The act of Necessary Existence - my conclusion

[belorg]

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 don’t hold that change is illusory, but it is still a fcat that on B-theory of time, “the event I am experiencing now”, is simultaneous with any other event, incluidng the big-bang. So, on a B-theory of time, the vent that I am experiencing now did exist at the moment of the big-bang.
Honestly, I have no idea why you asked this question. I don’t think it is relevant to anything.

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.

That’s the main problem. People keep telling me the actuality- potentiality distinction is plain, or obvious. If by that, you only mean that there is such a thing as chnage, then of course this is trivially true.

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.

Change is a fundamental property of every existing thing. If you wnat: every existing thing has actuality as well as potentiality.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Change is a fundamental property of every existing thing. If you wnat: every existing thing has actuality as well as potentiality.

Two events may exist simultaneously with one another and in relation to each other, but they are clearly not identical with one another; the planet earth did not exist in the singularity. I think you are honest enough to accept that.

As for time being a property, I don’t know what you mean by that logically speaking.

What I do know is that physical reality is changing, and change is the actualisation of potential whether that involves the continuation of a things existence or the emergence of a new thing or property. If that potential isn’t actualised the thing cannot change. For example a born baby requires the actualisation of potential in a foetus in order to become real. If the potential is not there then it won’t happen, a born baby won’t become real in regards to foetus.

A necessary being cannot become more or less than what it is essentially, because what it is essentially is what it necessarily is and that is why it does not change.

 

[belorg]

Two events may exist simultaneously with one another and in relation to each other, but they are clearly not identical with one another; the planet earth did not exist in the singularity. I think you are honest enough to accept that.

Of course I accept that, but you didn’t say anything about existing in the singularity, you were talking about existing at the moment of the singularity.

But, as I said, I accept this, and it is not relevant here anyway.

As for time being a property, I don’t know what you mean by that logically speaking.

Where did I say that time was a property. I said change is a property.

What I do know is that physical reality is changing, and change is the actualisation of potential whether that involves the continuation of a things existence or the emergence of a new thing or property. If that potential isn’t actualised the thing cannot change. For example a born baby requires the actualisation of potential in a foetus in order to become real. If the potential is not there then it won’t happen, a born baby won’t become real in regards to foetus.

A necessary being cannot become more or less than what it is essentially, because what it is essentially is what it necessarily is and that is why it does not change.

I know you believe that, ChainBreaker, and I also know that physical reality is changing, but I don’t think that holds solely for physical reality. I think mutability is a fundamental propety of (*physical and non-physical *)reality.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I know you believe that, ChainBreaker, and I also know that physical reality is changing, but I don’t think that holds solely for physical reality. I think mutability is a fundamental propety of (*physical and non-physical *)reality.

A triangle that is necessarily a triangle cannot become a square belorg. The potential cannot become actual. It cannot change.

It really does not matter if you think change is a fundamental property of anything; although I still don’t know what that could possibly mean.

 

[belorg]

A triangle that is necessarily a triangle cannot become a square belorg. The potential cannot become actual. It cannot change.

A triangle is an abstract object. I don’t believe in the reality of abstract objects.

It really does not matter if you think change is a fundamental property of anything; although I still don’t know what that could possibly mean.

If change is a fundamental property of something, then that something needs no external cause in order to change.

 

[ChainBreaker]

A triangle is an abstract object. I don’t believe in the reality of abstract objects.

I didn’t suppose that you did. I was simply trying to give an example of a necessary nature; I wasn’t arguing that it actually existed.

If change is a fundamental property of something, then that something needs no external cause in order to change.

If change was intrinsic to some thing it would not be a necessary being since it has the potential to become more than what it is or take on more existence… It may not require a mechanistic-cause but it would require an existential-cuase because it is contingent which is made evident by the fact that it changes.

 

[belorg]

I didn’t suppose that you did. I was simply trying to give an example of a necessary nature; I wasn’t arguing that it actually existed.

The kind of necessary nature you are positing here is typical for an abstract object.

If change was intrinsic to some thing it would not be a necessary being since it has the potential to become more than what it is or take on more existence… It may not require a mechanistic-cause but it would require an existential-cuase because it is contingent which is made evident by the fact that it changes.

