existence of change which at the same time has potentially actual indexes of change. Your concept of change is meaningless since you are are essentially arguing that act and potency are identical. You might as well be arguing for the existence of a square-triangle.

Your insistence on this idea is bizarre.

 

[belorg]

So now only change exists in your view.

Yes, only change exists. that has been my position throughout this discussion.

Even if this were true, even though it blatantly contradicts what we experience, how can a nature be necessarily actual and unstable at the same time belorg?

A nature is not actual and unstable. A nature is unstable, period. It’s only your insistence on actuality and potentiality that gets you to the notion ‘actual and unstable’. If reality is necessarily unstable, we cannot use ‘actual’ in the sense you are using it.
Understanding this concept demands a radical change of persective.

It is not enough to simply say that a being is change even though you keep insisting that it is. A being that changes involves indexes of change, It is sequential and thus each index of change is potentially actual in relation to one another. It is not fully actual but instead it is continuously actualized; - It is in a state of becoming, and therefore cannot be considered necessarily actual precisely because its very nature is made up of contingent sequences. Thats why your concept involves a contradiction. That which is necessarily actual does not have non-actualized potency in its nature full-stop.

That’s once again, your perspective. If my view is applied consisently, however, we will have to let go of this actual-potential distinction.

You are basically arguing for the necessary existence of change which at the same time has potentially actual indexes of change. Your concept of change is meaningless since you are are essentially arguing that act and potency are identical. You might as well be arguing for the existence of a square-triangle.

In my view, the distinction between act and potency vanishes. Because existence is instability. there is no room for this distinction.The only thing that can be said about existence is that it is unstable. It’s all a matter of perspective.

Your insistence on this idea is bizarre.

Much less bizarre than the insistence that a completely immutable reality can be the basis of changing reality. That would be arguing for square triangles.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Yes, only change exists. that has been my position throughout this discussion.

What does that mean? What is changing?

A nature is not actual and unstable.

What does that mean? If a thing does not have an act of existence it is meaningless to describe it as being unstable. And if it does have an act of existence, what does it mean for existence to be unstable if its neccesary?

There is nothing controversial about act and potency. Everybody observes potency becoming real (or actual) whether that be a potential index of change becoming real or a seed becoming a tree or even the evolution of biological organisms were there was none in existence before. But there is something controversial about your position. No one understands it accept you.

If you are going to propose a new metaphysics, then it is your responsibility to show that it is logically consistent. Merely asserting that it is logically consistent to describe a necessary being as not actual and having no potency and yet exists necessarily and changes regardless is not going to automatically endow your position with logical consistency.

What you are arguing is illogical and meaningless to me. It is more than radical. At best your proposition is just a play on words demanding respect.

 

[belorg]

What does that mean? What is changing?

Do you mean, “What is the thing that is changing?” or do you mean ,“What does 'changing mean?” I have already explained the latter and the former has no meaning on my view because there is no “thing” that is changing. Change is the “thing”.

What does that mean? If a thing does not have an act of existence it is meaningless to describe it as being unstable. And if it does have an act of existence, what does it mean for existence to be unstable if its neccesary?

See my answer above. It’s obvious that you don’t understand this concept, but that is not enough to reject it.

There is nothing controversial about act and potency. Everybody observes potency becoming real (or actual) whether that be a potential index of change becoming real or a seed becoming a tree or even the evolution of biological organisms were there was none in existence before. But there is something controversial about your position. No one understands it accept you.

Well, one thing is certain: you don’t understand it. And theer are other peolple who don’t understand it. I have, however, had conversations with people who do understand it. And some of them agree with me. Others don’t, of course, but they have not been able to find any inconsistency in it.

If you are going to propose a new metaphysics, then it is your responsibility to show that it is logically consistent. Merely asserting that it is logically consistent to describe a necessary being as not actual and having no potency and yet exists necessarily and changes regardless is not going to automatically endow your position with logical consistency.

No, but it’s not automatically going to endow it with logical inconsistncy either.

What you are arguing is illogical and meaningless to me.

I

I’m fine with that. Lots of views are illogical and meaningless to me too.

It is more than radical. At best your proposition is just a play on words demanding respect.

It may be somewhat radical, but it’s definitely not just a play on words.
Anyway, I don’t think we can get any further in this discussion, so if you don’t mind, I would like to bow out. You can have the last word, if you want.
I must say that I have very much enjoyed this discussion.

Thank you.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Do you mean, “What is the thing that is changing?” or do you mean ,“What does 'changing mean?” I have already explained the latter and the former has no meaning on my view because there is no “thing” that is changing. Change is the “thing”.

“Begging the question means “assuming the conclusion (of an argument)”, a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.”

I am not assuming that change involves a distinction between act and potency, but rather this distinction is what we are all observing in the very concept and nature of a process. A process in principle involves the realization of potential states. We know that a necessary being does not have potency and thus we can also know that there is no such thing as a process that necessarily exists since the entire process by definition is a collection of contingent states. The only way out for you is to reject the idea that change is a process - a progression of potential states. But if you do that you are no-longer talking about change and your whole metaphysical proposition becomes nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

The universe is clearly in a state of becoming. Potential states are clearly being actualized. You claim that if only i give up on the act and potency distinction i could accept your position. Of course i could accept it, but then i would be giving up on a logically consistent definition of change in favor of nonsense. The actuality of potential is change.

See my answer above. It’s obvious that you don’t understand this concept, but that is not enough to reject it.

I understand what change is. You clearly do not.

some of them agree with me. Others don’t, of course, but they have not been able to find any inconsistency in it.

You have just met someone who has found an inconsistency.

It may be somewhat radical, but it’s definitely not just a play on words.

It is a play on words. Superficially it may appear consistent, but once one understands that a process in principle involves the realization of potential states the contradiction becomes glaringly obvious.

Anyway, I don’t think we can get any further in this discussion, so if you don’t mind, I would like to bow out. You can have the last word, if you want.
I must say that I have very much enjoyed this discussion.

Thank you.

I two agree that this discussion has actualized its potential. Thanks for participating.

God bless.