Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



7/01/2015 11:24 pm  #11


Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

iwpoe wrote:

I actually myself have a hard time distinguishing between potency and possibility. It is possible that I might, with some wonderious level of technology, transmute a ball of lead into a ball of gold by way of knocking off a few atoms. Is that a potency of the ball or not?

 
Presuming that such a technology exists, why not? Potentiality is judged by the properties of the object, not the external conditions that may or may not have the wherewithal to bring the potentiality into actuality.

I'm actually toying with the idea that ultimately all matter may be reducible to energy and reconstitutible, thus making all objects everything else in potentiality.

And perhaps by way of string theory we can bring this even further...!


Noli turbare circulos meos.
 

7/02/2015 12:14 am  #12


Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

Scott wrote:

A "possibility" is just something that could be the case (i.e. it's without contradiction)...

I suspect that by 'possibility' you mean what I would mean by 'logical possibility.' I meant something else by 'metaphysical possibility.' Please tell me if I need to clarify what I meant by 'metaphysical possibility.' I hesitate to put forward my own definition of the notion, but if it's tolerably clear what I meant then we can continue our discussion.

Scott wrote:

A potency isn't a bare possibility, even a metaphysical one...

Could you give an example of an x satisfying the following propositions?

1. It is metaphysically possible for x to be F.
2. x has no potency for being (or what I take to be equivalent formulations, x isn't potentially F, x isn't F in potentia, etc.).

 

Last edited by truthseeker (7/02/2015 12:21 am)

     Thread Starter
 

7/02/2015 5:24 am  #13


Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

truthseeker wrote:

Could you give an example of an x satisfying the following propositions?

1. It is metaphysically possible for x to be F.
2. x has no potency for being (or what I take to be equivalent formulations, x isn't potentially F, x isn't F in potentia, etc.).

 

1. It is metaphysically possible for Water to be A Solid.
2. Water has no potency for being The Elment with Atomic No 77

Of course if we break Water down to its sub-atomic particles (in which case they cease to be Water) they might have the potency for being The Element with Atomic No 77 if certain conditions are meet.

 

 

7/02/2015 5:35 am  #14


Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

DanielCC wrote:

Of course if we break Water down to its sub-atomic particles (in which case they cease to be Water) they might have the potency for being The Element with Atomic No 77 if certain conditions are meet.

This is what intrigues me. If we were able to actually break down water into it's sub atomic particles and reconstruct it as something else, would we be able to properly say that water is in potentia another element?

Put abstractly, if X can be converted to Z, but only by way of Y, during which time it will be Y and not X, can we say that X is potentially Z?

Another example would be in multi verse theory. Can we say our world is in potentiality another? Or that a prior one in potentiality ours, despite it's intermediary form of singularity?

Last edited by Etzelnik (7/02/2015 5:37 am)


Noli turbare circulos meos.
 

7/02/2015 8:39 am  #15


Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

truthseeker wrote:

Could you give an example of an x satisfying the following propositions?

1. It is metaphysically possible for x to be F.
2. x has no potency for being (or what I take to be equivalent formulations, x isn't potentially F, x isn't F in potentia, etc.).

Not without a better sense of what you mean by "metaphysically possible," if that's something other than logical possibility. If you can clarify that, I can try to give you an example if I think there are any.

@DanielCC: The F needs to be the same in 1 and 2. truthseeker isn't asking for two different properties each of which satisfies one proposition, but for one property that satisfies both.

(I'll be away and/or busy for various parts of the day, but I'll check in when and as I have time. I apologize in advance for what will inevitably be delayed responses.)

 

7/02/2015 9:07 am  #16


Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

truthseeker wrote:

Could you give an example of an x satisfying the following propositions?

1. It is metaphysically possible for x to be F.
2. x has no potency for being (or what I take to be equivalent formulations, x isn't potentially F, x isn't F in potentia, etc.). 

Actually, there is an easier way to demonstrate. The distinction between possibility and potency comes up lots with counterfactuals. To wheel out my stock example, consider an ice cube on some planet no living entity will ever go near. The ice cube has the potentiality to be melted, but it's declared by divine fiat that the ice cube will never be melted – space is dead, and cold, so the ice cube will never be in circumstances where it would melt. So, it's impossible for the ice cube to be melted even though it has the potentiality to be melted. But this implies that possibility and potentiality are distinct, and that possibility therefore cannot be completely analyzed in terms of potentiality.

One might respond that God could have created the world such that a solar flare melts the ice cube, or something. But that just admits distinct modal notions like possible worlds, or at least notions of possibility wherein P is possible iff P does not conflict with the Divine Nature. It says God could have brought about a different possible world where He did not declare such a fiat, or at least that it would not have been against His Nature to do so.


-----
A couple elaborations:

[1] It's the same style of argument with the negation symbol moved around: 

1. It is metaphysically not possible for x to be F.
2. x has a potency for being F

Incidentally, since x would otherwise require a substantial change and therefore—on scholasticism at least—a change in identity, the statement “It is metaphysically possible for x to be F only if x has a potency or is in-act for being F” may very well be true. But what the above example demonstrates is that there are possibilities not tied up with substances and potencies—bare possibilities, that can't be analyzed in terms of potencies—so that, in short, all potencies are tied up with possibilities, but not all possibilities are tied up with potencies.

