What were you trying to say?

Potentiality and contingency are 1) not different 2) not properties of matter

Thank you. I think I agree.

After contemplating Aristotle's assertion that objects are divisible only "potentially", I now think I know how I would describe matter. — Gregory

Seems like you are taking a subject that is clearly about physics and trying to make it somehow about metaphysics, i.e. ontology. I think that's a futile undertaking.

I don't think potentiality is a property of things . . . . All this means is that the world of matter is the center of reality and others ways of thinking at the world are mystical. — Gregory

Aristotle contrasted Potential with Actual. Both terms refer to metaphysical states, not to physical properties. Potential refers to a possible future state that has not yet been actualized in the Now. For example, "Ice" is a potential state of "Water", which does have slightly different physical properties. However, Potential can also refer to something that is not-yet-existent -- hence, no properties -- but is not impossible. So the phase change from Potential to Actual is indeed contingent on some Causal or Creative Agency (e.g. Energy or Creator). In that sense, Aristotle would say that everything in the world is contingent on a "First Cause" (or Creative Act) with the Potential for actualizing a world from scratch.

However, to conclude from the Contingency of Reality that constantly changing "matter is the center of reality" is a personal perspective, not a logical conclusion. For example, Heraclitus claimed that "Life" is the central reality. And yet, the essence of Life is Change (impermanence ; contingency). And for many of us, "Awareness-Consciousness-Mind" is the center of their reality. From that post-Copernican relativity, Self is the center around which all contingent things revolve. Which raises the question : is "Self" material or mystical, or merely metaphysical (mental)? So, what is the Lodestar around which every evolving thing revolves? :cool:

PS___ the matter of which Earth is composed may be the physical center of the Moon's orbit, but what is the meta-physical (philosophical ; mystical?) center of your personal world?

PPS___I assume you were thinking of "Matter" as the Touchstone (standard reference) of Physics, as opposed to "Spirit" as the heart of Meta-Physics (Philosophy ; Mysticism??). But, I went off in a different direction. Sorry! :yikes:

What is the essence of reality according to Heraclitus? :
His central claim is summed up in the phrase Panta Rhei ("life is flux") recognizing the essential, underlying essence of life as change. Nothing in life is permanent, nor can it be, because the very nature of existence is change. Change is not just a part of life in Heraclitus' view, it is life itself.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Heraclitus_of_Ephesos/

Does matter have contingency/potentiality? is the question.
Does it matter if matter does?
Matter is what matter does.

That's right! Going by what Anthony Kenny (philosopher) has to say, Aristotle was trying to, in a sense, make everyone happy - he wanted to endorse Heraclitus (all is change), but, it appears, didn't want to offend Parmenides (change is an illusion); out of this awkward social situation, arose the concept duo potential/actual.

Aside: It is possible to make everyone happy!

It seems to me metaphysical states of matter don't exist. The physical properties of actuality of extension in substantial form is what things are. Change is not a thing. It's what we think of as happening between states of pure actuality.

It seems to me metaphysical states of matter don't exist. The physical properties of actuality of extension in substantial form is what things are. Change is not a thing. It's what we think of as happening between states of pure actuality. — Gregory

True. "To exist" literally refers to objective things . . . except when we use the term metaphorically in reference to subjective concepts --- such as the notion of Change. We can't see or touch the difference between a Now State and a Future State. But by reasoning, we can infer that the physical state of a thing has mutated over a time interval. Change is not a static thing, but a dynamic process of evolution & transformation. Yet, "to change" is a verb, while "Change" is a noun; treated as-if it's a static thing : a blurry snap-shot of motion.

Since subjective ideas (known by conception) are difficult to communicate from mind to mind, we typically compare them to objective things (known by perception). Which is why philosophers use a lot of metaphorical language, and scientists prefer to use more concrete terminology. Ironically, Quantum Physics is so Alice-in-wonderland-weird, that even sober scientists tend to sound like mystics or poets (e.g. Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli). Anything meta-physical has no existence in a real physical sense. But everything Menta-Physical (mental concepts) does exist in an ideal metaphysical sense. That's why physicists study Physics (matter ; energy), and philosophers study Meta-Physics (mind ; ideas). :cool:


What type of word is 'change'? :
Change can be a noun or a verb
https://wordtype.org/of/change

Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred to as quantum quackery, is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations. ___Wikipedia

Matter does not exist as a substance in the way our (crude) senses convince us. The substance of matter is energy and matter - when we mean a physical object - is only a pattern in a field of energy. The physical universe is not really there in the way we naively imagine. All that is there, in terms of substance, is energy. Material patterns can dissolve away leaving only energy; the table can decay and be absorbed into the soil; the atom can dissolve into energy; even the black hole evaporates. All that is there is energy and temporal patterns.

