A Speculation on Universals and Potentiality

P

Prince_James

Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
Registered Senior Member
Let us presume for the time being, that all which is possible and potential, has been such for an eternal period of time. That is to say, that no matter what exists today, so long as it does in fact exist or has existed, and is not necessary - for the necessary was never possible nor potential, but demanded and actual, in contrast to the impossible which is cannot have ever been nor ever will be - has had the potential to exist for an infinite period of time, even if ten thousand happy accidents and relations had to occur before it could manifest.

Now, let us also assume that within the greater set of "all things", we also include "thoughts" and "thought-systems", that is to say, that if a thought about a "purple unicorn named Steve" is a possibility - as clearly it is as I just thought of it! - then this thought has been possible for an eternity. Yet if all thoughts have possibilities, and universals are in some ways equatable to thoughts - in that they do not correspond to the single instances of what they represent and can only be appreciated by an intelligence, rather than viewed as an empirical fact - then can not we say that all which we call universals - "cat", "tree", "human", "game", "computer", et cetera, et cetera - have had prior existence for an infinite period of time before their particulars came into manifestation, and thus in some way exist independently of their creation? Would not this, in many ways, buck against the existentialist motto that "existence precedes essence", and in fact reaffirm that it is essence which precedes existence? That before a contingent thing is actual, it must first be potential, and thus after a fashion have an existence prior to its manifestation? Moreover, that even after all of the particulars vanish, the universal would still exist, as the possibility has even been vindicated by past manifestation? And if indeed we can say that the universal exists before the particular, then can not we say that a universal has independent existence and therefore vindicates considering universals as real entities that might well be one of the reasons why we can "idealize" particulars into them?

As this is a speculation, I have not yet come to a firm position on the matter, but in order that I might get some input, have put it up here for discussion. So please, your thoughts.

(Editted to make explicit mention of impossibility.)
 
Last edited:
The first thing that comes to mind is that if infinite potential exists then by virtue of this God must exist as one of those infnite potentials, and if infinite time can be said to exist then surely at some point in the past God must have existed. Which raises the question if one accepts the notion of infinite potentials "why is God in the form that Christianity imagines not sitting on a throne somewhere and in a way that is accepted as a normal throne and rule?"

So the notion of infinite potential when considered with infinite time [ eternity ] I feel comes unstuck simply because this is not currently evidenced.

A god would have eternity to condsolidate his rule on the universe in real and predictable terms and not just in imaginary or mere belief terms.
 
Quantum Quack:

"The first thing that comes to mind is that if infinite potential exists then by virtue of this God must exist as one of those infnite potentials, and if infinite time can be said to exist then surely at some point in the past God must have existed. Which raises the question if one accepts the notion of infinite potentials "why is God in the form that Christianity imagines not sitting on a throne somewhere and in a way that is accepted as a normal throne and rule?""

Well it depends on whether or not that God has contradictory attributes. Something which would be impossible to have would never be potential - a square-circle, for instance - so if this God would have such, then this God would not exist. That there may be super beings that are God-like, in some distant corner of an infinite existence, is a possibility in theory, but I cannot say so for sure, not knowing of the powers (or lack thereof) it would have would invalidate itself.

"A god would have eternity to condsolidate his rule on the universe in real and predictable terms and not just in imaginary or mere belief terms."

Any limited being could never consolidate his rule, yes. Therefore the notion of a universal God with limits seems to be an impossibility, therefore vindicating infinite potential if you thought that a Christian-like God, with indications of limitedness, would have to exist.
 
Any limited being could never consolidate his rule, yes. Therefore the notion of a universal God with limits seems to be an impossibility, therefore vindicating infinite potential if you thought that a Christian-like God, with indications of limitedness, would have to exist.
Click to expand...
Unless of course if those limits are self imposed by way of self-restraint and discipline.
For example:
Humanity has already at it's disposal the ability to effectively sterilise this planet with nuclear radiation, yet it chooses not to and displays self restraint and the requirements of self preservation drives this self restraint.

