I think you are correct in the immaterial nature of the unmoved. So does that make the unmoved an actuality or potentiality as it isn't in motion? As something that is immaterial by definition cannot perform physical action, making it a potentiality, which further my question as to how it creates motion.

It is a perfect circular motion, which by the nature of a circle, has no beginning or end. — Metaphysician Undercover

I had the understanding that the unmoved mover was necessary as it solved the issue of infinite regress, which Aristotle had an issue with based on the third man argument. If the unmoved mover is part of the perfect circular motion isn't it moving with the universe rather than causing the motion?

Hello, I am a college student currently taking a course on Plato and Aristotle. I understand how Aristotle came to the conclusion of the unmoved mover, but I don't understand how it isn't a contradiction of the very theory that necessitates it.