Those are relative changes — substantivalism

Ok, I got your point and I agree.

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? — 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.

Correct, it's not identical, but there is a causal relation between consecutive temporal parts. No other object in spacetime has this unique series of temporal parts. — Relativist

Correct.

You agree that object identity does not endure in time, so you need to somehow account for the intuition that are the same person you were yesterday. — Relativist

I think you are talking about personality here. Our personalities are partly due to our genes and partly due to what we have experienced. I studied psychology a little but I can tell that different parts of the brain play different roles when it comes to personality. To my understanding, some parts of the brain are hard-wired because of our genes and some are not and change depending on our experiences. Therefore, I think that we are not the same person to some extent as yesterday since a part of us is subject to change.

Not knowing what the actual laws of nature ARE, does not imply there aren't actual, immutable laws of nature underlying everything. The sought-after "theory of everything" depends on it. — Relativist

The theory of everything is a unified theory of four forces, namely electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity. The theory of everything is not universal though since we know from string theory that the laws of physics are one instance among many many other instances. Our universe could be a different universe in the sense that there could be different forces and particles.

Ok, let's consider a moving baseball for the sake of discussion.

Relative to what!? — substantivalism

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.

Which doesn't excuse you from not being able to understand the difference between reality and the metaphors you use to talk about it. — substantivalism

What metaphors are you talking about?

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. — substantivalism

I don't understand how the cited book is relevant to our discussion. Do you mind elaborating?

Ergo, you need to make it expressly clear how you understand where your concepts end and reality is meant to begin. — 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.

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. — 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.

You need to demonstrate if physical objects change on their own. Or at least explain, what you mean by that statement. — Corvus

We have a long way to get there. First, let's see if we agree on motion of a physical in time.

Earth is off-topic for this thread. The topic is "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change". — Corvus

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?

So Earth is subject to rotation all the time? Yes or no?

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. — Corvus

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!

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. — Corvus

Do you have faith in what other people, experts in other fields of study, say?

Perception is the origin of knowledge. But without perception, you are a blind and deaf. — Corvus

Correct. But I talk about your perception rather than perception in general. Do you think that you can figure out everything alone?

The point is not just about perception. It is about rationality and logic in the argument. — Corvus

But your perception is limited so your arguments could not be rational or logical if you depend on them.

Are you willing to learn anything new except what your perceptions tell you!?

I discussed my view (perdurance) earlier. Here's an article in the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. — Relativist

Ok, let's focus on your definition. Accepting that the the brain is made of parts then we say that brain A is identical to brain B IFF their parts have the same intrinsical and relational properties. In this sense, the brain at t0 is not identical to the brain at t1 since the relational properties of the parts of the brain are subject to change all the time.

Because they instantiate universals. Laws are relations among universals. — Relativist

The laws of physics to the best of our understanding are not universal. The standard model contains three forces from four forces in nature. It is a quantum theory of three forces. The string theory is a theory of the last force so-called gravity as well as other forces. We still don't know, the proper theory that explains our world and physical laws since there are many many theories in string theory. The number of theories is estimated to be $10^{500}$. That means that the laws of physics are not universal but it is only one instance from many many possible instances.

You are confusing between denying and telling that earth rotation cannot be directly perceived. — Corvus

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?

How can you tell a movement without perceiving and observing the movement? Are you guessing? or meditating? — 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?

We are not talking about the ball in the earth. We are talking about the ball on the desk. — Corvus

But the table on Earth. Adding an extra object does not help you.

Scientific facts derived from the theories. They are not given to you by God. — Corvus

Are you denying that Earth is a moving object because you cannot see its motion?

Movement is only a movement when perceived by mind. — Corvus

That is a very wrong statement. Where did you take that from?

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. — 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.

All scientific facts are to be falsified. If not, they are not scientific facts. They are the religious doctrines. — Corvus

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?

Anyhow to me, the baseball does not move or change in time. To say it moves, is an illusion. — Corvus

Doesn't baseball which to you is not moving is on Earth by which Earth is moving all the time?

Yes and no. They are important, but philosophical mind takes nothing for granted. — Corvus

So, are you critical of what people say, such as Hume as well, or do you think he was absolutely right?

We try to see what is beyond the established beliefs. — 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 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. — Corvus

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?

No, you said that Earth maybe moves.

I asked a question. Could you answer that?

Because I don't see it moving. — Corvus

Do you think that the Sun is moving around Earth or it is Earth that is rotating?

Maybe it does. — Corvus

What do you mean by maybe here?

Pointing out your misunderstanding is not denying, but giving you the real truths and guidance to your learning journey. — Corvus

I am not going to continue such an exchange since it is not a debate!

According to your saying, everything on Earth moves. That is nonsense. There are definitely objects which are standing still. — Corvus

Doesn't Earth constantly move?

