>>13533265>By this I mean that it would be impossible for motion to not existIt is impossible for motion to exist exactly because there are movable objects (i. e. objects, that have potency to be moved and abilities to move).
>That if an atom exists then it must necessarily be in motionNot necessarily in motion, but necessarily movable. It is not hard to imagine a world with a lot of movable things that do not actually move and thus the world is completely "frozen".
>But what actualized the atom's potential to moveTaken proximately, it is some other thing that has ability to move atoms: other atoms, fields, waves, humans. Remotely and ultimately, it is some unmoved mover (purely actual object, that has no potency to undergo movement, but only potencies to move other things), or at least so Aristotle argues.
