What is potentiality/ actuality?

[fakename]

I realized that I don’t really understand these concepts when I thought, if God is actually God then he must be potentially human since by analogy a plant may be potentially plant but actually a seed. But there is no potentiality in God so obviously I’m in a contradicition.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi fakename,

First of all, a Happy New Year to you.

You’re correct that there is a correlation between a seed and a plant. An acorn, while in actuality is merely an acorn, is also an oak tree in potentiality. However, there are also actualities that do not have have the potential to become certain other things. Sticking with our previous example, an acorn does not have the potential to become something like a chocolate, or a sheep.

God, according to classical theists, is pure actuality. Since there is no potentiality in Him (as you allude to), He cannot change at all. For, a thing can change only with respect to its potentiality. This means that God is not potentially anything other than His own divine essence.

Does this clarify, or did you have something else in mind?

 

[fakename]

happy new year too and thanks since that really helps me.

 

[Hubriss]

I realized that I don’t really understand these concepts when I thought, if God is actually God then he must be potentially human since by analogy a plant may be potentially plant but actually a seed. But there is no potentiality in God so obviously I’m in a contradicition.

Haha. You ran into stuff by Tim Staples didn’t you? Tell him to drop his ridiculous constructions of the world already. Maybe it wasn’t Staples you heard this from, but it annoyed my to no end when I last heard him talk about it. It’s confusing because it does not accurately represent reality, and makes no sense.

No, a seed does not have the potential to become a plant. Put a seed in a glass cup and put it in your cupboard, I guarantee you if for the rest of your life if you keep checking it, it will never be a plant. A seed + water + nutrients + CO2 + sunlight + fixated nitrogen + many other resources + Time THEN can become a plant.

It’s junk theology. It uses simpleton language to confuse people, and trick them into thinking a misrepresenting argument is reasonable. It’s not.

No single thing can become another thing and no thing can become a single other thing. There are many parts to all equations. Anything has the potential to be anything. You have the potential to be a diamond plus more, a crayon has the potential to be dirt plus more, a skyscraper has the potential to be a pile of cow manure plus more, a rock plus more has the potential to become a castle, etc. Because remember, we and everything on this Earth were once part of a star! actually thousands of stars!

This is only one example of why actual/potential theology is meaningless. Everything is reduced to physics and chemistry. The most actual existence you can get is the most basic building block of everything, that which is smallest, most simple, and irreducible.

If you want further clarification, ask. But I beg of you, FORGET actual/potential theology. Or at least realize that it’s a crock of rubbish. It will get you nowhere.

 

[Magnanimity]

Haha. You ran into stuff by Tim Staples didn’t you? Tell him to drop his ridiculous constructions of the world already. Maybe it wasn’t Staples you heard this from, but it annoyed my to no end when I last heard him talk about it. It’s confusing because it does not accurately represent reality, and makes no sense.

No, a seed does not have the potential to become a plant. Put a seed in a glass cup and put it in your cupboard, I guarantee you if for the rest of your life if you keep checking it, it will never be a plant. A seed + water + nutrients + CO2 + sunlight + fixated nitrogen + many other resources + Time THEN can become a plant.

It’s junk theology. It uses simpleton language to confuse people, and trick them into thinking a misrepresenting argument is reasonable. It’s not.

No single thing can become another thing and no thing can become a single other thing. There are many parts to all equations. Anything has the potential to be anything. You have the potential to be a diamond plus more, a crayon has the potential to be dirt plus more, a skyscraper has the potential to be a pile of cow manure plus more, a rock plus more has the potential to become a castle, etc. Because remember, we and everything on this Earth were once part of a star! actually thousands of stars!

This is only one example of why actual/potential theology is meaningless. Everything is reduced to physics and chemistry. The most actual existence you can get is the most basic building block of everything, that which is smallest, most simple, and irreducible.

If you want further clarification, ask. But I beg of you, FORGET actual/potential theology. Or at least realize that it’s a crock of rubbish. It will get you nowhere.

