67. Five Senses of 'In' and God's Knowledge of Future Contingents

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Five Senses of ‘In’ (ἐν) and Equivocation #

• People confuse the fourth sense (in the genus) with the fifth sense (form and matter)
• When a shape changes, people imagine the genus (matter) is changing from one species to another—a fundamental error
• Even Kant makes this mistake when understanding matter: he imagines everything that comes out of matter is actually in there, creating false problems
• Monsignor Dianne’s principle: “You cannot move the word”—the ability to progress from earlier meanings to later meanings is essential
• If you cannot move a word to a new meaning, you remain lost in older, less adequate meanings

Matter, Potency, and Imagination #

• Imagination deceives us by making actual what exists only in potency (ability)
• The distinction between what is in act (actually present) versus in potency (able to be) is crucial
• Example: From water you can extract hydrogen and oxygen, but this does not prove they are actually in the water—they may exist only in potency
• Similarly, from trees you can make chairs and tables, but this does not mean chairs and tables are actually in the trees
• Michelangelo’s claim that the statue was already in the marble is true only of imagination, not of the marble itself

Elementary Particles and Potency #

• Heisenberg’s formula: “Every elementary particle is composed of all the rest” is misleading
• This formula creates the difficulties of Anaxagoras: infinite regression of smaller and smaller particles within particles
• But experiment shows all electrons have the same mass, all protons have the same mass—contradicting infinite composition
• The resolution: elementary particles are contained in others only in potency, not in act
• This forces a careful reconsideration even of water: the fact you can extract hydrogen and oxygen does not alone prove they are actually in the water

Modern Physics and Limits (Contra Newtonian Infinitude) #

• Max Planck (20th century): Energy cannot be given or received in just any amount; there is a minimum quantum of energy—contrary to Newtonian physics
• Einstein (1905): The speed of light is the maximum speed in the universe—contrary to Newtonian physics where you could always, in principle, go faster
• Quantum physicists: There is a minimum length in the universe
• Cosmology: The universe appears limited in space and possibly in time
• Aristotle (not moderns) originally held the universe to be limited; the idea of infinite universe came in at the Renaissance when God was abandoned
• Weitzäcker’s observation: The infinity attributed to the universe in modernity may be a substitute for the infinity of God, since the human mind cannot be satisfied without something infinite

God’s Knowledge of Infinite Things (from Aquinas, Question 12, Reply 1) #

• The notion of infinite belongs to quantity; the first meaning of infinite is according to quantity
• To know the infinite in the way of the infinite is to know part after part—like counting to the end of all numbers when there is no end
• Thus it is impossible to know the infinite this way: no matter what quantity of parts is taken, always something remains outside
• God does not know the infinite by enumerating part after part (discursive knowledge)
• God knows all things at once (not successively one after another), because His knowledge is opposite of before and after
• Therefore, nothing prevents God from knowing infinite things
• Conclusion: God’s knowledge is not discursive but comprehensive; He grasps all at once what our mind takes part after part

God’s Knowledge and Comprehension vs. Transition #

• Transition implies succession in parts; it is impossible to go through the infinite
• But comprehension (grasping) suffices: what is comprehended or grasped has nothing outside the one grasping it
• Therefore, it is not against the notion of the infinite to be comprehended by the infinite
• What is infinite in itself can be said to be finite to God’s knowledge in the sense that it is comprehended by God, not in the sense that He goes through it one by one
• Eternity itself would not suffice to go through infinite things one by one, but God sees them all at once

Before and After in Aristotle’s Categories #

• Aristotle in the Categories, chapter 12: discusses before and after, the successive
• Aristotle in the Categories, chapter 13: discusses simo (together, ἅμα)
• The relationship: we know simo (togetherness) by the negation of before and after
• Just as we know equal by the negation of more and less (two lines that are neither longer nor shorter are equal)
• This is subtle and crucial for understanding eternity and God’s knowledge

God as Measure of Things (Question 12, Reply 3) #

• Plato in his Laws rejects Protagoras’s “man is the measure of all things”
• Plato affirms: God is the measure of all things
• This distinguishes Greek thinkers from modern thinkers
• Modern humanists think man is the measure of all things (as Berquist notes in recent papal addresses)
• God’s knowledge is the measure of things, but not a quantitative measure
• Infinite things would lack quantitative measure, but each thing has truth of its nature as it imitates divine knowledge
• Even if there were infinite things in act according to number (e.g., infinite men) or according to continuous quantity (e.g., infinite air), they would have determined being limited to determined natures, and thus would be measurable according to God’s knowledge

God Knows Thoughts Before They Are Had #

• Scripture (Psalms): “He knows my thoughts before I have them”
• Past, present, and future thoughts are all actual in God’s knowledge now
• God knows them all at once, not waiting for us to have the next thought
• God does not have to wait through successive thoughts; He comprehends them all together