No, it doesn’t have the potential to become more than it was, or to take on more existence. It has intrinsic mutability, that’s all. Fundamentally (or necessarily) reality is intrinsically mutable. And sometimes the resumt of this change can -subjectively- be described as “more”.

 

[ChainBreaker]

No, it doesn’t have the potential to become more than it was, or to take on more existence. It has intrinsic mutability, that’s all. Fundamentally (or necessarily) reality is intrinsically mutable. And sometimes the resumt of this change can -subjectively- be described as “more”.

I see. So according to you new natures do not come into existence. The evolution of the universe is not real and the emergence of new properties is a subjective illusion. Well…if that’s what you need to believe in order to avoid the alternative…

I see something different. I see the actualisation of potency. That which is necessarily some thing cannot change into a different thing and that much is entirely obvious to me at least. Your definition of change is meaningless.

 

[belorg]

I see. So according to you new natures do not come into existence. The evolution of the universe is not real and the emergence of new properties is a subjective illusion. Well…if that’s what you need to believe in order to avoid the alternative…

I see something different. I see the actualisation of potency. That which is necessarily some thing cannot change into a different thing and that much is entirely obvious to me at least. Your definition of change is meaningless.

Where did I say that new natures do not come into existence? Where did I say that the emergence of new properties is an illusion?
The subjectivity lies in describing this as “more”. That’s the intrinsic teleology I was talking about. Of course, if something changes it has new properties, but that doesn’t mean it becomes more.

BTW, that a thing which is necessarily some thing cannot change into a different thing is obvious to me too, but that is not what we are talking about. Of course something that is essentially red cannot change into something green, but it is equally obvious that something that is essentially mutable can change. And that’s what you need to refute in order for your concept to work.
So, you will have to argue for why it is impossible for something to be necessarily mutable.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Where did I say that new natures do not come into existence? Where did I say that the emergence of new properties is an illusion?
The subjectivity lies in describing this as “more”. That’s the intrinsic teleology I was talking about. Of course, if something changes it has new properties, but that doesn’t mean it becomes more.

BTW, that a thing which is necessarily some thing cannot change into a different thing is obvious to me too, but that is not what we are talking about.

That is what we are talking about.

Of course something that is essentially red cannot change into something green, but it is equally obvious that something that is essentially mutable can change. And that’s what you need to refute in order for your concept to work.
So, you will have to argue for why it is impossible for something to be necessarily mutable.

Because it is a meaningless concept and it is not obvious at all, you are simply redefining change into something arbitrary.

Objects change. Change does not exist apart from whatever object is changing. Change is not a thing in and of itself but rather it is what a thing is doing. The very act of change involves the actuality of potency. In other words the end to which a thing is in act is being actualised. If a thing does not have an end to which it is in act it would not change since there is nothing for it to change to for there is no potential in it. But things clearly change and therefore have a potency to some particular end, whether that be a foetus changing into a baby or a seed turning into a tree. It is clearly becoming more than it was to begin with. This is not something that I am making up to suit my beliefs. The evidence is clear for everyone to see, and the evidence forms a rational basis for my claims.

All these things are clear to those willing to observe and denial of these facts are just that, denial. The reality is, you have no rational grounds for that denial. It is not me that has to prove anything, since it is you who is denying that which is so clearly evident to our observation.

 

[ChainBreaker]

So, you will have to argue for why it is impossible for something to be necessarily mutable.

There is a difference between something necessarily changing and the idea that change necessarily exists.

 

[belorg]

There is a difference between something necessarily changing and the idea that change necessarily exists.

Yes, but if something is necessarily changing then it doesn’t need an external cause for its change.

 

[belorg]

That is what we are talking about.

No, Chainbreaker, you will have to prove that reality can be fundamentally immutable.

Because it is a meaningless concept and it is not obvious at all, you are simply redefining change into something arbitrary.

No, I am just removing all the bagage from the term so that we can discuss the basics.

