Argument for potentiality

Last revised: 05/13/25

These are in progress and subject to revision. Feedback welcomed.

Presuppositions

1. Self-contradictions cannot take place or be true.

2. Change is observed in the world.

Premises

1. Suppose potentiality doesn’t exist in any real substances, including persons. (Assumption for contradiction)

   1. “Potentiality” refers to the capacity to be otherwise.

   2. “Capacity” refers to the readiness or ability of a thing to develop into, acquire, or produce something else (e.g., a habit) when the appropriate conditions are met. I don't use “aptitude” since that is typically used only in the context of persons, not more generally to non-personal objects or systems.

   3. “Right conditions” refers to the circumstances or factors necessary for a potentiality to become realized. I say “necessary” because not all causes are deterministic (as in guaranteed a unique outcome). A non-deterministic cause means the outcome isn’t strictly fixed by prior events, so the identical cause can result in a different effect.

   4. “To exist” means it’s true and present in the actual world.

   5. “Substance” refers to a complete being that exists in itself, not in another, and serves as the subject for accidents and change observed. Human beings can grow taller or change clothes, but they remain the same beings. A particular human, a horse or a tree are substances. A color, a shape or a thought are accidents, which exist in substances.

2. If true, then there is no causality.

   1. “Causality” refers to the relationship between cause and effect. One thing (the cause) brings about another thing (the effect).

   2. “Cause” refers to something that brings about an effect or change. It is the factor or event responsible for making something happen. A cause needs to be ontologically prior and it may or may not be sufficient to bring about an effect.

   3. For something to be caused, it must first be able to change or become something else. For water to boil, it must have the potential to become steam. If it didn't, heat couldn't make it boil. The effect (boiling) depends on the potential in the water to change. If something has no potential to change, then no cause can bring about a change in it. It stays what it is, no matter what happens. If nothing has the capacity to become something else, then no cause can produce any effect. Causes rely on the potential for change in what they act upon.

   4. Imagine a rock that has no potential to move, no matter how much you push. If true, your push (the cause) would have no effect. That means no causality. The rock's lack of potential blocks the effect.

3. If true, then change observed in the world must be understood as discrete perceptions.

   1. “Change” refers to the observed distinction between events or states.

   2. If there is no causality, then one event doesn’t produce another. We can only say that one event follows another. Without causality, our perception of change is a mental habit: a sequence of perceptions, not a chain of causes.

4. If true, then our observation of change forms a habit to associate the constant conjunction of patterns or events in our perceptions.

   1. After enough repetition of B following A, your mind expects B after A. That expectation feels like a connection. But it's not observed. A person comes to believe A causes B because you’ve seen the pattern many times. The basis for thinking change has a cause is just a repetition in perception.

5. If true, then a person who forms a habit must have the capacity for a habit.

6. A habit is a stable disposition formed through repeated acts that obtain under the right conditions.

7. Therefore, assuming potentiality doesn’t exist in any real substances, then a person (a substance without potentiality) who forms a habit must have the capacity for a stable disposition formed through repeated acts that obtain under the right conditions. (Hypothetical Syllogism and Definitional Substitution on #1-6)

8. Potentiality is the capacity for something to obtain under the right conditions.

9. Therefore, assuming potentiality doesn’t exist in any real substances, then a person (a substance without potentiality) who forms a habit must have potentiality, which is a contradiction. (Definitional Substitution)

10. Therefore, the assumption that potentiality doesn’t exist in any real substances is false. (Reductio ad absurdum on #2 & #9)

11. Therefore, potentiality does exist in a real substance. (Double negation elimination on #10)