Why would an omni-potent God be any different? Would he not be motivated by his own desire to survive and survive well?
Wouldn't self restraint be something a God would have?
Of course he could do any thing and everything simultaneously and virtually instantaneously but then what would he do for the rest of eternity etc etc....So would he not be capable of self -restraint for his own good?

Would a God not be fully aware of the need for his own sufference of desire?
 
Quantum Quack:

"Why would an omni-potent God be any different? Would he not be motivated by his own desire to survive and survive well?
Wouldn't self restraint be something a God would have?
Of course he could do any thing and everything simultaneously and virtually instantaneously but then what would he do for the rest of eternity etc etc....So would he not be capable of self -restraint for his own good?"

Putting aside the fact that I think it quite impossible for God to have attributes such as eternity, infinity, omnipotence, et cetera, and remain a conscious being, if such was the case, we'd have to consider many things:

1. God would have no desires whatsoever - to survive or not to - because desire implies a lack. God could surely not lack anything, nor could he see a possibility of not remaining whom he is.

2. Self-restraint would be impossible because God would have to be perfect in all logically-extendable ways, so as to make a lack of perfection contrary to his nature, which would be all self-restraint. Moreover, if you have infinite power, it would rather be impossible to choose finite power, as one could never "turn down" an infinite power to any specific point of infinity.

3. A God suffering from boredom could not be a God, for to suffer is to once again, lack something and to be capable of accepting a concept of "loss", which is contrary to God's nature.

"Would a God not be fully aware of the need for his own sufference of desire?"

In the other thread, we spoke about the nature of limitation seeming to necessitate suffering and loneliness and such. But would such a God be limited? No. Therefore would not he be beyond suffering?
 
So basically you are saying that God would be beyond desire, and not have desire. I ask in the context of infinite potentials and possibilities why you would exclude God from having desires, either fulfilled or unfullfilled?

Is not the choice to suffer or not available to this God?
 
The important thing to keep in mind is this notion of infinity [ including time ]
Infinite potentials as described in your thread starter seems to be somehow limited in application. Which is why I posted what I did.
IMO infinity as a notion can only lead eventually to a nul concept as we follow the logic to it's ultimate conclusion we end up with nothing. However if infinity is applied in a way that achieves the finite it as a concept has value.

hmmmmm...sorry I think I just drew a square circle.....ha ;)
 
Quantum Quack:

"So basically you are saying that God would be beyond desire, and not have desire. I ask in the context of infinite potentials and possibilities why you would exclude God from having desires, either fulfilled or unfullfilled?"

For suffering requires desire and desire necessitates a lack. An absolute being, which is defined as having no such lackings in anyway, could not, by definition, desire. It would be an impossibility, which is not allowed to exist despite there being infinite possibilities of that which is neither necessary nor impossible but contingent.

"Infinite potentials as described in your thread starter seems to be somehow limited in application. Which is why I posted what I did."

Limited only by the fact that impossibilities are not covered. Didn't I mention in the thread starter that impossibilities are not counted amongst possibilities, nor are necessities? I could have sworn I did...

"IMO infinity as a notion can only lead eventually to a nul concept as we follow the logic to it's ultimate conclusion we end up with nothing. However if infinity is applied in a way that achieves the finite it as a concept has value."

How do we end up with nothing from infinity?
 
My mistake: I never made explicit mentionings of impossibility. I thought that by using the term "potential" and "possible", I had implied that. Clearly I did not.
 
Maybe the question should also include:
How do we end up with the finite from the infinite?"

and how can infinite and finite co-exist?

For some reason I tend to equate infinity with "white noise" [ a chaotic scramble of no form or pattern]
 
I think what I meant by nothing I meant meaningless or of no meaning. Infinity is an ir-reducable concept and as soon as we attempt to describe it we place finite constraints upon it rendering it..... "infinity" as a null concept [ in absolute terms ]
 
Quantum Quack:

I actually have quite a solution for this:

The infinite creates the finite by demanding that it be composed of an infinite series of finite parts. That is to say, just as if one has 100, one also has 99 other numbers, so too must infinity create everything beneath it. We can also speak of any mid-point betwixt infinity and nothingness as also created from the necessity of existence and nothingness being polar opposites. In both cases, we get the finite quite easily from the infinite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top