[2] If mentions of God in the example bothers anyone (ie. perhaps if it were part of an argument for God), we can easily replace them: “[...] but [the world is such that] the ice cube will [...]” and “One might respond that [the world could have been such that] a [...].”

Last edited by John West (7/02/2015 12:01 pm)

 

7/02/2015 2:42 pm  #17


Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

I take it the above answers the heart of your previous query. Having written that, if an example is still needed for some reason:

truthseeker wrote:

Could you give an example of an x satisfying the following propositions?

1. It is metaphysically possible for x to be F.
2. x has no potency for being (or what I take to be equivalent formulations, x isn't potentially Fx isn't F in potentia, etc.). 

We can just write:

1. It is metaphysically possible for [ice] to be [cold].
2. [Ice] has no potency for being [cold] (because it's actually cold).

 

7/02/2015 9:19 pm  #18


Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

I like John West's examples, and here's another that may fit the bill:

1. It is metaphysically possible for water (in its liquid form) to be walked on by a human being. (It must be, because Jesus did it. Or, even if you don't think He did, accept it arguendo for the sake of the illustration.)
2. Liquid water has no potency for being walked on by a human being. (It had nothing to do with the water's own potencies; it was a miracle that overrode, or didn't concur with, the ordinary but secondary causal powers of the water.)

I'd still like to hear more about what you mean by "metaphysically possible," though. We may be able to do better.

Last edited by Scott (7/02/2015 9:22 pm)

 

7/02/2015 9:26 pm  #19


Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

Scott wrote:

I apologize in advance for what will inevitably be delayed responses.

Thanks, I understand.

truthseeker wrote:

Could you give me an example of an x satisfying the following propositions?

Scott wrote:

Not without a better sense of what you mean by "metaphysically possible..."

By 'metaphysically possible' I understand 'does not contradict the combination of the principles of metaphysics, the axioms of logic and the definitions of terms.' I should define some other kinds of possibility for the ensuing discussion. By 'logically possible' in the narrow sense I understand 'does not contradict the axioms of logic.' By 'logically possible' in the broad sense I understand 'does not contradict the combination of the axioms of logic and the definitions of terms.' By 'nomologically possible' I understand 'does not contradict the combination of the laws of nature, the principles of metaphysics, the axioms of logic and the definitions of terms.' By 'practically possible relative to some circumstance C,' I understand 'does not contradict the combination of the principles of metaphysics, the axioms of logic, the definitions of terms, the laws of nature, and circumstance C.'

John West wrote:

...[Consider] an ice cube on some planet no living entity will ever go near. The ice cube has the potentiality to be melted, but it's declared by divine fiat that the ice cube will never be melted – space is dead, and cold, so the ice cube will never be in circumstances where it would melt. So, it's impossible for the ice cube to be melted even though it has the potentiality to be melted.

I would say that it's practically impossible for the ice cube to be melted relative to the circumstances, but metaphysically possible for the ice cube to be melted.

John West wrote:

1. It is metaphysically possible for [ice] to be [cold].
2. [Ice] has no potency for being [cold] (because it's actually cold).

Then I understand 'x has a potency to be F' as 'x is not F and it is metaphysically possible for x to be F.' Would you agree that has a potency to be F iff x is not F and it is metaphysically possible for x to be F, given my definition of metaphysical possibility?

     Thread Starter
 

7/02/2015 9:28 pm  #20


Re: Seeking Clarification of Feser's Philosophy

truthseeker wrote:

I would say that it's practically impossible for the ice cube to be melted relative to the circumstances, but metaphysically possible for the ice cube to be melted.

Well, okay. But on the supposition it's declared by divine fiat that the ice cube won't melt, then since God is radically immutable—and therefore cannot change his mind—it's impossible for the ice cube to be melted. It's a metaphysical stipulation[1], following from Divine Omnipotence and Divine Immutability. If you want to argue about metaphysical principles, then we can but the impossibility follows cleanly from metaphysical principles.

The talk of relativity to circumstances itself implies a non-potency-based notion of metaphysical possibility. In fact, it sounds a lot like implicit possible worlds talk.

[1]On a Lewisian scheme, it follows from the principle of recombination. In fact, on most extant modal metaphysics, the example works.

edit:

truthseeker wrote:

Then I understand 'x has a potency to be F' as 'x is not F and it is metaphysically possible for x to be F.' Would you agree that has a potency to be F iff x is not F and it is metaphysically possible for x to be F, given my definition of metaphysical possibility?

I'm not sure I would say that "x is not F and it is metaphysically possible for x to be F." fully captures everything there is to say about potency, but if I understand your "x is not F" correctly as "F is not in-act for x" then I would say that iff your conjunction holds, "x has a potency to be F". Yes.

Last edited by John West (7/02/2015 9:58 pm)

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum