For robrecht: Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton and Einstein

[GioD]

You are not thinking this through. Without gravity, there would be no waffle batter to solidify in the first place.

But by definition if gravity is pure act it should be capable of actualizing any potential. Even if it were ultimately responsible for the initial existence of waffle batter, the fact that it is incapable of actualizing waffle batter's potential to solidify proves it is not pure act.

[robrecht]

Sure, if you wish to reduce the term teleology to mean 'as a result of human intent', then no problem. However, I doubt that such a definition would be acceptable to a Thomist in the sense that the term teleology is usually intended.

I am not sure if this defeats the point I raised. However, if as you imply above, one looks at final causality as merely another term for something related to human intent, then it would seem that we have still left Aristotle behind.

Keep in mind the topic is waffle batter and Belgian waffles. I was in no way attempting to reduce all teleology to human intent.

In what sense to think of the universe as alive, as having consciousness through sentient beings that evolved within the universe. Is life and consciousness merely an infestation, a rusting cosmos that eventually disintegrates?

[robertb]

But by definition if gravity is pure act it should be capable of actualizing any potential. Even if it were ultimately responsible for the initial existence of waffle batter, the fact that it is incapable of actualizing waffle batter's potential to solidify proves it is not pure act.

Are you sure you want to carry the baggage that comes along with such a definition of pure act?

[robertb]

Keep in mind the topic is waffle batter and Belgian waffles. I was in no way attempting to reduce all teleology to human intent.

In what sense to think of the universe as alive, as having consciousness through sentient beings that evolved within the universe. Is life and consciousness merely an infestation, a rusting cosmos that eventually disintegrates?

It would seem so, though I wouldn't use the term 'infestation'. Let's just say that life and consciousness, as we know them, are an interesting stop in the overall journey.

[GioD]

Are you sure you want to carry the baggage that comes along with such a definition of pure act?

What "baggage" is that?

[robrecht]

It would seem so, though I wouldn't use the term 'infestation'. Let's just say that life and consciousness, as we know them, are an interesting stop in the overall journey.

How interesting?

[robertb]

What "baggage" is that?

Responsibility.

[robertb]

How interesting?

For us, very interesting, I would guess.

[robrecht]

For us, very interesting, I would guess.

Interesting enough to incorporate into a metaphysical discussion?

[GioD]

Responsibility.

Sure, why not!

[robertb]

Sure, why not!

I'll keep that in mind for any future discussions...

So, as to whether gravity is pure act:

Tell me what potential can be actualized in gravity itself.

[robertb]

Interesting enough to incorporate into a metaphysical discussion?

Yes, why not?

[GioD]

Tell me what potential can be actualized in gravity itself.

Isn't gravity dependent on the universe, and therefore has the potential to exist (that is actualized when the universe comes into being)?

[robertb]

Isn't gravity dependent on the universe, and therefore has the potential to exist (that is actualized when the universe comes into being)?

No. The universe is dependent on gravity.

This is easy to get reversed I suppose.

[GioD]

No. The universe is dependent on gravity.

How so?