Physical cannot be the cause of its own change
Consider a change in the state of a physical, S1 to S2, which occurs at time t1 and t2 respectively. Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the cause power to cause the physical in the state of S2. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2. Therefore, the change is not possible in physical. Therefore, physical cannot be the cause of its own change.
I am adding the new form of the argument here and keeping the former argument as a reference. Thanks for people's contribution. Here please find the new form of the argument:
D1) Consider two states of a physical (consider an electron as an example of a physical), S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 first and t2 later respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that physical moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the causal power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) Physical however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct time, t2, to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2****
C) So, physical cannot be the cause of its own change
I had a debate with @Relativist and I changed the above argument in the following form to include his objection. This form of argument is more convoluted and requires a good understanding of the quantum field theory though. Here is the new form of the argument:
D1) Consider two states, S1 to S2, by which a physical*, let's call it P1, exists in the state of S1 at time t1 first, and another physical, let's call it P2, exists in the state of S2 at time t2 later
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that the physical, P1, in the state of S1, is annihilated at time t1 and the physical, P2, in the state of S2, is created at time t2**
D3) The annihilation of the physical, P1, in the state of S1, is due to a field operator, let's call it A1, and the creation of the physical, P2, in the state of S2, is due to a field operator, let's call it C2
D4) We consider the states S1 and S2 related if there is a correlation between the extrinsic properties*** of the physicals P1 and P2
P1) The field operators, A1 and C2, however do not experience time
P2) If so, then these fields operator, A1 and C2, cannot know the correct times, t1 and t2, to annihilate the physical, P1, in the state of S1, and create physical, P2, in the state of S2
C) So, these fields operators, A1 and C2, cannot cause a change in physical****
* Consider an electron as an example of a physical.
** This is the definition of the change according to contemporary physics, the quantum field theory.
*** Any physical has intrinsical properties such as mass, spin, charge, etc. It also has extrinsic properties such as location in space and time.
**** P3 directly follows from P2. If you have a problem understanding this then please consider a thought experiment as follows: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?
I am adding the new form of the argument here and keeping the former argument as a reference. Thanks for people's contribution. Here please find the new form of the argument:
D1) Consider two states of a physical (consider an electron as an example of a physical), S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 first and t2 later respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that physical moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the causal power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) Physical however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct time, t2, to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2****
C) So, physical cannot be the cause of its own change
I had a debate with @Relativist and I changed the above argument in the following form to include his objection. This form of argument is more convoluted and requires a good understanding of the quantum field theory though. Here is the new form of the argument:
D1) Consider two states, S1 to S2, by which a physical*, let's call it P1, exists in the state of S1 at time t1 first, and another physical, let's call it P2, exists in the state of S2 at time t2 later
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that the physical, P1, in the state of S1, is annihilated at time t1 and the physical, P2, in the state of S2, is created at time t2**
D3) The annihilation of the physical, P1, in the state of S1, is due to a field operator, let's call it A1, and the creation of the physical, P2, in the state of S2, is due to a field operator, let's call it C2
D4) We consider the states S1 and S2 related if there is a correlation between the extrinsic properties*** of the physicals P1 and P2
P1) The field operators, A1 and C2, however do not experience time
P2) If so, then these fields operator, A1 and C2, cannot know the correct times, t1 and t2, to annihilate the physical, P1, in the state of S1, and create physical, P2, in the state of S2
C) So, these fields operators, A1 and C2, cannot cause a change in physical****
* Consider an electron as an example of a physical.
** This is the definition of the change according to contemporary physics, the quantum field theory.
*** Any physical has intrinsical properties such as mass, spin, charge, etc. It also has extrinsic properties such as location in space and time.
**** P3 directly follows from P2. If you have a problem understanding this then please consider a thought experiment as follows: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?
Comments (234)
More or less you're trying to make a hilariously bad argument that God is everything.
And you think your prior faith counts as arguments towards this... even after everyone shat all over your tremendously terrible logic.
Work on making a single working argument first, before moving to the next step...
Rather than cluttering TPF with feverdream thoughts that don't logically proceed the next.
I also love how you're suggesting that physical can KNOW, cause some how it's got a mind of its own... which destroys your own prior argument... "the mind is the uncaused cause..." even here you admit I was right...
Though... it is kinda funny to look about this room I'm in and think about all the physical things here having 0 properties that interact with physics. It makes everything seem alien... which could also be a reason we have a hard time even seeing eye to eye... so perhaps I simply cannot perceive your perspective on things. But:
Thus the potential for change is already prejudged within the physical body...
But, considering I can't even understand where you're coming from, these are simply my objections to your truths. Carry on if you will it. Just because I can't understand your perspective doesn't really mean I ought to attempt to refute it. I had assumed I understood where you were coming from.
Quoting MoK
A physical what?
Quoting MoK
The physical what?
Quoting MoK
But they are indexible by distinct time points t1 and t2 by the presumption. Which means awareness, whatever you mean by it, is distinct from influence and indexicality. Influence - because a change occurs from t1 and t2, and indexicality, because labelling the states s1@t1 and s2@t2 was sufficient to denote the change.
What does it mean for "a physical" to be "aware" or "not aware" of the passage of time? Also the passage? Passing? Are you intending to refer to time as a substantive - having some influence or relevance, a basis in what is - even though "a physical" only references an indexical time? Puzzling.
You've then got three inferences, three "therefores", which seemingly follow from your terms with only contextual definitions in the OP, and you've not clarified their relationship. Awareness, physical, passage of time, cause power...
I'm sure this realisation was significant to you, but you can't tell much of what you mean at all by reading your words.
My argument clearly shows that physicalism is false therefore one has to endorse substance dualism which explains reality well. By the way, this argument is a support for another topic that I am currently discussing entitled "The Mind is the uncaused cause". Physicalism also suffers from other problems, namely the Hard Problem of consciousness, epiphenomenalism, etc. so I don't see any point in supporting physicalism at all!
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I am not talking about God here.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
My arguments follow logically. If you think otherwise please find a flaw in my argument here.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
What is the mind to you here?
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
As I promised I am not going to discuss that topic with you anymore. You don't know that a syllogism is valid because of its form rather than its context.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I didn't say that physical has no properties.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I am not declining that physical has no potential but arguing that change is not possible within physicalism.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
You didn't provide a valid objection at all yet. I am open to them but that means that you need to find a problem within my argument first.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
You seem trying to refute my argument without having a valid objection.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
I think otherwise. You seem to not understand what I am arguing here.
Do you have any objection to my argument? I would be happy to hear them.
Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation.
That's exactly what I said...
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
My knowledge comes from the terrestrial world... your perspective is too alien form that though, so I can't really perceive it.
I mean the stuff like objects, a cup, a chair, etc. for example.
Quoting fdrake
The stuff that is subject to change and discussion.
Quoting fdrake
Yes, two states of physical are indexed by two points in time. This indexing is necessary to define a change in the physical. I am however arguing that change in the physical is not possible within physicalism because the physical does not experience the change in time therefore it cannot know the proper time, t2, to which the causation is due to.
Quoting fdrake
By awareness, I mean the ability to experience, in this case, the ability to experience the change in time.
Quoting fdrake
s1@t1 to s2@t2 denotes a change. I am however arguing that this change is not possible if you endorse physicalism.
Quoting fdrake
By aware of the passage of time here I mean have a perception of change in time. To experience the change in time if that sounds better to you.
Quoting fdrake
By the passage of time I mean that time is subject to change.
Quoting fdrake
Yes, time is real to me without it change in physical is not possible.
Quoting fdrake
By causal power I mean it can cause. So when I say that the physical in the state S1 has a causal power to cause the physical in the state S2, I mean that the physical in the first case can cause the physical in the second case.
Quoting fdrake
I tried my best to define the terms you requested. Please let me know if anything is unclear. I would be happy to elaborate.
It is necessary since a change indicates a going from one state at one point in time to another state later. So the knowledge of the proper time that the causation is due to, t2 in this case, is necessary.
So you are assuming the experience the change in time is both not physical, and is necessary to cause changes in the physical.
What causes changes in time in the first place?
And why does a physical thing need to know the proper time to facilitate change?
Lots of holes noted by others here.
Substance dualism is not proven yet.