Subjective ideas are hard to communicate. I'm not saying change doesn't happen but that it is not an object. Heidegger speaks in his book on Metaphysics about nothing nihlating itself. I assume by nothing he means potentiality. The idea of potentiality was talked of as prime matter or contingency (although forms were contingent too in another way) by old philosophers. What seems correct to me thougj is that this chair, this bowl, this spoon is a coherent piece of actualization and that it is fully itself. At a specific time it becomes something else and might be something else every second. But I don't see were potentiality comes in. It's like saying change is an object

Isn't "energy" material in principle?

Isn't "energy" material in principle? — Gregory

It depends on how you define matter. For me, usually, matter is everything from the hydrogen atom up: things that are constructed. There is an expression "material particle" but this only means it is a constituent of a material object, it does not mean it is a material thing. If everything is matter nothing is, if you get my drift...

Well quantum physicists don't really know what subatomic particles are but only what they do. Imo

Yes, so we need to qualify words like 'energy' and 'matter' and keep them in context.

But I don't see were potentiality comes in. It's like saying change is an object — Gregory

Potential is not objective. It's a subjective idea (qualia) used to describe why objective things change : "because X caused potential to become actual". Anything that lacks the potential for change (a cause) would be eternally the same. But in the real world, everything is subject to change, even metaphysical Minds. For example, an electrical circuit is described as possessing the quality of Potential, as-if it is a complete loop. If the circuit is broken though, the Potential is only theoretical (pending the closing of a switch). We say a battery has Voltage (potential energy) even when it's not part of a circuit. But we're only speaking hypothetically. We say that an inert concrete block has potential energy if it is six feet off the ground. But only when it is allowed to fall (the cause), does that potential (static, stored energy) convert into actual (changing, kinetic) energy --- which converts to metaphysical Pain in your toe.

So your problem with treating Potential as a real thing is due to the flexibility of language, which allows us to use Metaphors (or future tense) as-if they are the thing (or state) implied. And philosophers are some of the worst offenders for getting Potential & Actual confused. On this forum we waste a lot of time trying to untangle our metaphors. :worry:

PS__"It's like" (like "as-if") is potentially confusing metaphorical language. That's why philosophers must eventually define what they are really (actually) trying to say. :joke:

PPS__Metaphorical language is also used to describe Mystical concepts, that are invisible to our physical senses. Some people use the term "Soul" (Ghost) as-if it refers to an immaterial essence, that is only loosely connected to a physical body. We can easily imagine such unreal things, by comparing them to familiar material objects. And we can talk about them as-if they are Actual things. Yet, like all subjective notions, we accept or reject such ideas, not on material evidence, but on faith in the story-teller. When physicists tell us about spooky metaphorical energy "Fields", we must use our imagination to see them. They are only Potential until actualized into measurable energy. Some of us find "fields" more believable than "ghosts". :cool:

For my filthy (crypto) lucre ...

1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.

[ ... ]

1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts. — WItty, TLP (1921)

An analoguous approximation of the metaphysical to the physical: (contra Aristotlean e.g. "only continuum, no vacuum, geocentric" dogmas) classical atomism ~ RQM; logical atomism ~ information entropy; etc. Definitional questions of "matter" and "energy" are, btw, methodologically vacuous.

To my mind material we sense with our five external senses is prior to any sense in which it can change. Brains, hands, beds are all real tangible things. QM has brought the idea of potential existence back to the forefront but a thing has to be actual in order to be able to change. The potentiality comes from the actuality, not the other way around.

:up:

To my mind material we sense with our five external senses is prior to any sense in which it can change. Brains, hands, beds are all real tangible things. QM has brought the idea of potential existence back to the forefront but a thing has to be actual in order to be able to change. The potentiality comes from the actuality, not the other way around. — Gregory

Apparently, you are thinking of "Potential" in the sense of stored energy, instead of Aristotle's Potential as the origin & source of Actual things. If this was a physics forum, that special Palpable usage might be accepted. But, on a philosophy forum, I'd think a more general meaning would be preferred. (Except by 180 proof, who prefers Physics to Philosophy. :cool: )

An example of a material potential is a chemical bomb, which has the Potential to destroy buildings & people. Or an electric battery which has stored energy in chemical form, possessing the Potential to produce a voltage in a complete circuit. That is a common definition of "Potential". But it must be qualified by noting that a 1.5V AA battery in your hand, touching both ends, has no Actual voltage, so you don't get shocked. The voltage is Contingent upon a connection between + & - poles.

