Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

[Steve3007]

Steve, this time you actually did not reply to my last post

Believe it or not, I had actually started replying on my work computer when it crashed. . Then I knocked off fo the day. Now I'm on my phone in a field watching my son playing football on a rainy Sunday afternoon, so I'll have to leave any thoughtful replies until later!

[Steve3007]

On the subject of potential: my son's potential to be a top football player is strictly an abstract concept. Theoretical. They never win. Today is looking like no exception.

[Consul]

Why would you say that potential is the same as causation?

Remark:
There is a dispositional theory of causation, which explains cause-effect relations in terms of partnerings and mutual manifestings of dispositions (potentials, powers) as causes (causings) and the resulting manifestations as effects.

"This gives the simple essence of the dispositional theory of causation. Effects are brought about by powers manifesting themselves."

(Mumford, Stephen, and Rani Lill Anjum. Getting Causes from Powers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 7)

[Sy Borg]

Steve, this time you actually did not reply to my last post :)

Believe it or not, I had actually started replying on my work computer when it crashed. :lol:. Then I knocked off fo the day. Now I'm on my phone in a field watching my son playing football on a rainy Sunday afternoon, so I'll have to leave any thoughtful replies until later!

I know the feeling. My post would have been better than it was, but the dog ate it.

[Steve3007]

I know the feeling. My post would have been better than it was, but the dog ate it.

. the post I lost wasn't a very good one. This one is hopefully a bit better:

I'd agree they are equivalent. Potentials certainly are real, and billions of dollars based on assessments of those potentials changes hands daily.

Yes, although I guess we shouldn't set too much store by the reality of entities that people are willing to buy/sell for billions of dollars. Non-fungible tokens representing ownership of historically significant tweets, and such like. Buying and selling abstract concepts seems to be all the rage these days. Although. really, I guess it's been happening at least since people started buying music. Although, in the good old days, in that case, the medium was often at least as exciting as the music on which it was engraved.

Sometimes I like to think about the chemical evolution that preceded and lead up to abiogenesis. Especially I wonder about the Last Non-Living Ancestor of LUCA (sadly, LNLA is nowhere near as catchy) - what it was like and the difference between it and the first life. There would definitely be a basic metabolism driven by extremely complex organic chemistry, either in a lipid molecule or locked in microscopic niches in black smokers.

The point that I have laboured over is that the LNLA (whattheheck) had potentials that the most complex chemicals of earlier times lacked, at least they lacked potentials in the same time frames.

I guess that's an extreme analogy of the potential of the chicken egg example that you gave.

So I say "definitely" because an egg definitely has different potentials to dung of the same mass (heck, dung of any mass).

Yes, this is where the concept of determinism comes in. I think, in some usages of "potential", we see it is representing a real entity to the extent that we see the future as determined by the past.

Nothing is certain, though some things have absurdly high probabilities. For instance, it would seem absolutely certain that this financial year we will all pay less tax than Rupert Murdoch, but even that is not entirely locked in. For instance, a previously undetected asteroid may wipe out all life on Earth, in which case we will all pay the same. Otherwise, I think it's a pretty safe bet that we little people will continue to be forced to financially support his vandalism of western society. But I digress ...

Good to see you getting a Murdoch reference in there.

I am a kind of soft determinist. Everything that has happened before created the present, obviously, but quantum uncertainty appears to prevent anything from being a foregone conclusion. Thus, everything is a matter of probability, and some of those probabilities are definitely higher than others.

Well, even if there was no quantum uncertainty there are questions as to how meaningful it is to say that the future is an inevitable product of the past. But that's where the subject of the reality or otherwise of potentials ties in to the subject of determinism.

Steve, this time you actually did not reply to my last post and I think the subject matter was probably nailed down th re. That is, potential lies in structure, time and place. Of course they are real. If potentials were not real then you couldn't do science. Science routinely looks at potentials so as to make predictions.

This is where, as I discussed in some previous posts, it's arguable that "potential" is used in at least two distinct ways. One is the way that it is used to denote entities like "potential energy". As I said earlier, I think the definition of something like potential energy can either by as a description of present state or potential future state.

Some here see potentials as only part of the map that we use to navigate the territory (to borrow an Obvious Leo-ism). That they are not real in the present moment.

I think those that see potentials like that tend to do so because they're thinking of usages like the example I've been using: my son has the potential to be a premiership football player. i.e. they're thinking of usages that are specifically about notions like perceptions in minds as to the future possibilities.

But the map is part of reality too - how could it not be? Everything is real, including illusions, just that some things are more real than others. Technically, speaking, more potent than others. Potency lies in structure, as I noted, and within the context of "position and fields", as you put it. Potential exist in an entity's structure and dynamics in the context of its environment, time, position and trajectory.