All you need is to be open to new ideas and try to contemplate them. I would be happy to discuss with you further and elaborate on things if you are willing to understand my argument, mate.
Non-sequitur. You simply re-asserted that knowledge is necessary. A law of nature necessitates an effect. Causation is temporal.
I am saying that the physical cannot experience the change in time. Physical in physicalism cannot have any experience at all including the change in time. I am arguing a change in time is necessary for a change in physical though.
Quoting Fire Ologist
What I call the Mind. Please see my second argument in this thread.
Quoting Fire Ologist
How could it do it otherwise? The change is due to time t2. Could you perform a request that is due to a specific time without knowing what is the specific time or even worse without having the ability to experience time?
Quoting Fire Ologist
I provide an argument in favor of substance dualism in this thread. You are welcome to join there and I would be happy to discuss things with you.
Of course, the knowledge of time is necessary. Could you perform a task that is due to a specific time without knowing the specific time or even worse without having the ability to experience time? If you cannot then how the physical can?
Quoting Relativist
No, the laws of physics only explain the regularities that we observe in cause and effect in nature. There could still be cause and effect without regularities. Nature is however regular.
Quoting Relativist
Correct but that is not possible within physicalism.
That is alright.
You gave an example that INVOLVES application of knowledge. Cause-effect due to (for example) laws of motion do not depend on knowledge. A rock dislodged from a high ledge, by a tremor, will fall to the bottom is strict accord with the gravitational law.
No problem, mate.
I am asking that if you cannot perform that task which requires the awareness of the passage of time then how the physical can do that?
First you need to acknowledge that Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation.
You have a habit of making absurd statements, treating them as true even after they have been falsified. Here's where you made it:
Quoting MoK
What I referring to here is knowledge in general but knowledge of time. Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time? Yes or no?
You said:
Quoting MoK
If that's not what you meant to say, then acknowledge you were wrong in making such a general statement, and rephrase it in a way you will defend.
I was not wrong at all. By knowledge there, I meant to know what is the correct time. Why don't you answer my thought experiment? Could you perform the task? Yes or no?
Quoting MoK
I then gave this example:
Quoting Relativist
Prove there is a dependency on knowledge for the rock to fall, and land when it does.
Physicalism is false like it or not because I have several arguments against it. I already discussed what I mean by change in OP whether the change is in a falling rock or the motion of electrons in a brain. I however argue against physicalism here. My argument is valid and sound. You are evading here because you do not provide an answer to my thought experiment. So again, can you perform the task? We are not going anywhere if you don't provide an answer to my thought experiment.
It's an invalid argument! Here it is, with your statements numbered:
[i]1. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time.
2. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
3. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.
4. Therefore, the change is not possible in physical. Therefore, physical cannot be the cause of its own change. [/i]
#3 does not follow from #1 and #2. Neither #1 nor #2 even mentions causation, and yet you claim to draw a conclusion ("therefore") about causation.
Your argument is just blatantly invalid.
You have a captive audience.
We disagree that your arguments work.
You can either judge we are all too simple-minded to comprehend you (which by the quality of the responses would be foolish of you - we're clearly not simple minded), or you should reframe and/or revise your arguments.
Quoting MoK
You haven't clearly shown anything yet to us. That should give you pause, and send you back to the drawing board.
fdrake gave you a lot of content to assist with a revision.
Seems you are trying to say that change can't occur if only physical things exist.
The point you are trying to make can't be so simple as your one paragraph OP, but aside from that, your one paragraph OP is not a valid argument. Work on it.
Quoting MoK
Make those arguments again. Revise them. Define terms more carefully and clearly for us.
These misplaced concreteness & anthropomorphic fallacies render your (latest) OP "argument" gibberish, Mok. At best, as far as I can tell, you've expressed nothing but a half-arsed verson of "Zeno's paradox" (that's been debunked for millennia). Maybe something's lost in translation English isn't your first language?
The argument makes a mistake of assuming that for a physical system to cause a change in itself, it must know when to do so. But physical processes dont require knowledge or awareness to functionthey follow natural laws and causal mechanisms.
Hint: try using AI to sharpen up your arguments. Not to write but to review and proof.
#3 follows from #2 only. To understand that you need to contemplate my thought experiment which you have never answered!
You cannot simply say that my argument does not work. If you think my argument has a problem, let me know where.
Quoting Fire Ologist
What is the thing you don't understand? We can go from one sentence to another one and I would be happy to explain things that are not clear to you.
Quoting Fire Ologist
He didn't ask for a revision. He just asked for definitions of terms used in the OP, which I tried my best to answer.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I am saying that physical cannot be the cause of its own change, the title.
Quoting Fire Ologist
My argument works. If you think that there is a problem in my argument then please let me know and I would be happy to fix it.
Quoting Fire Ologist
The Hard Problem of Consciousness, Epiphenomenalism, etc. They are off-topic so for now let's focus on the current argument.
My argument has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't think that anything is lost in translation. English is not my first language though. If any sentence is not clear to you, please let me know and I would be happy to elaborate.
The physical of course must know when to do cause otherwise physical motion would be incoherent. And that is an important point and it is not a mistake.
Let's focus on a thought experiment: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?
By what rule of logic? See: https://cse.iitk.ac.in/users/cs365/2012/rulesLogic.html
Modus Ponens. Let me give you an example of another argument I developed here with the help of @Arcane Sandwich:
P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
C1) So, there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
C2) So, the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C3) So, God changes
Here's your argument:
1. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time.
2. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
3. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.
4. Therefore, the change is not possible in physical. Therefore, physical cannot be the cause of its own change.
You said:
Quoting MoK
Modus ponens has the form:
p=>q
p
Therefore q
In your argument, what is p and what is q?
P is #2. Q is #3. Q follows from P. Please consider my thought experiment to see how Q follows from P.
To understand that Q follows form P you need to consider the following thought experiment: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?
P: the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
Q: Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.
I proved that P does not entail Q:
S1= Rock on a ledge at to
S2= Rock on the ground at t1
Cause: tremor (there is no knowledge involved).
You are just claiming that change exists. That is not what I am denying. I am claiming that physical cannot be the cause of its own change.
One physical state of affairs (S1) caused another physical state of affairs (S2).
S1 includes the potential energy in the tectonic plates that caused the tremor.
We assume this all the time but that is false.
Quoting Relativist
That is a mere change and I am not denying it at all.
Quoting MoK
Prove it.
Quoting MoK
Change entails a cause for that change (per the PSR).
1. I have to interpret what you mean by physical is not aware because thats not normal English. I assume you are trying to note that rocks are not conscious. I can accept that.
2. Therefore, [physical things] in S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause S2.
I can accept that, even though some physical things (like human beings) could know.
3. Therefore, the physical in S1 cannot cause S2.
There is no necessity that anything about effects, like S2, be previously known by S1 in order to come to be.
That is what you need to argue before you get to 3.
I have no suggestions for you on how to do this. You are grappling with the appearance of cause and effect in nature, and the appearance that cause and effect is only a form of thought (a knowing agent). Hume showed there is no necessity in nature between cause and effect, and Kant showed we have to think in terms of cause and effect in order to think about change. Maybe they were both misinformed. But your argument doesnt even show any recognition of these observations which have been noteworthy in history before your argument. Aristotle used potential and actual to help describe the coming to be of changes from S1 to S2. Your argument doesnt address such things either.
Bottom line, I have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you want to reword things and explain them more precisely, I cant move past number 3. The word therefore in number 3 refers back to nothing that would necessitate a therefore statement. So I need not address anything further.
But by 5, you introduce its own change. Where did its own come from? Does its own belong with S2 (the now changed state), or with S1? Or both? And if the physical cannot know, can the physical have an its own?
In 4, you seem to be saying, like Parmenides, that physical change is not possible. Are you arguing that change doesnt happen, or that change in physical things only happens because of influences of non-physical things? I think the latter - so you need to reframe 4, or else your conclusion ends up being that change in physical things is not possible, but change in physical things is possible.
But you need to work on 3 and see if there is a way to get beyond it to 4 or later.
Im trying to show you that Im taking this seriously and offering specifics that I think need further work. But generally, I dont think this will be workable.
I do know the difference.