Objects change. Change does not exist apart from whatever object is changing. Change is not a thing in and of itself but rather it is what a thing is doing. The very act of change involves the actuality of potency. In other words the end to which a thing is in act is being actualised. If a thing does not have an end to which it is in act it would not change since there is nothing for it to change to for there is no potential in it. But things clearly change and therefore have a potency to some particular end, whether that be a foetus changing into a baby or a seed turning into a tree. It is clearly becoming more than it was to begin with. This is not something that I am making up to suit my beliefs. The evidence is clear for everyone to see, and the evidence forms a rational basis for my claims.

Change is porperty of existing beings. If you want to call them objects, that’s fine with me. And the “to some particular end” part is where you presuppose teleology. If we remove this bagage we get that change is, indeed, something arbitrary. So, if you can’t prove teleology, you can’t prove your concept of change.

All these things are clear to those willing to observe and denial of these facts are just that, denial. The reality is, you have no rational grounds for that denial. It is not me that has to prove anything, since it is you who is denying that which is so clearly evident to our observation.

That something needs to have and end to which it is in act is not evident at all. It is in fact denied by observations of completely undetermined processes.

 

[ChainBreaker]

No, Chainbreaker, you will have to prove that reality can be fundamentally immutable.

I already have shown this to be necessary. All you have done is assert that a necessary act of reality can be mutable without given a coherent reason for anybody to agree with. What you fail to understand is that change without potency is meaningless. A thing has the potential to change, that is why it changes because potentiality is being actualized and thus brought into being; This is clear to anybody willing to observe and admit to what they are seeing. Also it is only possible for a thing to actualize its potency if that is the end to which it is in act. There is no assertion of teleology here but rather it is the fact of change that provides us with evidence of a legitimate teleology. Teleology is simply an unavoidable fact of change. You cannot have a coherent understanding of change without acknowledging that there is an end to which a thing is changing.

No, I am just removing all the baggage from the term so that we can discuss the basics.

There is no baggage to be removed. Change involves potency, it is the actuality of potential.

You have no meaningful understanding of change in the first place. You are removing what does not suit you, making meaningless assertions, and asking me to disprove them.

Change is property of existing beings.

Change is what a thing is doing potentially. Without the object, change is meaningless nonsense. There is no rational basis for thinking that change is a necessary existence let alone an actual object in and of itself.

That something needs to have and end to which it is in act is not evident at all. It is in fact denied by observations of completely undetermined processes.

First of all i am not a proponent of the assertion that a thing has to be changing.

Secondly,: undetermined processes are changing, and thus its nature is acting to a potential end. It is clearly evident.

That a thing is undetermined in its processes is ultimately irrelevant.

 

[belorg]

I already have shown this to be necessary. All you have done is assert that a necessary act of reality can be mutable without given a coherent reason for anybody to agree with. What you fail to understand is that change without potency is meaningless. A thing has the potential to change, that is why it changes because potentiality is being actualized and thus brought into being; This is clear to anybody willing to observe and admit to what they are seeing. Also it is only possible for a thing to actualize its potency if that is the end to which it is in act. There is no assertion of teleology here but rather it is the fact of change that provides us with evidence of a legitimate teleology. Teleology is simply an unavoidable fact of change. You cannot have a coherent understanding of change without acknowledging that there is an end to which a thing is changing.

The fact of change provides us with evidence of change. It doesn’t provide us with any evidence of teleology

You have no meaningful understanding of change in the first place. You are removing what does not suit you, making meaningless assertions, and asking me to disprove them.

And you obviously can’t disprove them.

Change is what a thing is doing potentially. Without the object, change is meaningless nonsense. There is no rational basis for thinking that change is a necessary existence let alone an actual object in and of itself.

Which I have never claimed.

First of all i am not a proponent of the assertion that a thing has to be changing.

Secondly,: undetermined processes are changing, and thus its nature is acting to a potential end. It is clearly evident.

That a thing is undetermined in its processes is ultimately irrelevant.

Something undetermined has no end.

Look, ChainBreaker, I asked you to prove your position and all you have offered are assertions that your position is true. There really is no point in continuing this discussion. I have stated the possibility that chnage is a fundamental aspect of existing beings. You haven’t refuted this claim, so it remains a possibility.