Of course, we sometimes refer to stored (inert) energy metaphorically, as-if it was actual flowing causation. But the relevant distinction that Aristotle made is : Potential is not Actual; it does not yet exist; it's Ability Without Achievement . Philosophers, who don't make that differentiation, tend to get their arguments all tangled-up in existential side-tracks. Potential is Possibility, so what are the odds of becoming Reality? And Possibility implies Contingency. So, the answer to the OP question is "yes" : matter does have Potential/Contingency. But that's not a philosophical question.

Humans can call stored energy "Potential" (for causation), only because we are able to imagine a future state, after that inert energy (of chemical form) is converted into causal kinetic energy (of relative position & polarity). That's also why you can say that "potentiality comes from actuality". Because we give a spurious name to that inert energy to signify it's future state, not its current (pun intended) state. :joke:


Voltage and Potential in a battery :
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/661725/voltage-and-potential-in-a-battery

Philosophical Potential :
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential

Physical Potential :
1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
2. the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.
___Oxford

Potentiality and Actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

I don't see cosmology as going from potential to actual as philosophers like Tim Freke expound, nor from actual to potential in an Aristotelian sense. I think there is what is actual and we sense it and yes we understand it's potentials. But I was trying to show that people go to far with the potency-actuality distinction. They might say "matter has potential so it is below what is non-material because that is completely actual". Such a line of argument is ungrounded but it was used by Aristotle. I don't see what philosophy can say about matter that physics can't

They might say "matter has potential so it is below what is non-material because that is completely actual". Such a line of argument is ungrounded but it was used by Aristotle. I don't see what philosophy can say about matter that physics can't — Gregory

Oh, I see what you are getting at. It's the old Matter/Mind conundrum. And I don't know what I can add to the debates over thousands of years on the topic. But, my point in the previous post was that, if you are talking about Physics, you are not discussing Philosophy. Philosophy is not concerned with what is Actual, Local, or Specific. Instead, it focuses on Abstractions, Universals, & Generalities. And those "non-material" notions are not physical objects to be dissected. So, applying the rules of Physics, Chemistry, or Biology will get you nowhere on "un-grounded", but Foundational, Meta-Physical questions. Philosophy is not in competition with Physics on what to say about matter. But Mind is another "matter". :smile:

Physics and Philosophy :
Physics is concerned with unravelling the complexities of the universe from the smallest to the largest scale. Philosophy deals with foundational questions of the most general kind: what there is, what we know and how we came to know it, and how we ought to act and structure our lives.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/physics-and-philosophy

Universals :
In general, questions surrounding universals touch upon some of the oldest, deepest, and most abstract of philosophical issues. . . .
Realists endorse universals. Conceptualists and Nominalists, on the other hand, refuse to accept universals and deny that they are needed.
https://iep.utm.edu/universa/

PS__Theoretical Physicists (such as Einstein) are more philosopher than physicist, because they are more concerned with general principles (Relativity), than with specific properties.

Physics and Philosophy :
Philosophy, the physicist Carlo Rovelli has observed, brings to science “conceptual analysis, attention to ambiguity, accuracy of expression, the ability to detect gaps in standard arguments, to devise radically new perspectives, to spot conceptual weak points, and to seek out alternative conceptual explanations”.
Or, as Einstein put it, philosophical thinking makes for the “distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/24/einstein-got-it-philosophy-and-science-do-go-hand-in-hand

PPS__Physicists study "Matter", while Philosophers study "Form".
"Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form".

For example, "Ice" is a potential state of "Water", which does have slightly different physical properties. — Gnomon

Try to make a water sculpture. You will see the differences with ice are not that slightly. Ice and stone are more alike than ice and water.

Matter is what matter does. — god must be atheist

What matter does is different from what matter is.

Thanks for your thoughts. I've heard some Aristotelians say only form exists, others that only organic things have forms, and others that everything has form and prime matter. Descartes rejected the idea of two principles in things and said extension of substance alone was what objects are. So it gets rather confusing, especially when it gets to Hegel's logic and stuff, which I just finished reading. By what criteria do we say universals, the general, and prime matter, the specific, compose an object and which objects at that? Does a pond of water have one form as it oozes it many crevices? Where does the form come from when a leaf falls from a tree and is now a new unit? And then there is the ship of Theseus. Ideas of metaphysics, ohh they can be thorny..