Quoting tim wood
It is unrelated but there is a scientific explanation for how this occurs (from a Google search): People wake up at a certain time in the morning primarily due to their internal biological clock, called the circadian rhythm, which is regulated by a part of the brain called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN). This clock is highly sensitive to light, meaning exposure to morning sunlight triggers the release of hormones like cortisol, essentially signaling the body to wake up.
Quoting tim wood
It is not. Did you think of my thought experiment? If you cannot perform the task then how do you expect that physical does it?
Read the OP.
Quoting Relativist
Sure, I am not against this at all. I am however arguing that physical cannot be the cause of its own change. This thread is in support of another thread entitled "The Mind is the uncaused cause". As I discussed in another thread I think that change in physical is due to vertical causation rather than horizontal causation. In this thread, I am arguing that horizontal causation is not possible at all. So, what causes a change in physical? The Mind. The Mind not only is aware of the passage of time but also experiences and causes time. So, all the problems are resolved!
I am saying that physically cannot experience time.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I am saying that a rock cannot experience the passage of time.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Correct. Humans can experience psychological time but they cannot tell what is the current time.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I don't understand. You already accept 2. We just need to find out how we can go from 2. to 3. Here is my thought experiment that could help you to realize that 3. follows from 2.: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?
Quoting Fire Ologist
I agree with Kant.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I read about Aristotle's argument. I however do not think that talking about potentiality and actuality can resolve the issue at hand since physical in the state of S1, being in the potential state, is not aware of the passage of time therefore it cannot cause physical in the state of S2, being in the actual state.
Quoting Fire Ologist
3. follows from 2. Please consider my thought experiment.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I am saying that physical cannot be the cause of its own change. I don't agree with Parmenides though. I think the change is real.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I am not denying change. And yes, I think that change in physical happens because of the Mind.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Please consider my thought experiment since 4. follows from 3.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Thanks for your contribution. I think that the argument is sound and valid. I will take you there.
Quoting MoK
We're discussing the error in your op that I exposed. Keep up.
Quoting MoK
Examined as a whole, the universe at t0 is the cause of the universe at t1. Physical throughout.
Where is the error? Could you please show it to me?
Quoting Relativist
False.
What term is not well defined? I would be happy to elaborate.
Quoting tim wood
It helps you to understand how one can go from this "Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2." to this "Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.".
Quoting tim wood
The time that the causation of the physical in the state of S2 is due to.
Prove it.
Quoting MoK
I've shown you at least twice. Read through my posts.
Read OP.
Quoting Relativist
I read them carefully. You didn't find any error in my argument. You also didn't reply to my thought experiment. I offered that thought experiment to show the only objection you had in my argument so far is not valid.
Yes, I did. I'm done. You seem incapable of having a rational discussion.
You only had one valid objection which I answered using my thought experiment. The rest of your objections were about the existence of change in physical that I do not deny but as I argued several times it cannot be due to physical itself.
There is harmony in the physical change. This means that the change must occur at a proper time.
Quoting tim wood
By right in here I mean proper.
Quoting tim wood
Physical.
Quoting tim wood
Physical properties.
Deepseek:
[I]"The logic presented in your argument contains several issues that undermine its validity. Let's break it down step by step:
1. **Premise 1**: A physical system changes from state \( S_1 \) to state \( S_2 \) at times \( t_1 \) and \( t_2 \), respectively.
2. **Premise 2**: The physical system in state \( S_1 \) has the causal power to cause the physical system to transition to state \( S_2 \).
3. **Premise 3**: The physical system is not aware of the passage of time.
4. **Conclusion 1**: Therefore, the physical system in state \( S_1 \) cannot know the correct instant to cause the transition to state \( S_2 \).
5. **Conclusion 2**: Therefore, the physical system in state \( S_1 \) cannot cause the transition to state \( S_2 \).
6. **Conclusion 3**: Therefore, the change is not possible in the physical system.
7. **Conclusion 4**: Therefore, the physical system cannot be the cause of its own change.
### Issues with the Logic:
1. **Misapplication of "Awareness"**:
- The argument assumes that the physical system needs to be "aware" of time to cause a change. This is a category mistake. Physical systems do not require awareness or consciousness to operate according to physical laws. Causality in physical systems is governed by deterministic or probabilistic laws, not by "knowing" when to act.
2. **Confusion Between Causality and Temporal Awareness**:
- The argument conflates causality with temporal awareness. Causality in physics is about the relationship between events, not about the system's awareness of time. For example, a ball rolling down a hill does not need to "know" when to start rolling; it rolls due to gravity and initial conditions.
3. **Self-Contradiction in Premises**:
- Premise 2 states that the physical system in state \( S_1 \) has the causal power to cause \( S_2 \), but the conclusion denies this by suggesting that the system cannot cause \( S_2 \) because it lacks temporal awareness. This is a contradiction because the initial premise already grants the system causal power.
4. **Misunderstanding of Physical Laws**:
- Physical systems operate according to laws that do not require "knowledge" or "awareness." For example, chemical reactions occur when certain conditions are met, not because the molecules "know" when to react. The argument incorrectly imposes a requirement of awareness on a system that operates purely mechanistically.
5. **Infinite Regress or External Cause Fallacy**:
- The conclusion that "physical cannot be the cause of its own change" implies that all changes must be caused by something external. This leads to an infinite regress (what causes the external cause?) or an unnecessary appeal to non-physical causes, which is not justified by the premises.
6. **Ignoring Deterministic or Probabilistic Mechanisms**:
- The argument ignores the role of deterministic or probabilistic mechanisms in physical systems. For example, in quantum mechanics, particles transition between states based on probabilities, not on any form of awareness.
### Corrected Logic:
- Physical systems change states based on physical laws and initial conditions. The transition from \( S_1 \) to \( S_2 \) occurs because the laws of physics dictate that \( S_1 \) evolves into \( S_2 \) under the given conditions. There is no need for the system to "know" when to change; the change is a natural consequence of the system's dynamics.
In summary, the argument fails because it imposes an unnecessary requirement of "awareness" on a physical system, misunderstands the nature of causality in physics, and contradicts its own premises. Physical systems do not need to be aware of time to undergo changes; they follow the laws of physics."[/i]
Quoting MoK
I would agree that there is conservation of energy/matter, but that empirical observation is not proven beyond doubt (see QM).
But there is no reason to say the change must occur at a proper time. This is the crux of your argument, and you have not demonstrated some proper time need exist at all. You just keep saying it as if its obvious, and quite the opposite, it seems false.
Quoting MoK
Tim asked what. The question seeks a noun, a quantifiable entity one might point at. You answered with an adjective, like weak or evasive.
D1) Consider two states of a physical, S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 and t2 respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that physical moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the cause power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) Physical however does not experience time
P2) Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2
C) Therefore, physical cannot be the cause of its own change
I am talking about temporal change here so time and its change matters.
Quoting tim wood
No, it is part of reality. Why does the physical in the state of S1 cause the physical in the state of S2 exactly at the proper point? Why not later or sooner?
Quoting tim wood
By proper I mean the exact time that the causation is due to. To help more, consider my thought experiment. I already mentioned what I mean by the proper time in my thought experiment as well.
Quoting tim wood
I consider the position of an object as a property as well. So this property changes when the object moves.
Well, if you cannot perform the task in my thought experiment then why do you expect that physical can possibly do it? Physical does not experience time. It also does not know the proper time, t2, that the causation is due to. It is like that in my thought experiment I ask you to perform a task but do not give you a watch or clock and do not tell you when is the proper time.
Moreover, we are talking philosophy here and not physics so saying that physical moves according to the laws of nature does not add much to our understanding of reality!
Quoting Relativist
You are not adding much here. That as I mentioned several times is a change that I do not deny it. I say something different. Please see the title and my new form of argument here.
Quoting Relativist
I granted the causal power for the sake of argument. I however concluded that the physical cannot be the cause of its own change. Two different things.
Quoting Relativist
It is off-topic but why does physical operate according to the laws of physics? That is a valid question in philosophy.
Quoting Relativist
The Mind is the uncaused cause so no infinite regress.
Quoting Relativist
I told you this before. I think that De BroglieBohm's interpretation is the correct interpretation because it is paradox-free. So no particles transition between states based on probabilities.
Quoting Relativist
It is off-topic but why does physical operate according to the laws of physics?
Quoting Relativist
Please see above.
Stuff that objectively exists, like a chair, a cup etc.