Not very sympathetic to the Aristotelian/Thomistic way of metaphysics, are you? Well, at least be appreciative of the fact that that is what this is: metaphysics. Act/potency distinctions see the biggest cash value in that area.

I find it curiously ironic that many of your statements themselves seem quite without meaning and yet you claim the problem with the act/potency is that it’s meaningless. You say above “Anything has the potential to be anything.” Do you take that to be a very meaningful statement? You also say “Everything is reduced to physics and chemistry.” Says who? Moreover, that runs the risk of falling into the Ayer self-defeating positivism. Because, is that proposition itself reduced to physics or chem? How is it meaningful to claim that concepts and/or propositions are reduceable to physics or chemistry?

Lastly, I’ve never heard anyone describe the subtle Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics as “simpleton.” I wonder whether you’ve made a serious effort to understand it…

 

[grannymh]

Lastly, I’ve never heard anyone describe the subtle Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics as “simpleton.” I wonder whether you’ve made a serious effort to understand it…

I’m willing to make the effort.

Please keep going with your explanation.

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[jimmytoes]

God, according to classical theists, is pure actuality. Since there is no potentiality in Him (as you allude to), He cannot change at all. For, a thing can change only with respect to its potentiality. This means that God is not potentially anything other than His own divine essence.

Interesting, yet we know that God is Omnipotent. Could it be that action is the release of potential? Could it be that God, as pure act, is (in the eternal now) constantly releasing potential - causing creation to continue to exist, plants to grow, biology to work, answering prayers, etc.? In other words, God - being pure act - must also be pure potential.

 

[jimmytoes]

Let’s break this down…
Part 1:

No, a seed does not have the potential to become a plant.

You say it does not have potential.
Part 2:

Put a seed in a glass cup and put it in your cupboard, I guarantee you if for the rest of your life if you keep checking it, it will never be a plant.

You state conditions where that potential cannot be actualized.
Part 3:

A seed + water + nutrients + CO2 + sunlight + fixated nitrogen + many other resources + Time THEN can become a plant.

You state conditions whereby the seed’s potential can be actualized.

Your own assertion in part 3 nullifies your statement in part 1.

What is it that you are trying to say? That you don’t believe in potentiality/actuality as a basis for philosophical thought?

 

[Hubriss]

To clarify, no potentiality/actuality philosophy does not have a basis in theology because it does not accurately represent reality. It’s too simple. You have scientists spending lifetimes trying to figure out how the universe works, then you have some guy coming and saying it’s all actuality/potentiality! I don’t buy it.

Yes Magnanimity, “anything has the potential to be anything” is not a very meaningful statement, but it’s the truth and points to why actuality/potentiality theology isn’t useful. Objects are not objects in themselves. You cannot most completely describe a seed without describing what it is fundamentally made of, and that stuff of a seed, which is the stuff of everything if reduced enough, is what should be subject to any kind of cause-effect philosophy that wants to encompass as much as possible, ie, be a theory of everything.

 

[punkforchrist]

Interesting, yet we know that God is Omnipotent. Could it be that action is the release of potential? Could it be that God, as pure act, is (in the eternal now) constantly releasing potential - causing creation to continue to exist, plants to grow, biology to work, answering prayers, etc.? In other words, God - being pure act - must also be pure potential.

Yeah, it depends on how you use the word, “potential.” We often associate the word in terms of power, as you allude to. The Aristotelian understanding, on the other hand, interprets potentiality as a measurement of privation that may develop. So, the acorn lacks something (privation) that an oak tree has, but may develop into an oak tree under the right conditions. Since God is pure actuality, He already possesses all power, so there is nothing for Him to lack in the first place.