Trying anything more than that would probably cause a migraine. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, probably. I know that migraine can disrupt the conscious mind's ability such as thinking though.

If you have nothing to say, you just say "denying", which is not true. Nothing was insult to you, but just counter arguments against the nonsense. — Corvus

Why don't you criticize your knowledge constantly? Why don't you appreciate when you learn something new by saying ok I learned something new, instead of denying that you didn't deny anything?

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. — Corvus

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.

You constantly deny things, such as elementary particles, subconscious minds, etc. You are basically denying science in general. When things are discussed with you to the depth, you then say that you are not denying anything at all! And I am going to ignore your insult! I am done with you!

I said that baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving!

I am done with you.

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. — Corvus

I am not saying that they are the same things!

Can you prove that? — Corvus

The dreams are produced by the subconscious mind. Moreover, the subconscious mind remains active even when we are asleep, constantly processing information and regulating bodily functions like breathing and heart rate, while our conscious mind rests.

This is off-topic. This thread is not about Alzheimer folks. You can discuss this in the lounge mate. — Corvus

It is very related to the topic!

The baseball has not moved even 1mm from its point on the desk after 3 days. Where is the movement in time? — Corvus

Baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving. Moreover, the particles that build baseball are in constant motion too.

It wasn't a big why. It was admittance of the intrinsic unintelligibly of the world. And what was considered problematic by Descartes, Newton, Huygens, Locke, etc., was motion. That's way simpler that consciousness. — Manuel

Or maybe the world including the Mind is intelligible.

But how can you say physical processes are deterministic? Some show regularity, others show randomness, and we see exceptions to rules quite frequently. — Manuel

Physical processes are deterministic once we agree that Bohmian's interpretation is the correct interpretation.

Free will is the ability to do or not to do something. That so called "physical processes" happen before we are aware of them only shows that most of our mental activity happens at an unconscious level, what we decide to do with that, is up to us. We can act on an urge or not. — Manuel

Free will is the ability to choose between options. The conscious mind becomes aware of options and this is due to physical processes that happen in the brain.

You have asserted that the mental cannot be physical. There is no argument given as to why this has to be so. It's a semantic argument that "the mental cannot be physical, because mental phenomena are not physical phenomena". — Manuel

No, I said accepting the definition of physical and experience they cannot be the same thing since the object and the subject cannot be the same thing.

But that does not solve a simple question: why can't mental stuff be physical stuff? — Manuel

The object and the subject cannot be the same thing.

metaphorically speaking, yeah. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok.

But also, I don't have a problem with what you're trying to prove. I have considered similar notions, especially in the case of Eternal Recurrence... — DifferentiatingEgg

I am discussing the Mind here. What does it have to do with Eternal Recurrence?

Thought you were saying you made an argument for God. Because I thought you made it as a parallel to say this this thus that (about God). — DifferentiatingEgg

I am not making an argument for the existence of God here.

If you didn't observe it, how do you know movement? Did you guess, imagine or predicted from Tarot cards readings? — Corvus

Movements occur all the time and they don't need an observer. Knowledge of a movement however needs an observe. You are confusing these.

When subconscious mind is sleeping all the time, how can it remember anything? — Corvus

The subconscious mind is always active and does not sleep! Dreams are created by the subconscious mind.

The content of memory is not cheese or bread or water. We just remember past events and objects, or we don't, if forgot. Memories are the types of ideas we recall from past. They don't get stored. Storage only makes sense for physical objects. — Corvus

Now you are denying that memories are not stored in the brain! Did you know that people with Alzheimer cannot recall their memories because a part of their brain that holds memories is damaged?

I think you (and others here) confuse "faith" (i.e. unconditional trust in / hope for (ergo worship of) unseen, magical agency) with working assumptions (i.e. stipulations); the latter are reasonable, therefore indispensible for discursive practices, whereas the former is psychological (e.g. an atavistic bias). "Without assumptions, we cannot proceed ..." is evidently true, MoK, in a way that your "faith" claim is not. — 180 Proof

I think people have the right to have faith in whatever they want provided that the faith is the subject of constant criticism by reason.

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. — Corvus

No, the movement does not need any observer at all. Where did you take that from?

Subconscious mind is unverified esoteric idea, Hume wouldn't have had been interested in it, even if he was alive now. — Corvus

Did you know that the conscious mind has limited memory so-called working memory? At any given time, it can access only three to five items. If the answer to this question is yes, then where are the rest of the memories held? Moreover, accepting that the rest of memories are held somewhere that I call subconsciousness, how could the conscious mind access these memories without a constant flow of information from the subconscious mind?

Subconscious mind cannot be verified, or used as basis for reasoning. It is just a postulated character of mind. It is hidden or sleeping most times, hence it cannot give you any knowledge on the world.
It can be used for explaining the reason for irrational aspect of human actions, but it is not taken as objective or verified knowledge. — Corvus

See above.