Your argument is objectively invalid. I showed that, others have shown it, and now even an AI has shown it.
I thought that was your analysis! It is funny how people are very dependent on AI analysis these days. An AI just produces what is known. Why don't ask an AI why the physical move according to the laws of physics? Anyhow, I already addressed your/AI objections. Feel free to consider them or disregard them.
Quoting Relativist
You have not shown anything yet.
Quoting Relativist
I don't need it and I don't have time for it.
I don't think physicalists think chairs know about time.
And that is the problem when we are dealing with a change. If we consider time and physical as two different things that time passes on its own and physical does not know time then how could one explain such a fantastic relation between the passage of time and the change in physical?
Then consider an electron.
[I](the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2)[/i]
Was implied by:
[I](the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of s2)[/i]
That is irrational. Perhaps you're applying some unstated assumptions and you don't realize it.
Sure, it does not know. The quantum field theory takes time for granted. It does not explain why time is involved in the formulation in a certain way. It is just a formulation that works.
how do you know?
This is off-topic.
Quoting Fire Ologist
The change occurs at a proper time otherwise we could not observe such a fantastic relation between motion and time.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I don't understand what you are talking about. Could you please be more specific?
Tim asked what changes.
You answered physical. Thats not a clear or precise answer.
Physical what? Changes in what way?
Quoting MoK
Change occurs in time. But at a proper time - what does that mean - why introduce proper?
This is the crux of the argument you are trying to make and I havent seen anyone here who understands the word proper.
In your thought experiment, I could perform the act at 1:00 accidentally. I could nail the change right on the proper time without knowing I did so. You arent explaining how change is not possible without some condition of knowing the proper present in the moment of change. Your thought experiment doesnt clarify.
Because an electron exists within time. To experience time, one needs to go outside of time. We are however trapped within time. Therefore we cannot experience time.
Physical properties such as location.
Quoting Fire Ologist
By proper time I mean the time that the causation is due to.
Quoting Fire Ologist
See above.
Quoting Fire Ologist
That is not possible because the proper time is an instant in time! Even if we accept that you can do it by chance then I ask you to perform the second task, third task, etc. at the proper time. Your chance of performing the tasks drops significantly as you perform more tasks.
Not at all!
There is no error in my argument.
Quoting Relativist
No. P3 follows from P2 in my current argument here. That is the only tricky part and for that, you need to consider my thought experiment.
I'm not going to look at a different argument until you acknowledge that:
[I](the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2)[/i]
Does not logically follow from:
[I](the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of s2)[/i]
Pehaps your other argument fills in a missing piece, but even so - you need to acknowledge there is a missing piece to show you can be reasonable.
?-------------
I'll illustrate the problem a simple argument:
1. All men are human
2. Therefore Socrates is a human
The conclusion does not follow from the pemise. A corrected version is:
1. All men are human
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is a human
I am a condensed matter physicist by training. I studied particle physics and cosmology in depth before pursuing my Ph.D. in condensed matter physics. That was however 30 years ago and I changed my subject of study from condensed matter physics to epidemiology and now I have settled down on philosophy.
I am talking about the relation between the change in the physical and the passage of time.
You need my thought experiment if you cannot get how P3 follows from P2. And I don't think that there is a missing part. And my argument is a form of Modus Ponens and not Syllogism.
Everything we know of as physical emerges from, presumably, the behaviour of how quantum fields evolve and interact over time. Quantum fields are defined by how they change over time, and how they relate to other quantum fields. It's not that they're "the cause of their own change", it's more that the way in which they change is part of their very definition - they are what they are because they change in those ways. If they changed in other ways, they'd be something else.
As I mentioned before physical formulation, whatever it is, takes time for granted. Therefore, the physical and time are two separate things in any physical formulation.
Quoting flannel jesus
No, physical changes are what they are because of the relation in the change in the state of physical and time.
Quoting flannel jesus
The physical things and time are separate things. I have no argument against the emergence of the physical and I think the physical emerges but I have an argument against the emergence of time: Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical physical theory therefore time cannot be an emergent thing within a dynamical physical theory since time cannot be a fundamental variable and an emergent thing at the same time.
Quoting flannel jesus
No, without time you just don't have a change in physical.
Quoting flannel jesus
Correct.
Quoting flannel jesus
Correct. But the quantum field theory takes time for granted.
Quoting flannel jesus
Yes, that is all that physics tells us. I am here talking about how the physical cannot be the cause of their own change.
What is physics to you? I am not arguing against physics here.
Generally speaking (and this is just off the top of the dome so forgive me if it's not quite right), the study of the patterns of how physical things change, and why they change.
Physics is the study of the physical and forces that explains how the change in the properties of physical and forces are related to time. It does not deal with why the physical properties and forces are subject to change in terms of time.
Show me. Modus Ponens: "It can be summarized as "P implies Q. P is true. Therefore, Q must also be true."
Identify the "P implies Q" in your argument, and where you assert P. Here's the relevant portion:
[I]2. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
3. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.[/i]
P is P2 and Q is P3 where P2 and P3 are as following:
P2) Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2
If you having a problem getting how Q follows from P then please consider my thought experiment.
I am talking about the relation between the change in the physical and the passage of time. It is fantastic because this relationship holds always.
Quoting tim wood
That is what science tells us. People with a great sense of wonder however always ask questions about why things are the way they are. Some people question the basic principles of science. For example, here I am questioning that physical cannot be the cause of its own change. Please see this post.
Quoting tim wood
Why does the physical change relate to the change in time considering that they are two different things? Doesn't such a thing puzzle you?
Modus Ponens has to start with a material implication. This is classically stated as "if A then B". You have no "if .... then ...." in your argument.
If the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.
The physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2
Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.
PS are you comfortable with this wording of "the physical"? Do you know what he means by that? Does he mean everything about the physical state at one time?
The problem with filling in the missing premises is that if you then challenge it, he'll respond "I didn't say that".
Quoting flannel jesus
No. He tends to be vague a lot. He also uses idiosyncratic definitions without explicitly defining them, and appears to contradict himself. In another active thread, he referred to "mind" creating a brain at a point of time "from nothing," but denied this was creation "ex nihilo" (latin for "from nothing") but also agreed the brain at the prior state was a material cause. So...it's best to pin him down.
Ok, I changed the argument to consider your correction. Here is the argument:
D1) Consider two states of a physical, S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 and t2 respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that physical moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the cause power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) Physical however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2
C) So, physical cannot be the cause of its own change
P2 obviously follows from P1. P3 follows from P2. If that is not obvious to you then consider my thought experiment. C also obviously follows from P3.
What is the relator in the case of physical change?
Quoting tim wood
Then please see the above argument and tell me what is wrong with it.
States of a physical what? If you mean a "physical object" then you are implying this same object exists at both points t1 and t2, and thus it has "experienced" (persisted across ) time.
Quoting MoK
Seems to contradict D1, unless you define "experience time" differently than "persisting across time".
Think of an electron as an example of a physical. By state, I mean that the electron has a specific location in space at time t0. It then moves from that location to another one at time t1 so its state changes.
Quoting Relativist
No, it is not the same object and the object exists at time t0 and t1 respectively.
Quoting Relativist
By experience here I mean being conscious of time.
Think of an electron as a physical.
If you want "a physical" to mean "a fundamnetal particle", then your own arguments would work better if you said that instead, "a fundamental particle."
D1) Consider two states of a fundamental particle, S1 to S2, in which the particle exists at time t1 and t2 respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that particle moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the particle in the state of S1 has the cause power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) The particle however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the particle in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the particle in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the particle in the state of S1 cannot cause the particle in the state of S2
C) So, the particle cannot be the cause of its own change
Per your claim below. it is impossible for an electron to exist at t0 and t1. This invalidates your entire argument, at least in its present form.
Quoting MoK
Physical is defined as "relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind". By "a physical" I mean an instance of physical like an electron, a chair, etc. I don't understand why that could be so confusing.
Time t1 and t2 refers to two points in time in which time t2 comes after t1. When I say that an electron exists in time t1 and t2, I mean that the electron exists at t1 first and later exists at t2. To make it more clearer I change the argument to consider your point. Here is the argument:
D1) Consider two states of a physical, S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 first and t2 later respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that physical moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the cause power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) Physical however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2
C) So, physical cannot be the cause of its own change
Thanks for changing my argument.