 

[jimmytoes]

To clarify, no potentiality/actuality philosophy does not have a basis in theology because it does not accurately represent reality. It’s too simple. You have scientists spending lifetimes trying to figure out how the universe works, then you have some guy coming and saying it’s all actuality/potentiality! I don’t buy it…

You know, that sounds a lot like Einstein’s quote that “God does not play dice!” with respect to the postulations about quantum mechanics. He and other scientists were “spending their lifetimes trying to figure out how the universe works” Yet, it seems that God does play dice at the quantum level. It was the only way to account for actions at the sub-atomic level. In fact, it seems to me to be a scientific reference to potentiality/actuality in “action”.

So, if it works for physics, why not for metaphysics?

As far as not representing reality, perhaps you need to take a step back and consider what is reality in the first place. I find that it represents reality pretty well at both the meta and physical levels.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Hi fakename,

First of all, a Happy New Year to you.

You’re correct that there is a correlation between a seed and a plant. An acorn, while in actuality is merely an acorn, is also an oak tree in potentiality. However, there are also actualities that do not have have the potential to become certain other things. Sticking with our previous example, an acorn does not have the potential to become something like a chocolate, or a sheep.

Why not? Why can’t God turn an acorn into a sheep? A few changes in the DNA at the right spots, and voila!! We’ll probably have this ability ourselves before long. A synthetic genome has already been produced.

Now of course, even if the acorn is a sheep in potentiality, it is still an acorn in actuality. Thus the potentiality/actuality distinction is true in itself. Where metaphysicians have overreached IMHO is pretending to know the limits of potentiality deductively, whereby in fact it was merely inferred from observations - and it also seems to put limits on God’s power.

 

[grannymh]

Why not? Why can’t God turn an acorn into a sheep? A few changes in the DNA at the right spots, and voila!! We’ll probably have this ability ourselves before long. A synthetic genome has already been produced.

Now of course, even if the acorn is a sheep in potentiality, it is still an acorn in actuality. Thus the potentiality/actuality distinction is true in itself. Where metaphysicians have overreached IMHO is pretending to know the limits of potentiality deductively, whereby in fact it was merely inferred from observations - and it also seems to put limits on God’s power.

Acorns, sheep, DNA, consist of matter. Matter has limitations. This is what makes the categorization of matter possible. Matter is why one doesn’t put acorns in the gas tank. A synthetic genome, itself, is made out of matter.

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[JDaniel]

None of this has anything to do with “metaphysics”. Metaphysics has to do with being as Being and God as God. Potency and act are part of a general science of nature. A general science of nature has to do with the beginnings of the epistemologies of the natural sciences. Understanding this would go a long way toward understanding the concepts everyone is trying to understand herein.

Potency and Act are the two parts - in as simple terms as possible - that define motion. There are definitions of motion that are much more complex, but, each of them use the term (one way or another) in the definition. There’s no doubt that motion is motion, but, that tells us little about what motion really is. Thus, motion, in its simplest definition is defined as, “The Act of the Potential precisely as Potential.” Upon understanding the terms, potency and act, we are able to construct a primary definition that is not tautological.

As youngsters, when we encounter an object that is new to us, we tend to scrutinize it to understand it as quickly and simply as possible. We peruse its geometry. We peruse its motion(s). We do not, at that point, undertake to slice it apart to try to understand a thing at its micro level. In fact, as human beings, we rarely understand most objects much beyond their most surface levels. To try to understand everything at each’s atomic level would, of course, consume too much time. Understanding objects by a perusal of their motions speeds up the knowing process and gives us sufficient knowledge of the objects that interest us whereby we are able to interact with the material world around us very smoothly and efficiently - most of the time.

So, to say that the concepts of Act and Potency are not important to us is to fail to understand how we Know. To fail to understand that these two concepts are supposed by us in our search for the more complex structures of the objects surrounding us, is to fail to know how we know. Typically, such a statement of it is a thoughtless and senseless assertion made by someone desperately trying to remove God from the equation as far as possible.

As human beings, we are surrounded by mobile things. When a mobile being is quiet, it is in potency. When it moves to another destination, or, point, it is in act. In the realm of coming-to-be, the same is true. An acorn is in potency to become an oak tree. Whether it can become something else, by the intervention of man and his science, is beside the point. In its natural state, acorns dropping on the ground all over the world will for the most part develop into oak trees, not Polar Bears or water melons. It it were not so, our would would be a world of pure chaos.