Try to make a water sculpture. You will see the differences with ice are not that slightly. Ice and stone are more alike than ice and water. — Raymond

Ha! Is the ice-water glass half-empty or half-full? What's the difference? :joke:

180 proof, who prefers Physics to Philosophy. — Gnomon

:roll:

I prefer (anti-supernaturalistic) philosophy grounded in, or consistent with, current physics. Had I been an ancient / classical thinker, I'd have preferred (e.g.) Epicurus, Aristarchus of Samos, Archimedes of Syracuse, Chrysippus of Soli, Sextus Empiricus ... to (the dogmatic tradition of) Plato-Aristotle, Plotinus et al.

Thanks for your thoughts. I've heard some Aristotelians say only form exists, others that only organic things have forms, and others that everything has form and prime matter. — Gregory

Yes. Philosophers have varying opinions on almost everything. That's why we dialog : to see if there is some common ground within the wide range of personal beliefs.

People use the term "Form" with either concrete or abstract meanings, but they may not make it clear which is intended. That word may refer to the physical contours of the matter comprising an object. Or, it may indicate the mathematical pattern of relationships that we infer as, that which is common to a category of things. For example, dogs come in many sizes & shapes but there is some underlying similarity between all of them. So, the essence of "dogginess" is not any particular physical shape or shagginess, but a general pattern of interrelated features that our brains interpret as "dog", and not as "cat". I tend to think of that "essential pattern" as abstract, logical & mathematical instead of concrete, perceptual & physical. By rationally inferring that invisible conceptual commonality within variety, we derive meaning from the complexity of apparent reality.

Again, our use of metaphorical language, in poetry or philosophy, often leads to confusion about the intention. When you say "form", are you referring to what you see (perception), or what you infer (conception)? Is "form" the apparent shape & texture, or the implicit pattern of relationships? Form is the middle-name of In-Form-Ation, which is the meaning in a Mind. Plato merely described the concept of a thing metaphorically, as-if it was a perfect eternal essential pattern floating around out in space. But we don't have to take that notion literally, in order to find general meaning in specific things. :smile:


Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

ESSENCE VERSUS APPEARANCE

I prefer (anti-supernaturalistic) philosophy grounded in, or consistent with, current physics. Had I been an ancient / classical thinker, I'd have preferred (e.g.) Epicurus, Aristarchus of Samos, Archimedes of Syracuse, Chrysippus of Soli, Sextus Empiricus ... to (the dogmatic tradition of) Plato-Aristotle, Plotinus et al. — 180 Proof

I apologize, if my tongue-in-cheek remark offended you. Perhaps, I should have said that you seem to prefer Physics to Metaphysics (anti-physics to you). But to me that's the same thing as Philosophy. Aristotle made a distinction between his scientific studies of Nature (phusis), and his philosophical analysis & commentary on Nature (including non-physical concepts and theories) by placing them in a separate volume. He didn't give them different names though, "metaphysics" was added later. It was all love-of-wisdom to him.

For Ari, physical studies were merely a small part of the pre-scientific endeavor to understand the world. Today, it's all turned around : physics is the dominant field of study, and philosophy is a minor player in the game of knowing what's what. But, TPF is a philosophy forum, insignificant as it is, so IMHO the focus of our discussions should be on the abstract notions in his second volume. However, the fuzzy margins of Physics, especially on the Quantum scale, are invisible to our physical senses, and knowable only with our non-physical sense of Reason. So those abstract concepts, such as Quarks, are fair game for philosophical critique.

Therefore, when we are discussing fringe theories, there is little empirical evidence to place under the magnifying glass. That may be why several of the pioneers of QT were labeled as "mystics". Their theoretical descriptions of sub-reality did not agree with intuition or classical physics. But the math was so predictive, that empirical physicists decided to stop arguing about the real meaning of the theory, and to "just shut-up and calculate". That way, they can avoid the stain of "mysticism" & "metaphysics". But, I'm not a professional mathematical physicist. And I have no reputation to smear with such labels. So, I feel free to explore the spooky borderlands of the physical world, including the immaterial stuff of the Mind.

As far as I can tell. None of my speculations into the non-physical aspects of the world are "inconsistent with current physics". They merely delve into the darkness on the fringes of physical understanding, where even sober scientists begin to sound a bit mystical. And that's partly because such quantum queerness as Entanglement, are more amenable to the Holistic Eastern traditions, than to the Reductive Western approach. Quantum science sounds so counter-intuitive to Western ears because they expected to find Atoms at the bottom of their dissections. But, as pragmatic "calculators", they were forced to imagine invisible "fields" metaphorically, as-if they are real things.