There is considering that the physical and time change, and are two separate things.
Quoting tim wood
The physical exists within time and does not have direct or indirect access to time. Therefore, the physical cannot experience time.
Quoting tim wood
Please read, D1 and D2 here.
Quoting tim wood
Consider my thought experiment.
Quoting tim wood
A cause refers to the power to which a change in something is due to it. So when I say X causes Y, I mean that X has the power to change Y.
Quoting tim wood
Yes.
Your physical body itself is the cause for the body change. You are born, you live, and you get old.
Your body caused itself to get old. Correct?
Sure not. That is what I am arguing against it.
Thank you, mate. :up:
You need to explain what causes your body get old. It seems the case that your body causes your body itself to get old.
I am considering a single change here for sake of simplicity. Please see the OP. This thread is a support for another thread entitled "The Mind is the uncaused cause" which you can find it here. I think that is the Mind that causes a change in the physical.
For example, what single change are you thinking of or talking about?
Quoting MoK
Again, any examples for the mind causing change in the physical?
Please read D1 in the OP and let me know if you have any questions.
Quoting Corvus
Like the motion of an electron.
2 questions:
1. Is the electron at t1 the SAME electron that exists at t2?
2. Are there intermediate points, between t1 and t2, at which this electron does not exist?
I assume so for the sake of the argument.
Quoting Relativist
There are an infinite number of points between any arbitrary points in time.
That's a false assumption, isn't it?
Yes, it is a false assumption in contemporary physics. I didn't want to get involved in more detail here since that requires a knowledge of quantum field theory. But here you go as you asked for it: The motion of an electron for example is produced with two field operators, namely the annihilation field operator and the creation field operator. So how does it work? The annihilation field operator first acts on the ground state that contains one electron and destroys the electron so we are left with the vacuum state. The creation field operator then acts on the vacuum state and creates a new electron in another place later. So, a simple electron that is subject to motion in space is not the same one in different stances of time.
Fine. I get it that every physical objects are composed of sets of elementary particles, each of which which is a quantum of a quantum field at a point of time. Now reword your argument to be consistent with this:
Quoting MoK
I already included your correction and changed the OP to include all people's suggestions as well. Please find the new form of the argument in the following:
D1) Consider two states of a physical (consider an electron as an example of a physical), S1 to S2, in
which the physical exists at time t1 first and t2 later respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that physical moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the causal power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) Physical however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2
C) So, physical cannot be the cause of its own change
The electron at t1 has been annihalated at t2, so this is an impossible scenario.
Sure I can tell the difference between an old baseball and a new baseball because I have access to psychological time. I however distinguish between psychological time and subjective time, later is what I call time in this thread for the sake of simplicity. Psychological time is the byproduct of brain activity whereas subjective time is experienced and caused by the Mind. Please see the second and third arguments in this thread for further explanation.
Quoting tim wood
Yes, baseball cannot experience time or to be more precise subjective time.
Quoting tim wood
The old and new baseball are not the same thing. Please see this post for further explanation.
Quoting tim wood
They are needed for the rest of the argument.
Quoting tim wood
Cool.
Quoting tim wood
What do you mean? I mean my thought experiment: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?
Quoting tim wood
Correct.
Quoting tim wood
We cannot certainly experience subjective time (what I call time in this tread for the sake of simplicity) since we exist within subjective time. The change is however due to the existence of the Mind. The Mind not only experiences and creates the physical but also experiences and creates the subjective time at the same point. It is due to the existence of the Mind that physical change and temporal change are related. The Mind is however Omnipresent in objective spacetime otherwise It could not experience and cause motion in physical and time. Please see my other thread for more explanation.
Quoting tim wood
I am sorry. I missed your questions here. This thread is a support for another thread in which I claim that causation cannot be horizontal but vertical. Here, I am excluding vertical causation. Therefore, we are left with vertical causation by which I mean that there is another entity so-called the Mind that experiences the physical at the state of S1 at time t1 and creates the physical at the state of S2 at time t2 later.
No, the electron is annihilated at time t1 and is created at time t2 later.
You seem to be saying the electron at t1 and the electron at t2 have the same identity.
But this can't be an enduring identity, because the t2 electron was created at t2. So you need to account for these 2 disconnected objects having the same identity.
The electron only has the same intrinsic properties, such as mass, spin, and charge at time t1 and t2 but it has different extrinsic properties, such as locations, at time t1 and t2.
So do they, or don't they, have the same identity?
They are not the same things.
Then this statement of yours is incoherent:
Quoting MoK
Do you want me to include all these discussions in this thread in a single argument?
Consider two states of something that cannot exist in two states.
Ok, I will add a couple of extra paragraphs to make things more clear. And thanks for your contribution.
Why can't you acknowledge that your statement entailed a contradiction?
I changed the OP accordingly to include your objections!
Why don't read my comments and try to understand them? Did you understand what I said? If yes, then what is wrong with my comments? Saying that I am wrong does not help at all unless you pick up an error in my comments or argument.
Quoting tim wood
Or maybe granting what I said is right and you lack understanding of what I said.
Quoting tim wood
Sure.
Quoting tim wood
I assume by internal processes you mean the change in the state of parts, electrons, quarks, etc. of the baseball.
Quoting tim wood
Are you talking about a baseball at two different points in time?
Quoting tim wood
That is correct that things exist in time. The very fact that things exist in time means that things cannot experience time.
Quoting tim wood
Huh? It is clear to me now that you didn't understand my argument and comments.
Quoting tim wood
Why don't you try to read my comments a few times and let me know where you lack understanding so I can elaborate?
Is this the only statement that you have a problem with? If yes, then I am not making nonsense over nonsense!
Anyhow, consider a building with two identical rooms so similar that you cannot distinguish them from each other when you are inside one or another. Suppose you are held in one room, which I call room one for the sake of discussion. Suppose that the building owner moves you from room one to room two when you are asleep. Can you tell me whether your room has changed when you become awake?
I read D1, and you now added "electron" for your physical in S1 and S2. Does electron exist? Can you prove electron exist? How do you know electron is in S1 and S2?
Quoting MoK
Sure it exists according to contemporary physics.
Quoting Corvus
Are you denying objective reality? Are you denying that the computer that you are using now does not exist?
Quoting Corvus
That is just a definition. It is required to define a change, please read D2.
You need to ditch physics in order to arrive to real truths. :)
Quoting MoK
You are confusing electron and electricity. They are different.
Quoting MoK
If you don't know what electron is, then you must first prove what it is, and if it exists before progressing.
We cannot ditch physics if we want to know what a physical, such as a chair, is made of.
Quoting Corvus
I didn't talk about electricity but your computer. So again does your computer exist? Yes or no?
Quoting Corvus
How about the chair that you are sitting on right now?
We don't need physics to know what chair is made of. It is a commonsense knowledge. You know what it is made of, just by looking at it :)
Quoting MoK
No we are not talking about computers here. We are talking about electron in D1. I only told you electricity, because of your confusion between electron and electricity.
Quoting MoK
No, we are not talking about chair in the OP. Remember? You added electron to D1.
Sure we need.
Quoting Corvus
No, looking at a chair just gives you an idea about what it looks like.
Quoting Corvus
Why don't you answer my question? We cannot go anywhere if you deny its existence?
Quoting Corvus
An electron is just an example of a physical. There are other things that I call physical, such as the chair that you are sitting on now. Such objects are however reducible whereas an electron is not.
Quoting Corvus
I certainly do not make such a mistake.
Quoting Corvus
That was just an example of physical!
It is no good to use Physics or Math as some sort of authority to push your ideas in the arguments. You will be blinded in the sea of illusion when doing that.
Quoting MoK
What else do you need to do for knowing what a chair is made of? What can Physics do for more knowledge?
Quoting MoK
Why ask a silly question? It is also relevant question. Computers are not the topic of our discussion.
Quoting MoK
It seems to be clear that you don't know what electron is. Saying electron is physical is not meaningful or intelligible statement at all.
Quoting MoK
Then tell us what the difference between the two, and what electron is. Does it exist?
Quoting MoK
Unknown objects cannot be used in the premises of arguments. The premise with unknown concepts will not be accepted as worthy of further investigation. Hence you must clarify any unclear and unknown concepts you are using in the premises of your argument before progressing to the next stage.
