tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post8974717937708121560..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Simultaneous actualization of potentialityAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-77665883363039976072020-01-15T12:08:01.427-06:002020-01-15T12:08:01.427-06:00Jonathan:
Well, I am just arguing that actualizin...Jonathan:<br /><br />Well, I am just arguing that actualizing is simultaneous with the having of the potential. I guess you're suggesting that it is possible that one is actualizing a potential at t1 but there is no actuality at t1: i.e., that actualizing isn't an actuality. This sounds wrong. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that time is discrete and that at each moment of time t, Alice has the potential to make Bob smile at t+1. Suppose that at times 1, 2 and 3 she is not actualizing this potential. Then at time 4 she actualizes the potential, and at time 5 Bob smiles. <br /><br />Alice has got to be different between times 3 and 4 if at 3 she is to count as not actualizing the potential but at 4 she is actualizing the potential. And it seems to me that this difference has got to be one where at 4 something is actual that wasn't actual at 3. Otherwise, it would be a difference between potentials, either Alice losing some potential she had at 3 or gaining some new potential. It doesn't seem like a case of mere loss of a potential. So there has to be a gain. But if it's a gain of a potential P, then having P, on Aristotelian grounds, is presumably the actualization of some other potential, say Q. (Compare how a second potentiality is the actualization of a first potentiality in Aristotle.)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-18365824250273975522020-01-13T11:24:48.587-06:002020-01-13T11:24:48.587-06:00Why does simultaneity follow from 5? Suppose that ...Why does simultaneity follow from 5? Suppose that when a substance actualizes a potential, that *just is* to cause an actuality at some later time. Am I wrong to think that simultaneity would not follow? Jonathan D. Jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02913077212736834794noreply@blogger.com