The philosophy that includes potency and actuality is the beginnings of the more complex philosophies, just as in science, it is the beginnings of the more complex sciences. Simply because the concepts are relegated to a point, in our thinking, that is at the level of presupposition, does not mean that it is not of value, nor does it mean that it is not there, underlying our thought processes.

jd

 

[Magnanimity]

jd,

I like a lot of what you say in your post, but there is some clarification in order.

First, a lot of what you describe is loco-motion, which is the discipline of physics; not metaphysics. And that is not really what is meant by ‘motion’ in this context. By motion is meant “becoming,” and that’s how the relevance comes in to potentiality. An object (a thing in act) has the potential to become (potency)… whatever it’s going to become.

And, very importantly, whenever one is dealing with being and becoming, he is most certainly within the realm of metaphysics.

 

[Hubriss]

JD, your post had a whole lot of nothing to say. Potency and act are part of no general science of anything. All you need to define motion is position and time.

Magnanimity, how is the observation of being and becoming within the realm of metaphysics? I guess it might depend on what definition of metaphysics you use…

 

[Magnanimity]

Hubriss,

Yeah, I’m meaning being and becoming in the classic Aristotelian/Thomistic sense. Not that that is completely passe or anything. There are contemporary philosophers (eg, Loux) who would have a similar meaning.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I realized that I don’t really understand these concepts when I thought, if God is actually God then he must be potentially human since by analogy a plant may be potentially plant but actually a seed. But there is no potentiality in God so obviously I’m in a contradicition.

.
Potentiality deals with something which is not yet actual, but has the potential to be actual given a particular chain of events and the intermingling various natures.

In God, everything is perfected and fulfilled in a timeless instant. God is already fulfilled in everything that is true of Gods nature an act. God already knew what he would create in the same instant that he created. God eternally created the universe. We must also understand that God is love by act and nature, and thus God expresses and wills from all eternity every possible manifestation that reflects the good. One possible manifestation is our universe. Our universe has the potentiality to fulfill what it was created to do and continues to exist, because God eternally willed it to do so.

 

[fakename]

In general the science of physics in the old sense, was the science of being in as much as being changed. The science of metaphysics utilized and modified physics by also taking in speculations on unchanging things. This is why concepts like potentiality and actuality were most important and meaningful in the past.

The modern physics is really the study of matter inasmuch as it is matter and as such, has no use for potentiality and actuality but the word physics is here equivocal so the same thing that holds for natural scientists today are in no way related to the past theories so the very idea that modern physics and old physics can comment on each other in the exact same sense that they comment within their own sciences is wrong and so one cannot apply the ideas of one to the other.

 

[Magnanimity]

In general the science of physics in the old sense, was the science of being in as much as being changed. The science of metaphysics utilized and modified physics by also taking in speculations on unchanging things. This is why concepts like potentiality and actuality were most important and meaningful in the past.

I think your history needs a little amplification, if not clarification. To use the world ‘change’ with regard to being isn’t quite specific enough. Change of what? With regard to physics in the ancient and medieval sense it would have been more specific than you’ve stated it here. So, physics was regarded as the science of being inasmuch as it is in (loco)motion. And, metaphysics might be regarded as the science of being as such.

The modern physics is really the study of matter inasmuch as it is matter and as such, has no use for potentiality and actuality but the word physics is here equivocal so the same thing that holds for natural scientists today are in no way related to the past theories so the very idea that modern physics and old physics can comment on each other in the exact same sense that they comment within their own sciences is wrong and so one cannot apply the ideas of one to the other.

I don’t think so. Physics can still be thought of in the same way articulated above. Chemistry, maybe, would be the science studying matter as such. It is true that act/potency sees the most cash value on the metapysical level, but I don’t think that’s been recently disputed.

My how easily we forget the dilemma of Parmenides…