Re: the map being part of reality too. Yes, I'd say all things are part of reality in the sense of not being some separate substance. Using the map analogy, if we were literally talking about a map: the map is made from paper and paper is real. But I think the sense in which some people allegedly confuse the map with the territory or commit reification fallacies is in confusing reference for referent. It's something that Terrapin Station has been on about for as long as I can remember him being on here. I'm sceptical that it's a widespread a problem as he sometimes seems to think it is. But I think it is a problem to some extent. He seems to have a particular beef with physicists who he says reify mathematics. Things like the notion of gravity as geometry in General Relativity would by cited as an example.

[Steve3007]

"the medium was often at least as exciting as the music on which it was engraved." should have been "the medium was often at least as exciting as the music which was engraved on it.".

[Consul]

I guess that's an extreme analogy of the potential of the chicken egg example that you gave.

So I say "definitely" because an egg definitely has different potentials to dung of the same mass (heck, dung of any mass).

Yes, this is where the concept of determinism comes in. I think, in some usages of "potential", we see it is representing a real entity to the extent that we see the future as determined by the past.

To say a chicken egg has the potential to become a chicken is not to say that it will become a chicken, because interfering factors can prevent it from developing into a chicken. For example, if you put the egg into a freezer, the development is stopped and the potential can no longer be manifested. A frozen chicken egg never becomes a chicken.

[The Beast]

Even the word coherent is different for an objective circular logicism. As far as Aristotle is concerned it would be a coherent foundationalist. A potential of pleasure is joy. How much joy is the question. A foundationalist may attribute joy to goodness.

[Sy Borg]

I guess that's an extreme analogy of the potential of the chicken egg example that you gave.

So I say "definitely" because an egg definitely has different potentials to dung of the same mass (heck, dung of any mass).

Yes, this is where the concept of determinism comes in. I think, in some usages of "potential", we see it is representing a real entity to the extent that we see the future as determined by the past.

To say a chicken egg has the potential to become a chicken is not to say that it will become a chicken, because interfering factors can prevent it from developing into a chicken. For example, if you put the egg into a freezer, the development is stopped and the potential can no longer be manifested. A frozen chicken egg never becomes a chicken.

However, the chicken poops of the world have a far lower probability to producing new chickens than the eggs of the world. That potential is indisputably real, and it lies in structure. By the same token, my PC has far more potential to access the internet than, say, a blob of chook poo (despite some electrical conductivity in the latter).

IMO this question is easy and obvious. The answer sticks out like dogs' yarbles. Potentials are just as real as quantum probabilities. There's never a guarantee in reality, not of anything, but on average certain predictions can be made, hence science.

Without potentials there could be no science. No analysis would be possible. A living duck would be seen as having the same potential to swim as a brick. Your best friend would be just as likely to mug you and steal your money as a stranger in a sketchy part of town. We assess these potentials routinely and, often, barely consciously. I am writing this because I think that the keyboard has more potential to facilitate communication than, well, chicken poop :)

[Belindi]

I guess that's an extreme analogy of the potential of the chicken egg example that you gave.

So I say "definitely" because an egg definitely has different potentials to dung of the same mass (heck, dung of any mass).

Yes, this is where the concept of determinism comes in. I think, in some usages of "potential", we see it is representing a real entity to the extent that we see the future as determined by the past.

To say a chicken egg has the potential to become a chicken is not to say that it will become a chicken, because interfering factors can prevent it from developing into a chicken. For example, if you put the egg into a freezer, the development is stopped and the potential can no longer be manifested. A frozen chicken egg never becomes a chicken.

However, the chicken poops of the world have a far lower probability to producing new chickens than the eggs of the world. That potential is indisputably real, and it lies in structure. By the same token, my PC has far more potential to access the internet than, say, a blob of chook poo (despite some electrical conductivity in the latter).

IMO this question is easy and obvious. The answer sticks out like dogs' yarbles. Potentials are just as real as quantum probabilities. There's never a guarantee in reality, not of anything, but on average certain predictions can be made, hence science.

Without potentials there could be no science. No analysis would be possible. A living duck would be seen as having the same potential to swim as a brick. Your best friend would be just as likely to mug you and steal your money as a stranger in a sketchy part of town. We assess these potentials routinely and, often, barely consciously. I am writing this because I think that the keyboard has more potential to facilitate communication than, well, chicken poop

I endorse all you say Sy Borg. However you cannot know for certain that excretions will never contain transmittable information.Nor that an object that looks like a block of flats could not float.

