Existence

[Eudaimonist]

It is possible that the brick's existence would no longer be actual but instead possible or conceptual.

Possibility does not imply that the brick exists. It implies a universe in which a brick could exist. Conceptual doesn't not imply that the brick exists, but that a person who can conceptualize a brick exists. In both cases, there is no existing brick.

Again, perhaps the universe would not exist as an actuality but as a possibility or a concept.

Not if we stick to the definition of a universe, which is everything that exists.

Do we presuppose that existence is contingent upon that which exists in actuality? I happen to believe existence itself is pure actuality, contingent upon nothing but subsisting of itself.This sounds like pantheism, the idea that God is "all that which exists" (i.e. reality), including you and I.

As far as I can tell I agree, though I'm not a pantheist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Material existence is contingent.
God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

"Contingent" and "necessary" aren´t properties of existent things but descriptions of parts in a logical deduction.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Contingent" and "necessary" aren´t properties of existent things but descriptions of parts in a logical deduction.

I think that is a very good point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ivebeenshown]

Possibility does not imply that the brick exists.

This is incorrect. Examine the grammar of the following statement:

The possibility of a brick exists.

In this example, the 'of' is not a genitive preposition, as if to say 'there is a brick which possesses a possibility' -- rather, the brick exists as a possibility and not an actuality. Furthermore:

The brick is a possibility.

For anything to be a possibility, it must be something, it must exist. That which does not exist cannot be anything. It simply is not.

Conceptual does not imply that the brick exists, but that a person who can conceptualize a brick exists.

Possibilities may exist which have not yet been conceived by the human mind. For this reason I have taken a greater precaution in using the word 'concept.'

Not if we stick to the definition of a universe, which is everything that exists.

Many theoretical physicists wouldn't say this universe is everything that exists, and neither would I.

Rather, I call everything which exists "reality", which includes all "actualities" and "possibilities."

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is incorrect. Examine the grammar of the following statement:

The possibility of a deity exists.

In this example, the 'of' is not a genitive preposition, as if to say 'there is a deity which possesses a possibility' -- rather, the deity exists as a possibility and not an actuality.

Yes, but what is that possibility? What is the nature of any possibility? It doesn't exist in and of itself, but in relation to something.

For instance, I could say that the possibility of a chicken exists, and it is because of this egg right here. The possibility of a chicken exists because the egg possesses the power to grow into a chicken. So, possibility is equivalent to identifying the situation out of which the possible entity may arise. It doesn't have some invisible existence all its own.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ivebeenshown]

Yes, but what is that possibility? What is the nature of any possibility? It doesn't exist in and of itself, but in relation to something.

For instance, I could say that the possibility of a chicken exists, and it is because of this egg right here. The possibility of a chicken exists because the egg possesses the power to grow into a chicken. So, possibility is equivalent to identifying the situation out of which the possible entity may arise. It doesn't have some invisible existence all its own.

Regardless of whether or not the possibility is contingent upon any other actuality or possibility, the possibility of a chicken actually exists.

That which does not exist simply is not. The chicken in question actually is a possibility.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Regardless of whether or not the possibility is contingent upon any other actuality or possibility, the possibility of a chicken actually exists.

That possibility is nothing more than a mental projection of the future. Its existence is epistemological, not metaphysical. All that exists is that actuality out of which the possibility may arise.

By speaking of a possibility as existing, one is making the mistake of reifying a mental projection. One forgets that this is due to a linguistic short-cut where we pretend that the possibility exists instead of the conditions and causal powers that may lead to the entity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ivebeenshown]

That possibility is nothing more than a mental projection of the future. Its existence is epistemological, not metaphysical. All that exists is that actuality out of which the possibility may arise.

It is a contradiction to claim that "possibilities are mental projections of the future" ("are" is the present-tense plural form of "to be", which is synonymous with "to exist") while simultaneously arguing that "possibilities do not actually exist."

By speaking of a possibility as existing, one is making the mistake of reifying a mental projection. One forgets that this is due to a linguistic short-cut where we pretend that the possibility exists instead of the conditions and causal powers that may lead to the entity.

The acknowledgment of the existence of possibilities is not inherently a denial of the existence of any particular actuality. In this case, the possible existence of a chicken is contingent upon the actual existence of an egg, which is in itself contingent upon the possible existence of an egg.

Consider this: if nothing exists, then there is no possibility of existence -- the possibility of existence does not exist.
If there is no possibility of existing, then it is impossible for any thing to exist, whether 'any thing' is an actuality or a possibility.

 

[bricklayer]

"Contingent" and "necessary" aren´t properties of existent things but descriptions of parts in a logical deduction.

To address the properties of material without establishing its existential contingency is to begin our reasoning presupposing material necessity. All reasoning is presuppositional. One must start "somewhere", but the fact that material existence is contingent does come into play "down the line".