Key Arguments #

Against Confusing the Senses of ‘In’ #

• Problem: People fall back upon the fourth sense (species in the genus) when they should use the fifth sense (form and matter)
• Evidence: When they say a genus changes, they are thinking of matter as changing from one species to another
• Solution: Recognize that it is not the genus but the body (the particular matter) that changes; distinguish carefully which sense of ‘in’ applies

Against the False Composition Doctrine in Physics #

• Objection: If hydrogen and oxygen can be extracted from water, they must be actually composed in water
• Response: The mere fact that you can get something out of a composite does not prove it is actually in there—it may be in potency
• Analogy: You can get chairs and tables from trees by craft, but chairs and tables are not actually in the trees
• Implication: Elementary particles may contain others only in potency, not in act

Against Infinite Regression (Anaxagoras’s Problem) #

• Objection: If every elementary particle is composed of all others, we get infinite regression: proton contains positron and neutron, which contain other protons and electrons, infinitely
• Contradiction with Experience: All electrons have the same mass; all protons have the same mass—no infinite divisibility
• Aristotle’s Critique: If parts could be infinitely smaller, then wholes could be infinitely large or small, with no limit—but we observe definite sizes for plants and animals
• Resolution: Things are in potency, not in act, within particles

For Limits in the Universe (Against Newtonian Infinity) #

• Historical: Aristotle held the universe limited; Renaissance modernity introduced infinity as substitute for God
• Modern Physics Confirms Limits: Planck’s quantum (minimum energy), Einstein’s light speed (maximum velocity), Quantum minimum length, Cosmological limit in space and time
• Philosophical Significance: Weitzäcker observes that loss of belief in God’s infinity led to attribution of infinity to universe; now that physics shows universe is limited, moderns panic

For God’s Knowledge of the Infinite #

• Premise: God’s knowledge is measured by eternity, not by time
• Premise: God knows all things at once, not successively
• Conclusion: God can know infinite things through comprehension, not through enumeration
• Implication: What is unknowable by discursive means (going through part after part) is knowable by comprehensive means (grasping all at once)

Important Definitions #

The Five Senses of ‘In’ (ἐν) #

Though Berquist does not exhaustively list all five in this lecture, he focuses on:

• Fourth sense: in the genus (material part)
• Fifth sense: form in matter (the composite substantial form)

Potency (ποτέντια) vs. Act (ἐνέργεια) #

• In Act (ἐντελέχεια): something is actually present, realized
• In Potency (δύναμις): something has the ability or capacity to be, but is not yet realized
• Imagination confuses these by making actual what is only in potency

Quantum #

• The minimum indivisible unit of energy or action
• Introduced by Max Planck to resolve infinities and contradictions in classical physics

Simo (ἅμα) #

• Together, all at once, simultaneously
• The opposite of before and after, succession
• A key characteristic of eternity

Comprehension (comprehensio) #

• Grasping something as a whole without going through its parts one by one
• What is comprehended has nothing outside the one who comprehends it
• Contrasted with discursive knowledge that proceeds part after part

Transitive vs. Immanent Acts #

• Referenced in passing regarding knowledge: knowledge is an immanent act (remains in the knower)
• Distinguished because understanding what it means to know helps understand God’s knowledge

Examples & Illustrations #

The Statue in the Marble #

• Michelangelo claimed the statue was already in the marble
• This is true only in imagination (Michelangelo’s mind) not in the marble itself
• The form exists in potency in the matter, not in act
• Imagination makes actual what exists only in potency

Water, Hydrogen, and Oxygen #

• From water you can extract hydrogen and oxygen by chemical reaction
• But this does not prove they are actually composed in water
• They may exist in potency, not in act
• Comparison: you can make chairs and tables from wood (trees), but chairs and tables are not actually in the trees

Salt from Two Poisonous Chemicals #

• Two chemicals that are separately poisonous combine to make salt, which is not poisonous and is used daily
• Shows how what our mind thinks about composition can be mistaken
• Suggests composition is not always what we imagine it to be

Elementary Particles Larger Than the Original #

• When elementary particles decay, the products are sometimes larger than the original particle
• This makes no sense if particles are actually composed of these larger things
• Thus they must be in potency, not in act

The Mountain and the Road (from Aquinas) #

• One traveling a road cannot see those coming after (future travelers)
• One on a mountaintop sees all travelers at once—those who have passed, those approaching, those yet to come
• God’s eternal perspective is like the mountaintop; all temporal moments are present to Him simultaneously
• (Note: Berquist references this from Aquinas but does not elaborate extensively in this lecture)

Two Lines and Equality #

• Two lines that are neither longer nor shorter than each other are equal
• We know equality through the negation of more and less
• Similarly, we know simo (togetherness) through the negation of before and after

Plato and Protagoras #

• Protagoras: “Man is the measure of all things”
• Plato: God is the measure of all things
• Marks the distinction between ancient Greek thought and modern humanist thought