The electron, quark, etc. are real. It is through physical investigations that we accumulate such a body of knowledge. Can you break a chair into electrons, quarks, etc. by hammering it? Sure not.
Quoting Corvus
Physics tells you what a chair is made of, irreducible entities such as electrons, quarks, etc.
Quoting Corvus
I am asking this question to make sure whether we can agree that physical objects exist or not!
Quoting Corvus
Sure I know, I am a physicist by education and I studied particle physics in good depth.
Quoting Corvus
That is not correct.
Quoting Corvus
An electron is an elementary particle that has a set of properties such as mass, charge, and spin.
Quoting Corvus
The electron is a known object. If you are not happy with it I can choose the example of a baseball that is subject to change/motion.
But if something is real and exists, then it must be visible, touchable and has smells and textures.
I have never seen electrons anywhere in the universe. Have you seen them? Not talking about in the books and videos and drawings of course.
Quoting MoK
I have never seen a chair with electrons and quarks. Chairs exist. I am sitting on it now of course.
But electron is an imagined object. You only have the effects of what electricity does, and they postulated the imaginary substance, and named as electrons. It doesn't exist in reality.
See, this is difference between science and philosophy. Science has many imaginary objects which don't exist, but keep naming them as if they exist. In that sense, science is another form of religion and mysticism. Philosophy corrects them, and tells them no, this is what really exists with truths.
Quoting MoK
I see. I am not saying you are wrong. I was pointing out the OP is not clear.
Quoting MoK
Electron is an imagined concept. Tell us where electron exists, and what shape it is.
Quoting MoK
That is just a definition made of the postulation from the workings of electricity.
Quoting MoK
Yes, please. Demonstrate and prove what electron is, and where it exists. Thank you. :smile:
Please see the section "Interference from individual particles" in this article if you want to see how a single electron can affect the screen producing something visible to our eyes.
Quoting Corvus
Please see above.
Quoting Corvus
Ok, if you are happy with the example of the baseball then please consider it as a physical object and read the argument.
You are something that exists within time and cannot experience time. Did you understand the relevance of my thought experiment?
None of that says anything about existence of electron, and what it looks like. They are all manipulated in the laboratories using the measuring instruments. None of them are actual images of electron.
You need to point out where in the world, we can see electron, and how it looks like. Not the photos of the simulations manipulated with electricity, and some equations measuring the currents and voltages of electricity.
Quoting MoK
Baseball could be a physical object. Yes, we can see the baseballs. I used to play baseball. It is a physical object. Electron is not a physical object.
You cannot have a photograph of an electron. You can only see its trace that produces some effect in the environment like the screen in the above example or the cloud chamber.
Quoting Corvus
Then please consider baseball as an example of a physical and read the argument.
That's not electron. They are pixels of lights.
Quoting MoK
Fair do's, mate.
Cool, please only read the second argument, mate!
I got my baseball out, and put it on the desk at 5 PM. Now 10 PM, 5 hours later, nothing changed. The baseball has not changed at all 5 hours later. No movement, no breaking and no flying anywhere. It sits exactly same spot as it was 5 hours ago. Therefore time cannot cause physical to change. Physical changes only by force or energy.
If I pick up the baseball, and throw it to the wall, it flies to the wall, and hits the wall, and drops to the ground. No time is required. Only energy of throwing the ball is required.
Therefore physical changes only when force or energy was applied to it. No time is required. Time only emerges if and only if I measure it with the stop-watch. Correct?
I didn't say that time causes physical to change.
Quoting Corvus
No. It is not correct. Time is required for any change. Consider a change in the state of something, X to Y, where X and Y are two states that define the change. X and Y cannot lay on the same point since otherwise these states occur simultaneously and there cannot be any change. Therefore, X and Y must lay on different points of a variable, let's call these points tx and ty. ty, however, comes after tx to allow X to come after Y. This variable is called time.
But there was no change of the baseball of S1 at t1 (5PM), and S2 at t2(10PM) as seen by the observation. How do you explain that? Time passed, but there is no change.
Baseball was flying to the wall, hit the wall and dropped to the ground. No time was supplied or known. But the baseball moved to different location. Time was not even considered here.
You need the time variable for further calculating the energy value, but you must measure time for that while the ball is moving. This measuring action of time is not required for the ball to move.
Yes, time passes always, even if baseball does not change, since many other things are subject to change. Moreover, the baseball is on a location on Earth, Earth is subject to motion, and therefore the baseball is subject to motion.
Quoting Corvus
If baseball is subject to change then time is required to allow the change. Please reread my argument.
Quoting Corvus
It is required. Please reread my argument.
Movement must be observed and determined from the geographical location or point of the object on the earth to the moved point of the object on the earth. The planetary motion of the earth is not relevant to the movement of objects on earth. So your understanding of movement is not correct.
Quoting MoK
You need to read the baseball posting again, and think again.
Quoting MoK
Ditto.
No, the movement does not need any observer at all. Where did you take that from?
If you didn't observe it, how do you know movement? Did you guess, imagine or predicted from Tarot cards readings?
Movements occur all the time and they don't need an observer. Knowledge of a movement however needs an observe. You are confusing these.
The baseball has not moved even 1mm from its point on the desk after 3 days. Where is the movement in time?
Baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving. Moreover, the particles that build baseball are in constant motion too.
But we are talking about the movement of baseball here. Not Earth. You seem to think the Earth is the baseball. They are not the same objects.
I am not saying that they are the same things!
Why talk about the Earth when we are talking about the baseball movement in time? It appears obvious confusion.
I said that baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving!
But the baseball is sitting on the desk at the precise point which can be observed. The earth moving is not relevant to the baseball movement.
You cannot observe any motion because you are an observer that exists on Earth. Anyway, we were discussing a baseball that moves relative to Earth.
According to your saying, everything on Earth moves. That is nonsense. There are definitely objects which are standing still.
Doesn't Earth constantly move?
Maybe it does. But again movement we are talking about is not the Earth movement here. The object we are talking about is the baseball.
What do you mean by maybe here?
Because I don't see it moving.
Do you think that the Sun is moving around Earth or it is Earth that is rotating?
Did I say that? You seem to be saying it.
I asked a question. Could you answer that?
I never said that. All I said was that the movement of Earth was not what we were talking about. You are not able to tell the difference between the Earth and the ball. This is what I said.
No, you said that Earth maybe moves.
I said it to indicate that the movement of the Earth is not directly perceptible. It was not an implication of anything else as you are imagining.
To say, outright the Earth moves, means that your knowledge is coming from the books, medias and the popular science and words of mouths from the vulgars. Not from your perception or observation.
Sure, I cannot be an expert in all fields. That is why I trust experts' reports. I think that is a healthy practice, don't you think?
Yes and no. They are important, but philosophical mind takes nothing for granted. We try to see what is beyond the established beliefs.
So, are you critical of what people say, such as Hume as well, or do you think he was absolutely right?
Quoting Corvus
I am not talking about the established beliefs here but scientific facts.
Anyhow, to you, does Earth rotate around its axis and move around the sun?
I don't blindly judge anything or anyone. Some I agree, and some I don't agree. It depends on the points.
Quoting MoK
All scientific facts are to be falsified. If not, they are not scientific facts. They are the religious doctrines.
Quoting MoK
Anyhow to me, the baseball does not move or change in time. To say it moves, is an illusion.
I am not talking about scientific theories here, but scientific facts that everybody agrees on, like the Earth's being a moving object. Do you deny that?
Quoting Corvus
Doesn't baseball which to you is not moving is on Earth by which Earth is moving all the time?
Scientific facts are derived from the theories. They are not given to you by God.
Quoting MoK
Movement is only a movement when perceived by mind. Linking the baseball movement to the Earth movement sounds not correct thinking, or trying to make things confused, rather than trying to see the real problem.
Are you denying that Earth is a moving object because you cannot see its motion?
Quoting Corvus
That is a very wrong statement. Where did you take that from?
Quoting Corvus
I can show you have an understanding is wrong if you accept that you and baseball are on Earth and Earth is a moving object.
You are confusing between denying and telling that earth rotation cannot be directly perceived.
Quoting MoK
How can you tell a movement without perceiving and observing the movement? Are you guessing? or meditating?