[Steve3007]

...IMO this question is easy and obvious. The answer sticks out like dogs' yarbles. Potentials are just as real as quantum probabilities. There's never a guarantee in reality, not of anything, but on average certain predictions can be made, hence science...

Of course, some people would strongly object to the notion that quantum probabilities, for example, are real. They would see that as a prime example of the reification of mathematics that (they would say) physicists in particular are often particularly prone to do.

This is one reason I always tend to fall back on the principle of utility. i.e. my underlying criteria for deciding what I believe to be real are that it's (a) coherent and (b) useful to believe them to be real. Being incoherent would usually mean being self-contradictory. So, for example, if energy were defined only in terms of the relative motion of matter then the idea of energy existing in the absence of matter would be incoherent. But it isn't, so it isn't. If quantum probability were defined as a mathematical model then it would be incoherent to see it as a real existent. I'll leave that one there for now.

So, in the spirit of utility and coherence, I think it's both useful and non-self-contradictory to regard potentials as real existents so long as the term "potential" is not being used to refer only to a belief/preference/thought in a person's mind.

[The Beast]

Coherent motion. I might ask thesis/antithesis and formulate my mirror image. It is young and it is old. My thought stands still against the circular motion of the Earth. What changed is the adjective. I am young; I am old. So, it is the same question of what or who. I know I am on Earth but, if I am in my Space, I am the stillness of thought. It is the same as on Earth. The belief is not moving. Maybe, it is an orbital rotation, a larger rotation. If I go against it (the rotation) the stillness of thought persists. The stillness of thought is independent of any spinning electrons. What the electrons want has nothing to do with what I believe. That is why I eat so I can keep them spinning. The electrons spin their energies left; right; up; down and a point in the center does not spin but it does relative to the nucleus. If the electron gets ejected the stillness of a point persists. Why or what ?

[Consul]

To say a chicken egg has the potential to become a chicken is not to say that it will become a chicken, because interfering factors can prevent it from developing into a chicken. For example, if you put the egg into a freezer, the development is stopped and the potential can no longer be manifested. A frozen chicken egg never becomes a chicken.

However, the chicken poops of the world have a far lower probability to producing new chickens than the eggs of the world. That potential is indisputably real, and it lies in structure. By the same token, my PC has far more potential to access the internet than, say, a blob of chook poo (despite some electrical conductivity in the latter).
IMO this question is easy and obvious. The answer sticks out like dogs' yarbles. Potentials are just as real as quantum probabilities. There's never a guarantee in reality, not of anything, but on average certain predictions can be made, hence science.

An unmanifested potential or a potential prevented from manifesting is still an actual property—as long as the potential itself isn't destroyed. For example, a boiled egg has lost its potential to develop into a chicken.

[The Beast]

In many instances the potential is unknown. A boiled egg may seem like a lost egg but, it may preserve some DNA. It is possible to extract some potential. When everything fails, we could resort to magic or the replicator or Scott’s swampman. Perhaps there is a category of natural potential or level potential that is never lost even at the level of boiled egg left to rot.

[Sy Borg]

...IMO this question is easy and obvious. The answer sticks out like dogs' yarbles. Potentials are just as real as quantum probabilities. There's never a guarantee in reality, not of anything, but on average certain predictions can be made, hence science...

Of course, some people would strongly object to the notion that quantum probabilities, for example, are real. They would see that as a prime example of the reification of mathematics that (they would say) physicists in particular are often particularly prone to do.

This is one reason I always tend to fall back on the principle of utility. i.e. my underlying criteria for deciding what I believe to be real are that it's (a) coherent and (b) useful to believe them to be real. Being incoherent would usually mean being self-contradictory. So, for example, if energy were defined only in terms of the relative motion of matter then the idea of energy existing in the absence of matter would be incoherent. But it isn't, so it isn't. If quantum probability were defined as a mathematical model then it would be incoherent to see it as a real existent. I'll leave that one there for now.

So, in the spirit of utility and coherence, I think it's both useful and non-self-contradictory to regard potentials as real existents so long as the term "potential" is not being used to refer only to a belief/preference/thought in a person's mind.

I am not sure what kind of beliefs or preferences stem from seeing potentials as real. Do you mean theism?

As mentioned, I think *everything* is real, and the idea that some things that we speak about are not part of reality to be technically incoherent, in that we are in what appears to be a closed system of the universe so all of these thoughts and ideas exist within it - as thoughts and ideas. If everything is real, then we have the usual 3D entities and we have 2D representations and thoughts that relate, at least to some extent, to that 3D reality, eg. anthropomorphic deities, vampires.

However, life is not lived technically, so claiming that parts of reality such as vampires or homophobic deities are not part of reality is functionally coherent, even if these things do indeed exist as mental phenomena within our biosphere.