Like there is no such thing as heat, but rather it is truer to simply state; atoms are hotter in a greater state of agitation, and colder when not. Can we give potency any further meaning that gives it a quality more than a secondary description?
E.g. A medicine may be ‘potent’, but does it contain potency, as an agent or further quality?
At a different level; does reality have ‘potency’, as like the universe has space even if we cant see it with our eyes closed, does energy or anything else have ‘potency’. Does this quality of thing exist such to make objects [particles] physical? Such e.g. That otherwise at base quantum states would have no potency, no agent of hardness and what have you.
Do we feel things as physical when actually there are only events changing, and their ‘effect’ is a relativistic one, and without any ‘essence’ of ‘realness’.
It’s not a thing; it’s an attribute. Like honesty or ambition, hardness or malleability. There must be an entity -a person, place, thing or concept, to which this attribute is attached, of which it is part of the description and identity. Potency is a difficult attribute to allocate or delimit, because the word has been attached to so many different entities in different contexts. Can be done, but not without a good deal of contention from interested factions.
When events change it may indeed be perceived that their effect onto the incumbent in question is relativistic… Relative to the physical sensations felt by the incumbent, relevant to the observed phenomena as interpreted by one of our other four senses (sight, hearing, smell, or taste) and the such (if there are other unknowable senses out there). The essence of ‘realness’ is directly attributive to the potency one places on personal conviction that the events changing around you directly impacts you. Solipsist thought would place enormous amounts of ‘potency’ on events as a manifestation of the inner sanctum, as opposed to the harmonium balance of rational observers who analyse the external environment and place attributive potency to the world surrounding their very innate self as a manifestation that can cause harm or benefit to the individual.
Ahem, in this sense reality has a potency (as in the sense of power/authority as imposed by an immutable set of laws of nature) and it in turn exerts power and influence onto the onlooker so as to act as an agent of quality that guides/controls one’s action as inferred by the natural world around us. The term ‘Omni’, as inferred by the title, is representative of all encompassing as a whole, and in this sense I only perceive God as being ultimately omnipotent, although, we as humans can be classified as having omnipotency when we infer to our control over creatures operating in a lesser domain (ie: an enthusiast ant farm hobbyist lordering over his ants encased in a glass-like aquarium). The term ‘potency’ in this case gives it a quality more than a secondary description; in this sense it is power associated within a restricted domain per se.
A person may by all effects be ‘potent’ but have limited potency when it comes to beekeeping as the bees themselves are reliant on the flowering plants/trees of the surrounding region to a certain extent. The potency of the beekeeper is diminished since other factors administer potency over his own minions too, in this case the bees. It is only when the bee farmer is able to mitigate all factors within his domain of lordship that he can then be said to have omnipotency over his bees; this in a practical usage of the term and not signifying or representing ‘all’ of creation.
A question I would then ask you is as to whether the concept of ‘nothingness’ has potency attributed to it? By nothingness I obviously do not mean an embodiment constrained within the bounds of this dimension (since we exist, and there are rules of nature) but I mean as ascertained by a ‘contained’ universe where all other laws imprison the sheer notion of ‘nothingness’ so that all purposes it exists as a concept (an abstract concept to say the least). Is there potency in nothingness? If so, in what way???
In my head.
At any moment I can make those abstractions objects of my thought.
Thing has two meanings. The primary one is any un-named object. Does not have to be material.
And as all things, even “material” ones are all the objects of perception. The evidence we have for things are all kept in the head.
For example:
Name of the things you love about food.
“Potency”, “potential”, “ability”, and “capability” all refer to a situation that is waiting for a catalyst to trigger a significant change in the situation. The degree of change that would occur after the trigger is the measure of potency or potential.
Also known as potential energy or potential power.
Are you saying that potency is a quality/qualia? what does atomic weight mean ultimately then?..
Good question! I would think that nothingness has no properties whatsoever, and as there is something there isn’t nothing. That’s semantics though, prior to existence i’d imagine a space [not space as we see it, curved etc] then that existence must have sprung from it. However looking at the world i am inclined to think things attain properties rather than has them, e.g. If you propel something it gains the attribute of momentum. At base it may be there are only observers and perspectives = behaviours, so the angle of one observer to another draws differing perspectives relative to positions of respective observers, then that is what information is.