Matter has actual properties. "Things" have actuality, but they also have potentiality.
Material is complex, having both actuality and potentiality.
That which is necessary is simple actuality with no potentiality.
In other words, that which exists necessarily has no potential for change.

Material existence is defined by its changes, it's all a process.
No particle of matter can occupy the same relative position to the balance of matter in any two increments of time.
No particle of matter can occupy more than one relative position to the balance of matter in any one increment of time.

Matter is that with mass.
Space is position relative to matter.
Time is the progressive sequential incrementation of the matter-space continuum.
( Note matter's special relativity. )

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is a contradiction to claim that "possibilities are mental projections of the future" ("are" is the present-tense plural form of "to be", which is synonymous with "to exist") while simultaneously arguing that "possibilities do not actually exist."

It's not a contradiction because I made it clear that I was distinguishing between metaphysics and epistemology. Possibilities do not have a special metaphysical existence. They are mental projections -- a way of speaking about the future. All that exists are "pregnant" actualities -- actualities with the causal power to bring about a future state. But this actuality is not itself a possibility. It is what allows us to speak of possibilities.

Consider this: if nothing exists, then there is no possibility of existence -- the possibility of existence does not exist. If there is no possibility of existing, then it is impossible for any thing to exist, whether 'any thing' is an actuality or a possibility.

I agree. But do you see that possibilities are a way of conceptualizing reality? They have an epistemological existence, which is to say that they are a function of the human ability to speak about the future.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ivebeenshown]

It's not a contradiction because I made it clear that I was distinguishing between metaphysics and epistemology. Possibilities do not have a special metaphysical existence. They are mental projections -- a way of speaking about the future. All that exists are "pregnant" actualities -- actualities with the causal power to bring about a future state. But this actuality is not itself a possibility. It is what allows us to speak of possibilities.

I agree. But do you see that possibilities are a way of conceptualizing reality? They have an epistemological existence, which is to say that they are a function of the human ability to speak about the future.

Mark

You are saying that possibilities are "mental projections", or "a way of speaking about the future." I would say otherwise: possibilities are not merely conceptual -- they exist independently of the human mind. Before the human mind formed and became able to conceptualize actualities and possibilities, the formation of the human mind was a possibility.

Take into a consideration a point in time at which human minds had not yet formed. If the formation of the human mind were not a possibility, human minds could never have formed. But human minds did form, therefore the formation of the human mind was a possibility, even though no human mind could yet conceptualize it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are saying that possibilities are "mental projections", or "a way of speaking about the future." I would say otherwise: possibilities are not merely conceptual -- they exist independently of the human mind. Before the human mind formed and became able to conceptualize actualities and possibilities, the formation of the human mind was a possibility.

"Was a possibility" is a conceptualization. What are you referring to in reality? What is the nature of this "possibility"? Can you point to it?

Take into a consideration a point in time at which human minds had not yet formed. If the formation of the human mind were not a possibility, human minds could never have formed. But human minds did form, therefore the formation of the human mind was a possibility, even though no human mind could yet conceptualize it.

But what is it that leads you to the conclusion that there was such a possibility? It was some prior state of affairs that had the causal power to lead to the formation of the human mind. But that prior state of affairs is not what we call that possibility. It was some state of affairs that we now know led causally to what was at that time a future state of affairs.

In other words, we are now making a mental projection, except in this case we are considering past and present.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ivebeenshown]

OH, I see. Actuality and potentiality. I agree with you now.

It's as if potentiality is an extension of an already extant actuality, and not its own being. Right?

 

[bricklayer]

OH, I see. Actuality and potentiality. I agree with you now.

It's as if potentiality is an extension of an already extant actuality, and not its own being. Right?

Potentiality is an attribute of non-fully actualized contingencies.
There are, however, fully actualized potentialities (angels).

By the way, "already extant" and "actuality" are redundant.

 

[ivebeenshown]

So would existence itself not be the only constant actuality?

 

[bricklayer]

So would existence itself not be the only constant actuality?

Every characteristic attributable to God is a constant (unchanging, without potentiality) actuality.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Every characteristic attributable to God is a constant (unchanging, without potentiality) actuality.

Of course, since God is not divided into parts.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So God is three seperate people, but not divisible?

 

[bricklayer]

The existential purpose for God's creation is the revelation of God's glory.
God's glory is His holiness.
God's holiness is the inviolate balance of His infinite perfections.
God's holiness is everything about Him,
anything less than everything would be a violation of God's holiness.

 

[bricklayer]

So God is three seperate people, but not divisible?

The God of the bible is one. There is only one God, in the bible.
When the God of the bible acts,
the intent is attributed to God the Father
the affect is attributed to God the Holy Spirit and
the effect is attributed to God the Son.
The only times there is ever a distinction made between the persons of the "trinity" is when God acts,
and it is always in the economy outlined above.

One can say the Jesus is effectively God, the Holy Spirit is affectively God and the Father is, for all intents and purposes, God.

(The triune nature of an act is intent-affect-effect.)