>>710111
Unmoved mover doesn't actually state that. It simply states that "what is in motion has been brought into motion".
We should not expect that there is some disconnect between the transition between the actual and the potential inherently. Why should we, as anyone can look back to see potential and actualization diverge while having had no sense of departure in the meanwhile.
Allows no such desynchronization? Every heard about a little word called potential? It actually means a capacity that something holds but hasn't fulfilled.
The idea as cause and effect isn't necessarily chronological, we can certainly say that one followed from the other but not that is has to.
The idea might be axiomatic but isn't it beholden unto itself and not informative? I could say that this sentence is a sentence but what would you have gained from that repetition of statements?
The modern view does allow such desynchronization and it is indeed a fundamental way of our way to understand the world and we have known nothing but hypothesis that has met with several experimental hindrances and no framework for proof as of yet.
The unreal is the entirely material and there is no way to prove the material. We are entirely limited to the psychological since we experience nothing else and all of our perception derives from it.
I could go on forever with this text but I can't honestly see what you are trying to say here. That we can draw bizarre conclusions from faulty conclusions? That's not news to anyone I think!