Quoting MoK
We are not talking about the ball on the earth. We are talking about the ball on the desk.
So, you cannot tell that the Earth is moving because you cannot see it moving. Is it a correct statement? How do you explain the motion of the Sun in the sky then?
Quoting Corvus
I am arguing against what you said: "Movement is only a movement when perceived by mind.". There was a period when there was no life on Earth but Earth was moving. Are you denying that?
Quoting Corvus
But the table on Earth. Adding an extra object does not help you.
I am just saying my statement is based on observation, but your argument is based on your imagination and the words of mouths from the vulgars.
Quoting MoK
That is also imagination from the words of mouths of the vulgars. There is no observational evidence in that statements.
Quoting MoK
When talking about movements, the rational folks talk about the movement from A to B on the earth. Think about your movement from your house to your school. When you are in your house, you are at the starting point. You have not moved from your house on the journey to the school when you are in the house. The movement starts from the house, when you go out the house making journey towards the school.
No one would drag the earth into the arguments, and claim that you have been always moving without moving. It is a hideous contradiction to say that the earth moves, so everything moves.
Are you willing to learn anything new except what your perceptions tell you!?
The point is not just about perception. It is about rationality and logic in the argument.
But your perception is limited so your arguments could not be rational or logical if you depend on them.
Perception is the origin of knowledge. Without perception, you are a blind and deaf.
Correct. But I talk about your perception rather than perception in general. Do you think that you can figure out everything alone?
One can only access one's own perception. But the rational and logical analysis on the contents of perception is the basis of object knowledge.
If one misuses rational analysis on the contents of the perception, then he misunderstands the world. I was just pointing out the misuse and misconception of your analysis and claims.
So, according to you, that is the Sun that moves around Earth? That is the only thing that you perceive! So please explain how you could conclude otherwise!
Quoting Corvus
Do you have faith in what other people, experts in other fields of study, say?
I never said that. You are saying it. :D
Quoting MoK
I have faith in the folks with rational minds and claims.
So Earth is subject to rotation all the time? Yes or no?
Earth is off-topic for this thread. The topic is "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change".
It is not off-topic if we accept that Earth is subject to change. That is an example of a physical that is subject to change and does not a need a mind to observe it. So again, Earth is subject to rotation all the time whether one observe it or not? Yes or no?
We have a long way to get there. First, let's see if we agree on motion of a physical in time.
Motion is relative to other bodies says most every physicist and on a practical level a great many philosophers on the topic matter. So the assertion, 'this thing moves.' Makes no sense unless you assert what it is moving relative to. Movement is not a property it's a relation. The Earth does not move relative to the Baseball. Relative to an inertial frame at the center of mass of the solar system the Earth would then be moving in a roughly circular trajectory.
This is why people in the past have distinguished, as Descartes did, between the gross everyday motion of objects that depends on reference frames compared to say the proper motion of objects collectively away from or towards each other. This is distinguished further from dynamical influences.
Forces cause accelerations. . . but accelerations are not forces nor do they imply their presence. Einstein's GR thought experiment for example along with Newton's sixth corollary attest to this.
Otherwise, you would be able to say a car has a force on it as a result of inference from the acceleration but because nothing inside the car is moving relative to the driver they would say there is no force or external influence perturbing them! Which is nonsense.
There can be perturbing influences which effect the states of things yet not have their be any relational changes take place such as a change of place. The things that would change would then have to be other sorts of non-relational properties. Which could be fairly abstract such as whether certain abstract conservation principles are locally conserved, the charge of particles, their spin possibilities, etc.
Quoting MoK Which doesn't excuse you from not being able to understand the difference between reality and the metaphors you use to talk about it.
Nature is composed of no more billiard balls and water waves than economics is really a bunch of tubes filled with water because you can easily model it as such.
Ergo, you need to make it expressly clear how you understand where your concepts end and reality is meant to begin.
Quoting MoK Such a literal reading of the highly abstract creation/annihilation operators in quantum mechanics is not the only interpretation or language one could potentially use to talk about them.
Earth or electron are not good example for physical here. Because as you have seen, they are not directly perceptible objects, which easily confuse you onto mixing up the arguments.
The baseball was a good example. You can see it, hold it, place it on the desk, you can drop it, or throw it, and observe if it moves or changes. But whatever you do, don't confuse it with Earth or electron.
If you are not happy with baseball example, then MoK could be a good example, if you prefer. You can observe MoK, because you are MoK. You cannot be mistaken MoK for the Earth or electron.
Let us know whatever example you prefer to discuss on the change of physical issue.
I wanted to discuss the relative motion with him later. We know by fact that Earth is a moving object though since it rotates around its axis, it moves around the Sun, and the Sun moves as well in the Milky Galaxy. etc.
Quoting substantivalism
What metaphors are you talking about?
Quoting substantivalism
I don't understand how the cited book is relevant to our discussion. Do you mind elaborating?
Quoting substantivalism
Reality is what the mind indirectly experiences through our senses. However, it exists independently of the mind. Concepts are experienced directly by the mind and constructed by neurobiological processes in the brain.
Quoting substantivalism
Could you give me an example of another interpretation you have in mind? I am aware of Bohmian's interpretation and others if that is what you have in mind.
Ok, let's consider a moving baseball for the sake of discussion.
Motion is a poor thing to appeal to when talking about physical changes as it is dependent on the observer.
Quoting MoK When physicist talk about reality they use analogies to everyday experiences and things they are more familiar with. This is why early pre-Socratic philosophers despite their lack of access to modern scientific advancements held similar atomist views as we currently do because, aside from dogmatic tradition, there was no other way they could explain how they think the unseen works.
Modern day science does the same through the usages of analogue models. Such as the Rutherford atom that makes analogies to the solar system to talk about atomic structure. Probabilistic interpretations of Schrodinger's equation fall into this although a mechanistic interpretation based on seeing a formal analogy to hydrodynamical phenomena is also possible.
General relativity also has these by virtue of its non-literal 'curvature' metaphors used to talk about it which are sometimes actually bolstered by actual reformulations of GR as an elastic medium or a fluid of sinks/sources.
Whatever is responsible for setting off a particle detector aren't water waves, probability wave functions, elastic vibrations in a medium, billiards, or tiny solar systems. These are all explicit fantasies but useful ones and the language we use to talk about how things are or what properties they really have are MIXED IN OR PERVADED by such things. So saying how much you've learned in your career in terms of applied theory tells me nothing about if you actually are able to tell the difference here. When you say electron and list its properties are you talking about those properties that a fictional analogue model ascribe to it or those which are mind-independent?
For example, classical physicists ascribed to nature solidity or the inability to interpenetrate by mere intuitive dictate as a result of the analogue models they used. There is no experiment that can showcase whether interpenetration such as sometimes proposed in the case of bosons is really possible. Modern day contrarians would still contend that any example of boson overlapping could be redefined in terms of mere greater field intensity rather than individualized entities occupying the same space.
Quoting MoK I'm using interpretation in a different light. By interpretation I'd mean through the usage of analogue models how you understand those operators.
Ok, I got your point and I agree.
Quoting substantivalism
I am talking about the mind-independent entity that exists and has a set of properties. Whether an electron is fundamental or not is another question.
Appeals to non-relational properties as paradigmatic examples to bolster changes over time. That would help.
Quoting MoK The more vague or uncertain you keep those declared properties the better in altogether confidence. You can still use any assortment of analogies in your arguments and the opposition would have to only disagree with the consequences of this analogizing.
Are you talking about the color of an object? An object does not have a color. The color is the manifestation of neural processes in the brain.
Quoting substantivalism
I don't think that spin is a good example since I have difficulty convincing people that an electron is an example of a physical!
Quoting substantivalism
Non-relational/intrinsic properties are preserved during the time so I need relational properties to explain a change.
Quoting MoK Technically, your job is actually tremendously even more difficult as you have to define what it means to be physical. Numerous approaches to doing so have they own deficits:
Via negativa - Is to define the physical in terms of what it is not which is a fruitful enough approach but some would say it doesn't tell you much. . . and it doesn't because it avoids direct positive clarification.
Ordinary objects - This is the intuitive direction many go initially seeing the physical as a cluster concept of sorts but then its still plagued by some peculiar web of decisions as to what you include in the definition of the physical. Causation, spatial location, solidity, interpenetration, etc. Which has notoriously changed over time.
