At 8:52 AM on 3/31, Krimel wrote: > What is the difference between potentiality and possibility > and how does potential become 'causal' and creative?
I guess I assumed that potentiality was understood universally as "the power to be" or "the power to become actualized", whereas possibility applies to latent aspects of what already exists. But causality is an important issue for both epistemology and metaphysics, as Les Sleeth of physicsforums.com notes: "I have a theoretical perspective on the first cause dilemma that, for me and for now at least, satisfies logic. To begin with I look at cause and effect as neutrally as possible and call it movement (one could also call it change, which is movement too, but I have reason for calling it movement). Without movement there is no cause and effect. If we imagine the big bang as movement (which it clearly was), we might ask what preceded it. What was the status quo then? Is it possible there was no movement (or change)? Was it still, and then movement began for no reason? There seems no way to say that something didn't change/move that then brought about the big bang. In words, prior to our universe's existence, something was there either moving or capable of moving. "Thus we come to the concept of potentiality, which is not nothing. Stated as a principle we might say it as follows: All that exists in time must be preceded by the potential for it to exist. Our universe apparently did have beginning, and therefore we can wonder about the potential it sprang from. Since the nature of our universe is movement, for example, we might assume that part of the nature of this potentiality is dynamic, that it fluctuates in some manner, which can lead to events like a big bang." In a section from my book, 'Actuality as Probability?' I wrote: "What has the potential to exist is not actualized by its own power, for prior to existence there is no 'itself', but rather by virtue of an other whose essence is the necessity to exist. Not only is it impossible for a man to bring himself into being, it is also just as impossible for him to sustain his existence. Whatever he does, he can only do on condition that he exist - feed himself, for example. We keep ourselves alive, but we do not preserve our existence. We need to be before we can keep ourselves alive. We bring the appearance of objects into subjective reality by framing them in nothingness, but we cannot bring them into being from nothing; we can only act according to the powers of our nature, within the limits of that nature." Potentiality is the power to become, to actualize our reality, and it is primary to latent possibility -- "what happens" to that reality. Consider this statement from 'A New Theory of the Universe" by biotechnologist Robert Lanza: "When we consider the nerve impulses entering the brain, we realize that they are not woven together automatically, any more than the information is inside a computer. Our thoughts have an order, not of themselves, but because the mind generates the spatio-temporal relationships involved in every experience. We can never have any experience that does not conform to these relationships, for they are the modes of animal logic that mold sensations into objects. It would be erroneous, therefore, to conceive of the mind as existing in space and time before this process, as existing in the circuitry of the brain before the understanding posits in it a spatio-temporal order. The situation, as we have seen, is like playing a CD - the information leaps into three-dimensional sound, and in that way, and in that way only, does the music indeed exist." [Krimel]: > Saying that we build an inner representation of our experience > is not the same as "constructing" something. Determining what > the order of physical reality is, is not that same as determining > 'that' it is. What you are talking about here may apply to > subjective understanding but has nothing whatever to do with > the physical world and the rules that apply to it. I disagree, because subjective understanding is how we experience. And since the world we experience is the world we all recognize and define (by our intellectual precepts thereof), the "structure" of its components is consciously derived. As Lanza says, "...the mind generates the spatio-temporal relationships involved in every experience. We can never have any experience that does not conform to these relationships." [Ham, previously]: > I'm curious as to how you would define "uncertainty" as a law. [Krimel]: > You are quite right I meant principle. Uncertainty has been > shown to be unavoidable in physics, mathematics and logic. > The only certainty I know of is Descartes cogito but it > provides precious little to work with. > > In this universe Quality is manifest as pairs of opposites. > The primary pair is active and passive; static and dynamic. Yes, that's what Cusanus calls "contrariety". But I thought that, according to the MoQ, everything in the universe is a static pattern. Are you saying that quality in the universe is both static and dynamic? Regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