 

[ChainBreaker]

The fact of change provides us with evidence of change. It doesn’t provide us with any evidence of teleology

And you obviously can’t disprove them.

Which I have never claimed.

Something undetermined has no end.

Look, ChainBreaker, I asked you to prove your position and all you have offered are assertions that your position is true. There really is no point in continuing this discussion. I have stated the possibility that chnage is a fundamental aspect of existing beings. You haven’t refuted this claim, so it remains a possibility.

I have provided sufficient reasons for my position and you have provided none. You are denying that change involves the actualization of potential which is just ridiculous since it is evident to our experiences and i have given clear examples. You have no reason to reject that change is the actualization of potential. If you do not wish to acknowledge the truth that is completely up to you.

 

[belorg]

I have provided sufficient reasons for my position and you have provided none. You are denying that change involves the actualization of potential which is just ridiculous since it is evident to our experiences and i have given clear examples. You have no reason to reject that change is the actualization of potential. If you do not wish to acknowledge the truth that is completely up to you.

The only sort of argument I got from you is that it’s obvious and ridiculiuzs to think otherwise, but all that is obvious is that things change, not that they change because there is a teleology that says they have to become something “more”. Most contemporary scientists reject that sort of teleology, which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but which most certainly means that it is not obvious at all. Unless of course you wish to call their positions “ridiculous” too.
For the rest it is clear to me that you cannot prove your position. That’s no problem, neither can I. So, until we can, I think we should refrain from calling each other’s position ridiculous.

 

[ChainBreaker]

The only sort of argument I got from you is that it’s obvious and ridiculiuzs to think otherwise,

Because the concept of change without potency is ridiculous and meaningless. If change is necessarily actual and physical reality is necessarily actual then every index of change and everything physical reality is changing into is necessarily actual and therefore fully actual with no beginning, and this is a contradiction since there should be no change if every index of change necessarily exists. But then we wouldn’t be talking about change anymore; just some meaningless thing that you made up.

It is however evident that there are ends to which things are changing, and that things do become more. And i gave examples of that fact.

but all that is obvious is that things change, not that they change because there is a teleology that says they have to become something “more”. Most contemporary scientists reject that sort of teleology, which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but which most certainly means that it is not obvious at all. Unless of course you wish to call their positions “ridiculous” too.

Why would teleology be a subject of empirical investigation? The fact that most scientists hold to a belief in metaphysical naturalism is not an indication that such a belief is evident or logically consistent with our experiences. Metaphysical naturalism is what you have to believe in if you reject the supernatural. It has nothing to do with science, so you cannot use science as an authority on this matter.

For the rest it is clear to me that you cannot prove your position. That’s no problem, neither can I. So, until we can, I think we should refrain from calling each other’s position ridiculous.

Well, i have proven my position. But its not me that has the burden of proof since it is you that is presenting ideas that are not consistent with our experiences or logic.

 

[belorg]

Because the concept of change without potency is ridiculous and meaningless. If change is necessarily actual and physical reality is necessarily actual then every index of change and everything physical reality is changing into is necessarily actual and therefore fully actual with no beginning, and this is a contradiction since there should be no change if every index of change necessarily exists. But then we wouldn’t be talking about change anymore; just some meaningless thing that you made up.

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

It is however evident that there are ends to which things are changing, and that things do become more. And i gave examples of that fact.

It may be evident that there are end to which some things are changing (living things e.g., may, in a sense, be said to change to an end), but it’s not at all evident that e.g. a quantum fluctuation is a change to an end.

Why would teleology be a subject of empirical investigation? The fact that most scientists hold to a belief in metaphysical naturalism is not an indication that such a belief is evident or logically consistent with our experiences. Metaphysical naturalism is what you have to believe in if you reject the supernatural. It has nothing to do with science, so you cannot use science as an authority on this matter.

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

Well, i have proven my position. But its not me that has the burden of proof since it is you that is presenting ideas that are not consistent with our experiences or logic.

I asked you to prove your position and you told me you could. I, on the other hand, never told you I could prove my position

 

[ChainBreaker]

I, on the other hand, never told you I could prove my position

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

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.

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

But then we wouldn’t be talking about change anymore; just some meaningless thing that you made up.