Obviously. You can’t keep these ‘things’ in your head, except as they are attached to some actual person place or thing. Picture “softness”. No, not a pillow or a breast or a sponge-cake or a blankie - just softness all by itself, without any object to be an attribute of. You can’t do it, because it’s not a thing; it’s a description of some things to differentiate them from other things. I bet you can imagine a man with an erect penis, or a Clydesdale pulling a beer-wagon, or a thunderstorm or a nuclear power plant. But not potency, standing all on its lonesome. I bet you can’t picture ‘loneliness’, either, or erection.
It’s a means of differentiating elements by the mass of their nuclei. How does that relate?
I can picture emptiness as soft ~ but i see what you are saying and agree, so that’s just semantics on my part.
I am imagining that energy has [or doesn’t] force or power, potency etc, and that is fundamental here! similar to the idea that reality has ‘space’ even before space in terms of the universe exists.
Well, energy is power, force, potential, etc. But it has to drive a car or boil an egg or blow something up or at least ruffle your hair in order for you to know that it’s present.
I don’t at all see how can picture reality and space without the universe. Fortunately, you don’t need to, because if the universe winks out, it takes you along.
Irrelevant. Philosophy must ask the question ‘what is reality’. Equally the greater reality is still >reality< and is possibly a fundamental part of what we and the universe are.
You can ask it, but if you can’t answer it, you’ll be going “Is too!”; “Is not!” , with no basis for your respective claims and no end in sight.
Which is fine, if that’s your idea of philos.
But if you ask it, knowing that there is no possible answer, you are being dishonest and letting philos down.
Fair point, but asking doesn’t have to get a full answer to what it is if we can add to the collection of wisdoms about what it is not [as like everything else we know]. Then how do you know we cannot answer it if not asked? Alternately It may have no specific answer like the Tao or some such thing, but i think the world is richer for the Tao, no?
How can you even get a partial answer about something entirely outside of your ken? For partial answers to a big question, you have to break it down into little questions about the observable parts of your reality.
I don’t know. I’m guessing. I don’t even have the answer to why there is no answer. So - to whom are you posing the question?
I have no exact valuation of the wealth of the Tao. Since the Tao is part of the world, and the world has other parts which are not the Tao, I assume the world is bigger than the Tao.
But that’s not helpful in responding to a desire fro knowledge beyond the knowable. The answer to “What?” is “What what?” and that gets you nowhere.
You say an object is hot, but what is hot? Something that you feel.
You cannot feel the atom vibrating. When you zoom in, you see an alternate perception of reality, that the object you feel is actually an atom vibrating in reality. Zoom out far enough and all you see is an innocuous thing, touch it and feel hot. See it an see vibration.
hot - an attribute of feeling
vibrating - an attribute of feeling
the potency would be associated with the volume of stuff into your consciousness
equation
potency = (speed of vibration*amount of vibrating matter)/consciousness variable
Like with my example [thread linked earlier] where reality is merely a bag of stuff in a space, i think reality will eventually be a very simple thing. Complexity arises out of simplicity no? However if we describe that as individual subjective beings how can we be meaning the same thing, hence we should use terms like the Tao and then it is for the individual to resolve what that means. Reality isn’t mathematical/cardinal at base, there is no way to say what it is specifically when it is an unspecific thing. Perhaps ask yourself why do you feel the need to capture it?
Good answer but i think there are no parts which are not the Tao, and it is not only of the world. …there are no ‘parts’ [no cardinality] specifically hence there is only the Tao. It helps us understand that if you put everything in a cosmic blender you end up with soup, and that in actual fact our reality is soup at base. We differentiate that via observational perspective, and the world does that too.
Trixie
Indeed, heat is merely the rate of agitation of particles, and our experience of that is the quality/qualia of heat.
Agreed.
Ok, so do you think that reality prior to manifestation has no potency, that the subtlest entities do not have anything projecting them?
no it still has some potency because of future sense, we can sense things prior to each moment. If its a tree fallen in the woods it may have some form of psychic potency to the earth consciousness we are connected to. depression may be related to the massive amounts of habitat destruction.
simpler may not always be better.
consider the following equation:
complexity=intelligience=power=ability to change things for the better
simple=less ability to manipulate the environment
simple=stuck with whatever you get, whether it is good or bad