If you don't mind, I'll continue to consult Plato & Aristotle for philosophical insights. But I refer to modern scientists to support my Information Theoretic philosophy, with empirical evidence, and even some non-empirical hypotheses where the evidence is murky. :cool: .

Do quarks really exist? :
Nope, quarks never exist on their own. The reason is that it takes more energy to separate a pair of quarks than the quarks themselves contain.
https://www.quora.com/Do-quarks-exist-not-just-as-a-useful-mathematical-concept-that-helps-explain-physical-behaviour-but-physically-exist

Quantum mysticism :
Appropriation by New Age thought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
Note -- my Enformationism worldview is Holistic, but not New Age. It's similar in some ways to those of Deepak Chopra, but far different in others.

What did Einstein say about quantum entanglement? :
Albert Einstein colorfully dismissed quantum entanglement—the ability of separated objects to share a condition or state—as “spooky action at a distance.” Over the past few decades, however, physicists have demonstrated the reality of spooky action over ever greater distances—even from Earth to a satellite in space.
Note -- Albert was right that parted paired particles is "spooky", in the sense of counter-intuitive. But, he was wrong in dismissing it as "mystical", just because it didn't fit his reductive paradigm. The long-distance relationship is real, but not reductive. It's merely Holistic, as in Systems Theory.

Meta-physics :
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
BothAnd Blog Glossary

PICTURE OF IMAGINARY QUANTUM FIELD


PICTURE OF REAL PHYSICAL FIELD

I apologize, if my tongue-in-cheek remark offended you. Perhaps, I should have said that you seem to prefer Physics to Metaphysics (anti-physics to you). — Gnomon

No need to apologize since you gave no offense. I simply corrected your erroneous impression and clarified my actual preferences. Btw, I no more conceive of metaphysics as "anti-physics" than I conceive of fruit as anti-apples. One reflects on fruit and one eats apples; thus, I understand metaphysics to be a second (or higher) order categorical, noncognitive, discourse (re: conceptual interpretations) and physics to be a first order hypothetical, cognitive, discourse (re: testable explanatory models). I take issue with instances of you conflating, or equivocating, these separate discourses, Gnomon, which, IME, renders your "Enformationism" mere pseudo-science rationalized by sophistry (i.e. cherry-picked citations from scientific literature that only rationalize and do not corroborate your so-called "theories").

I understand metaphysics to be a second (or higher) order categorical, noncognitive, discourse (re: conceptual interpretations) and physics to be a first order hypothetical, cognitive, discourse (re: testable explanatory models). — 180 Proof

I had to Google "noncognitive discourse". It sounds like "subliminal communication". But I don't know how that would work (mental telepathy?).

The article quoted (or "cherry-picked") below is over my head. But it seems to equate "cognitive" with empirical ("predictive") Science, and "noncognitive" with theoretical (speculative) Philosophy (or metaphysics). So, I infer that you would agree with Richard Feynman's dismissal of Philosophical (or metaphysical) interpretations of Quantum Theory : "Shut up and calculate". And that division of labor is OK with me. You can be a "mathematical physicist" calculating predictive facts, and I'll remain in the "unskilled" camp, as a "theoretical" philosopher, speculating on "non-cognitive" meanings.

The notions I discourse about are primarily non-computable, and hence debatable. That's why philosophers are still debating the same hypothetical questions raised by Plato & Aristotle back in the "dark ages" before predictive reductive Science emerged as the technological foundation of modern civilization. And that's also why I post on a Philosophical forum instead of a Physics forum. I only ask that you grant us unpredictable holistic "cherry-pickers" the right to free speech on this marketplace of ideas. Thanks. :smile:


cognitive versus noncognitive :
Under hermeneutics, ‘the application of such honorific’s as “objective” and “cognitive” is never anything more than an expression of the presence of, or the hope for, agreement among inquirers’ (335). It is not another way of knowing, as understanding rather than explanation, but a way of coping. It enables us to give the notion of “cognitive” to predictive science and to stop worrying about the “noncognitive”
https://philosophymasters.wordpress.com/tag/cognitive-versus-noncognitive/

Attributed to Feynman :
Question: What is the difference between theoretical physics and mathematical physics?
Answer: Theoretical physics is done by physicists who lack the necessary skills to do real experiments; mathematical physics is done by mathematicians who lack the necessary skills to do real mathematics.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1768652