Theory based conceptions - These are the popular attempts at defining the physical in terms of the entities postulated from future ideal theories or our best current ones. Course, this is met with easy objections from the purview of something like Hempel's dilemma.
You need to weaken your position as its too strong as it appears to others. If by the physical you mean to say what kinds of things ACTUALLY exist then this forces them to ask you, ". . . but how do you know that?!" You could weaken it by taking a conceptual possibility approach as is commonly practiced in metaphysics saying something along the lines of, "I don't know if things in nature have these properties but lets assume they do then. . . this follows. . ."
Approach it from the angle of pure math. Make some axiomatic assumptions and then argue their consequences. This doesn't excuse you from needing to make them as specific as possible or making explicit what axioms you do need to get to where you need to go.
Quoting MoK . . . but those relational properties are dependent on the frame of reference and its sort of peculiar to assign them casual powers or any mind independent existence at all.
Despite that a problem remains. If you have an entire universe composed of nothing but a ball that never changes with regards to relational properties as no other things exist to compare it to then how can we say that each 'frame' of this universal movie of ours is any different to previous ones if the universe is always the same in each? What do we appeal to here?
An object just seems to have a property such as color. An object is made of elementary particles each has a set of intrinsic properties, such as mass, and extrinsic properties, such as location. The color therefore is neither an intrinsic property nor an extrinsic property of the elementary particles. An object, therefore, does not have any color. The color is just the result of the neurobiological process in the brain. These processes are due to the existence of the sense vision. The vision is the result of the interaction of light with the retina. The light is however emitted from an object. So it is the light that is emitted from an object that determines what color we are going to perceive.
Quoting substantivalism
I gave several examples of instruments that detect electrons, such as the screen in the double-slit experiment or cloud chamber, but they wanted an example of something that they could only directly see!
Quoting substantivalism
I don't think that tells much either.
Quoting substantivalism
The ordinary object could be useful but it has its own problem since the motion of the object is perceived in psychological time which is not the time that I am considering that an object exists in the different instants of it.
Quoting substantivalism
I have enough training for this approach but this approach is heavily based on the experiments that they constantly deny. They just want an example of something they can see! I feel very frustrated sometimes thinking that it is hopeless to discuss things with these individuals!
Quoting substantivalism
I may do that.
Quoting substantivalism
Correct. But I have to deal with what I have.
If you want to be pedantic then, however, technically, those properties you ascribe an electron such as mass or location could also therefore be just as neurologically created.
If you've canvassed the philosophy of spacetime not everyone will agree on the reality of location being a real mind independent extrinsic property. Quantum theories of spacetime withstanding. The same with mass which is characteristic of an interaction and there is literally a whole philosophy that asks whether these sorts of features in fact exist independently of or not of other things. That is, whether mass is even an intrinsic property at all or merely a mass relation. Although that skepticism could extend to all known quantities that one ascribes things including charge, length, temporal durations, etc.
These are all dependent on external interactions which doesn't tell you if it makes sense to ask if they 'exist' independent of interaction. An object has mass because of the way its accelerated but to say it still has this liquid 'mass property' even when nothing is accelerating it seems rather peculiar.
Quoting MoK You call what they detect an electron but beyond that you can't truly, confidently, ascribe properties to the electron unless you make your language clear as to where you analogue models or metaphors end to when you are talking directly about an electron.
Yes, the screen gives detections. What specific properties this implies you ascribe to electrons INDLCUDING INDIVIDUATION is a WHOLE different matter which is epistemological in nature and skepticism can always creep in. This is why scientific instrumentalism and operationalism are popular perspectives. An electron is just defined as what a particular device detects or a certain kind of reading.
What properties does it have? That is a nonsense question to the instrumentalist or operationalist as experiments don't tell you what fundamental intrinsic properties things have.
Quoting MoK Then your time may be an abstraction, as a good number of other philosophers have claimed, from psychological time and not as 'real' you think it is.
Quoting MoK Physicist and philosophers alike would be even more frustrating as those with the same training in your fields can be just as skeptical. Instrumentalists, operationalists, and various neo-positivists can admit EVERYTHING from the experiments you talk of to the math you use yet still feel its not enough to justify the claims one makes about what things are out there. What properties they absolutely have, etc.
That is why I say you should weaken your position otherwise your arguing something which has been argued to death for some thousand years. The scientific realism vs. anti-realism discussion and you should make you argument independent of that.
The trace of motion of an electron in a cloud chamber is real but we cannot observe it until we look at it.
Quoting substantivalism
Ok, I read about that a long time ago I have a faint memory of that right now.
Quoting substantivalism
Ok, thanks for the reference. I will look at it later.
Quoting substantivalism
We have an electron gun, two slits, and a screen in the double-slit experimentthe electron gun works based on the photoelectric effect producing electrons with a specific speed. Electrons affect the screen producing different spots each spot is related to the contact of an electron with the screen. These are basic stuff. I don't know what to say if someone wants to deny these.
Quoting substantivalism
I am not interested in discussing other properties of an electron here, but its location. There was a point where an electron was emitted from the gun, it then traveled and hit the screen. So there are two points in time where the electron was in locations L1 and L2. I don't see how one can deny that.
Quoting substantivalism
My time is different from psychological time and it is necessary for any change. I have an argument for it as follows: Consider a change in the state of something, X to Y, where X and Y are two states that define the change. X and Y cannot lay on the same point since otherwise these states occur simultaneously and there cannot be any change. Therefore, X and Y must lay on different points of a variable, let's call these points tx and ty. ty, however, comes after tx to allow Y to come after X. This variable is called time.
Quoting substantivalism
All I need is an example of a physical that everybody agrees with.
Quoting MoK You agree with them because the collapse of a wave function is an open problem and whether an electron is all there at the screen or not depends on the analogue model you use (or interpretation if you like that word better).
Whether it's the Cheshire cat collapse of Copenhagen or something more extended as in Bohm wave theory or even more peculiar and non-precise as in a full fledged quantum field theory.
Quoting MoK Many interpretations actually deny just that. Some say an electron travels all the possible feynmenn paths and others ascribe an indisputable extension out to infinity for an electron seeing its wave function as a fundamental part of it.
The only thing we are confident in is that the interaction is fully localized, the measurement, not the thing that did the perturbing.
A buoy can be perturbed in an open ocean in a consistent up and down fashion but it doesn't really make sense to say the wave doing it is all at the buoy as its extension is far larger.
Quoting MoK Well you are not going to find those in the atomic or sub-atomic as those are where the least amount of agreement is localized.
Quoting MoK When you say these states X and Y are they in the past/present/future respectively?
As a naive presentist would say, if any of these states are in the future/past then they are made up fictions which correspond to nothing. Past things or future things don't exist but we can play the game of pretending they are real but imagination is not coincident with the real. If they are present then they exist in an intuitive fashion but there isn't a different 'real' state to compare its change to as no other state exists to compare it to. What now?
The particle's location is well defined, as one can see its slow motion in a cloud chamber. I am not interested in the other properties of particles here.
Quoting substantivalism
I think De BroglieBohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics is the right one since it is paradox-free.
Quoting substantivalism
The Feynman path integral formulation although is a very strong formulation for calculation is incoherent. If we accept an electron as an entity then it cannot travel in different paths with different weights. The same for particle-wave duality in the Copenhagen interpretation. All problems are resolved if we accept the De BroglieBohm interpretation as a correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. The particle in this interpretation has a definite position in space in terms of time.
Quoting substantivalism
They are localized according to observation, cloud chamber slow-motion for example. Physicists think that elementary particles have no definitive position because they cannot explain diffraction patterns in the double-slit experiment by considering an electron as a particle only. I don't understand why they resist De BroglieBohm's interpretation. I know that Feynman's path integral formulation is an easy and elegant way of calculating physical properties and functions but that does not mean that it is a correct interpretation.
Quoting substantivalism
X exists at now and Y exists at the immediate future.
Quoting substantivalism
Presentism is false since it cannot explain change and cause and effect. Accepting presentism means that cause and effect exist at now. Cause and effect however cannot lay at the same point in time since the cause and effect become simultaneous and there cannot be any change therefore if we accept that the cause exists at now then the effect must exist at the immediate future.