So much worry over words. Meaning is a matter of context.

Potentiality and Actuality are contingent on cause/effect duration etc... Reality isn't. it is what it ii, it is when it is, it is why it is.

Why?



And isn't it true that what is actually is?

I'm sure these terms have more precise meanings in certain metaphysical contexts, in certain systems we devise. But the question did not restrain us to some particular opinion, and the way said opinion employs these terms.

Thanks guys I got a better idea already from Gosh's post.
More than one meanign in more than one context?!... those crazy philosophers.

I read that Schrodinger's cat thought experiment and that gave me an idea of potentiality as the capicity to change, come into existence and cause. Then actuality makes a lot of sense as the realm of forms (after change), existence and effects.

reality is a freeze frame (3D still picture) of actuality from the human perspective?

Dan

Thomas, why?: Potentiality and actuality in their employment imply process imbued with a value judgment, which necessitates change of state of being which requires duration and in most cases a catalyst, thus cause/effect. Potentiality is the latent or unreleased form of actuality and actuality being the effect of an acted upon potential, whereas reality is as de-budding puts it a synchronic snapshot of what currently is with no value judgment. As far as they are employed with different senses by different authors I suppose I have no opinion on that.

IN one centence:

Actuality is contingent, potentiality is conditional and reality is the combination of the two.

Does that mean reality only exists when there is a conscious being to combine the two?

What makes you think that consciousness is not part of the conditional piece of the puzzle?

I only assume because I drew some quick parallels between our temporal perspectives and A&P (actuality and potentiality.)

The Past: All past events are now actuality, but we can remember and envisage the causes of effects, we can look at the past as potentiality giving way to actuality so we can revise it. I guess this is where Hume's cause & effect learning via uniformity happens; we know that when we ate that bread it caused the effect of human nourishment, and we can apply the same principle to objects of the same uniform, i.e. bread and milk.

The Now: The application and recognition of potentiality by creating the conditions necessary for actuality. A bit of both wouldn't you say?

The Future: The application of pure potentiality via percentages and odds, we can align our fate with events in this way.

I guess I am assuming humans are so involved with the utilising of A&P that it would be odd for them to be a component of something which they are able to control. In this respect humans are like pure potency.

I think you are speaking of rationality and empiricism.


No, you do not have clear thought objects on the matter. You are mixing potentiality with rationality and actuality with empiricism. Although both do take the smae place in the equasions there are a few very big differences. You should check out my blog for the definition.

Although your point concerning percentages may seem 'scientific', it only draws attention away from what takes place in reality. In timetravel (travel to parallel universae) percentages may be thought to appear, but that is an illusion. Things are what they are. Seperate actualities exist. And puncturing one actuality to visit the next can only be possible if a potential state exists facilitating that. If indeed that actuality which you visit exists then that actuality exists; it is not dependent on percentages.

I sure hope that makes sense..