Aristotle as the first Quantum Theorist

[Mescaline]

So, today I've had a lecture/discussion on Aristotle's definition of the soul, and how this relates to the soul-body problem.
In Aristotle's view (or so does at least most of his reasoning go) the soul and body are not two different things, but one and the same thing. I have to explain this before I go on in showing that he was a Quantum theorist, in my opinion. So here is how he explains that the soul and body are one and the same, plus some other implications of this:

The soul, he claims, is what gives the body its "form", in the same way that the shape of a statue gives the statue itself its "form". The soul makes the human body, be what it is. This is what Aristotle calls "actuality in knowing". Knowing is here opposed to considering. Knowing is a state of being, while considering is a state of potentially doing something. So don't confuse these two words with their common meaning.
The body on the other hand is the potentiality of itself, in being able to do stuff. Consequently this is what Aristotle calls potentiality in considering.

Now, before I go on, I have to clarify something: it seems as if Aristotle is saying body and soul are two different things, yet just as the form/shape of a statue cannot exist without the statue itself, and just like the statue itself cannot exist without having a form/shape, it must be concluded that they are one and the same.

So, lets go on. We now have mentioned actuality in knowing, and potentiality in considering. This leaves us with actuality in considering and potentiality in knowing.
For Aristotle actuality in considering is the actual act of the body doing something (this opposed to the potential of it doing something, mentioned above).
In turn, the potentiality in knowing, would be a body that is not yet alive, just as a seed can be considered to be a tree which has not yet become a tree.

So there we have it. I made a picture to make this more easy to understand (sorry that it is so big..):

Voir la pièce jointe 5202

Now, why is Aristotle the first Quantum Theorist in my opinion? (I presuppose some knowledge of Quantum Theory here, although my own knowledge hereof is restricted to this as well )
Look, potentiality in knowing could be interpreted (in terms of Quantum Theory) as the unrealized future; the non-realized present; the potential of life.
Actuality in knowing is the present itself; the realized future; the concept of being alive.
Potentiality in considering is the potential to be in the present; the potential to be in the realized future; the potential of being alive.
Actuality in considering is actually being in the present; being in the realized future; the act of being alive.

I find this very interesting! Although it is clear that Aristotle is not the exact same as a Quantum theorist, he is using the exact same kind of reasoning in my opinion (maybe even slightly more extensive, as I don't know if there is any mentioning of "potentially being in the realized future" in Quantum Theory). The only real difference I see between the two is that Aristotle concerns himself with how life becomes life, in other words, how life becomes what it is, and that Quantum theorists concern themselves with how reality, or the present, becomes reality, or the present. In other words how reality/the present becomes what it is.
In this sense Aristotle is a kind of "restricted" Quantum theorist, applying Quantum Theory only to how life is manifested, thereby ignoring "non-living" things. Of course one could even go as far to claim that all of reality is life, and thereby he is not even a restricted Quantum theorist but a full blown one (although Aristotle would not agree with this notion of all of reality being alive; he does believe a stone is alive, and has a soul, but human-made things he considers to be not alive, such as for example an axe, or a computer).

I didn't post this to necessarily discuss it, but rather to share a novel view on Aristotle. However, feel free to comment.
I hope you enjoyed the read.

Voir la pièce jointe 5203

 

[BrainEater]

cheers man!!

i like that... it's intelligent word play to make an understatement. in a way every living being is a quantum possibly theorist and phycisist etc etc because the simple fact of observing seems to change the properties of the observed. :arrow: the observer who observes the observer changes the first observer! :!: so maybe the question is whether it has always been like that. definately a acceptable model for holography, basically. and well yeah the universe is relatively certain to be holographic at least as far as i have come to understand it.
but then again... maybe it's even holographic and not holographic at the same time, whatever that may be??? if you ask me it's the ultimate mindfuck lol
just like the cat that supposedly according to that in my opinion cruel experiment is at least theoretically (LOL) at the same time alive and dead. what a joke!!! :?


peace

 

[Mescaline]

Well Read it any way you like.

If you don't want to play the game, I agree:

"This world appearance is a confusion: even as the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion, I think it is better to not let the mind dwell on it, but to ignore it."

I like playing this game from time to time though. And it seems better to enjoy it than not, as I have to play it regularly if I want to finish univ. Lets just not take it all too seriously.. it's just a game

 

[Mescaline]

lol, I think I completely misinterpreted your post, sorry if my post above this comes across "a bit" hostile. I wasn't in a very good mood, and think I projected some (/a lot) of it on you. Really sorry

but then again... maybe it's even holographic and not holographic at the same time, whatever that may be??? if you ask me it's the ultimate mindfuck lol

Along those same lines, can it not simply be said that it "is" not anything, not anything actual . Just potentiality, as potentiality really is the same as "nothing", in a way. Actually, you can only call something as potentially existing, if it actually existed at some point.. How else could you know it could potentially exist, thereby implying that it can actually exist..?
Put in different words, the creator (potentiality) does not exist independently of the created (actuality), the perceiver does not exist independently of perception, no "experiencer" independent of experience. They "are" all one and the same. From there it doesn't require much convincing, that all we really know is of an experiential nature. Then, in turn, experience(r) does not exist independently of consciousness; i.e. nothing exists independent of consciousness. They too, then, must be the same; everything is consciousness, we are (nothing but) consciousness. Then, where did consciousness come from? Nowhere, or so it seems; it was never created (the creator that was never created ). And if it was never created, then it does not really exist. And if consciousness does not really exist as such, then everything does not really exist; nothing exists...
I've been reading this book lately, after having it collect dust for years, and it is page after page explaining this in countless different ways, and better than I could ever do (I love it ):

"The world exists because consciousness is: and the world is the body of consciousness. There is no division, no difference, no distinction. Hence the universe can be said to be both real and unreal: real because of the reality of consciousness which is its own reality, and unreal because the universe does not exist as universe, independent of consciousness."

"The ocean is water; the waves are water; and when these waves play upon the surface of the ocean, ripples (also water) are formed. Even so with the universe. Even as the ocean might look upon and recognise the individuality of the ripples, the consciousness thinks of the individuals as independent; and thus egotism is born ('I-ness')."

 

[BrainEater]

easy man... lol.. i think i agree except with one thing. i am convinced that the creator is separate and not separate from us at the same time in an inconceivable way, because the creator is beyond duality. think about it. isn't so called reality defined by duality?? and why should the creator be dependant on his creation??
if you ask me, THE creator is too magnificient to be dependant on his creation. that of course doesn't mean that the creator doesn't care for or look after his creation.
however of course the creation is dependant on the creator, obviously.

regarding quantum theory, the first and ultimate observer is always god...

it's totally fascinating that it's all consciousness... it just differs in the vibrational frequency etc etc... i heard in a song or so that nothing is real except what you perceive to be real, which makes it all a matter of perspective, just like quantum theory seems to allude to. (the observer changing the properties of the observed)
consciousness is everywhere and god is too...
the point is that all is one, because god is one. i like the analogy of the ocean and the waves and how the invididual waves can be seen as representatives or so lol... maybe it's also interesting to think in that context of the reality (lol) of individual and collective illusion. btw god is often also referred to as the unmanifested, which seems to fit with your definition of potentiality.

just some food for thought.


peace

 

[selina]

pretty cool that it can so simply cancel itself out