Notable Quotes #

“If you can’t move the word, then you’re lost, right?” — Berquist, on the principle that one must be able to move words from earlier to later meanings in philosophical discourse

“Imagination makes actual these things that are there only in what? Ability.” — On how imagination deceives us about composition and potency

“The fact that you can get hydrogen and oxygen out of water by itself, that alone doesn’t tell you that water is actually composed of hydrogen and oxygen, right?” — On the logical fallacy of assuming composition in act from the possibility of extraction

“Everything that is, when it is, necessarily is.” — From Aristotle’s Peri Hermeneias, cited as principle regarding necessity and being

“God does not thus know the infinite or infinite things as we’re enumerating part after part… But he knows all things at once, which is the opposite of before and after.” — On God’s comprehensive knowledge versus human discursive knowledge

“The all at once, perfect possession of unending life.” — Definition of eternity (Tota simul et perfecta possessio vitae interminabilis) from Boethius

“He knows my thoughts before I have them.” — From Psalms, illustrating that God’s knowledge of thoughts is not successive

Questions Addressed #

How do people confuse the fifth sense of ‘in’ with the fourth? #

• Resolution: When a person’s shape changes (fourth sense, in the genus), people imagine the genus itself has changed from one species to another. They should recognize instead that it is the particular body (matter) that has changed, not the genus. This requires moving the word ‘in’ from the fourth to the fifth sense (form in matter).

If you can extract hydrogen and oxygen from water, aren’t they actually in water? #

• Resolution: No. The mere fact of extraction does not establish actual composition. Hydrogen and oxygen may exist in potency in water, not in act. The analogy: you can make chairs and tables from trees, but they are not actually in the trees. One must carefully distinguish potency from act.

How does Heisenberg’s formula “every elementary particle is composed of all the rest” lead to absurdity? #

• Resolution: It leads to infinite regression: a proton contains a positron and neutron, which contain other protons and electrons, infinitely smaller. But experiment shows all electrons have the same mass and all protons have the same mass. The particles must be in potency, not in act, within each other. This resurrects and avoids Anaxagoras’s error.

Did the ancients or moderns get the question of cosmic limits right? #

• Resolution: Aristotle held the universe to be limited. The Renaissance, abandoning God, attributed infinity to the universe as a substitute for God’s infinity. But modern physics (Planck, Einstein, Quantum theory, Cosmology) has discovered actual limits: minimum energy, maximum velocity, minimum length, finite space and time. The universe turns out to be limited after all.

How can God know infinite things if the infinite is unknowable? #

• Resolution: God knows infinite things not by enumeration (part after part, as we must) but by comprehension (grasping all at once). Comprehension does not require going through every part; it requires that nothing be outside what is grasped. Since God’s knowledge is eternal (outside time) and all at once (simul), He comprehends infinite things without the impossibility of enumeration.

What is the difference between how we know and how God knows infinite things? #

• Resolution: We must know discursively: part after part, one after another. We cannot complete knowledge of the infinite this way. God knows intuitively: all at once, in His eternal present. Thus God’s knowledge is certain and comprehensive where our knowledge would be conjectural or impossible.

Connections to Other Topics #

Aristotle’s Categories #

• The distinction between before and after (chapter 12) and simo (chapter 13) is fundamental to understanding eternity and God’s knowledge
• The categories themselves (substance, quantity, quality, relation, etc.) help structure how we speak of God analogically

Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, Question 14 #

• This lecture covers material from Articles 12 (God’s knowledge of infinite things) and 13 (God’s knowledge of future contingents), plus Reply 3 of Article 12 (God as measure)
• The broader context of God’s knowledge (Articles 1-15) shows how these specific questions fit into the nature of divine knowledge

Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy #

• Book V addresses how God can know future contingents eternally
• Boethius’s definition of eternity (Tota simul et perfecta possessio vitae interminabilis) is foundational to resolving the paradox

Modern Physics #

• Quantum mechanics (Planck) and Relativity (Einstein) confirm that the universe has limits, contrary to modern philosophical assumptions
• This supports the Aristotelian and medieval view that the cosmos is limited and finite

The Trinity (forthcoming topic) #

• Aristotle’s distinction between before and after will be crucial for understanding how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simultaneous without temporal sequence
• The Athanasian Creed’s insistence that there is no before and after in God depends on this analysis

Pedagogical Approach #

Berquist employs several key methods:

1. Starting with Common Errors: Shows how people naturally confuse the senses of ‘in’ and fall into incoherence
2. Concrete Examples: Uses familiar things (water, wood, restaurants, marble) to illustrate abstract principles
3. Connection to Science: Links medieval philosophy to modern physics to show relevance and validity of distinctions
4. Distinction-Making: Repeatedly returns to the method of distinguishing meanings, senses, and relationships
5. Historical Development: Shows how errors persist from Anaxagoras through modern physics until resolved by proper understanding
6. Repetition: Emphasizes that these distinctions take time to master but pay dividends once internalized