That's a false assumption, isn't it? — Relativist

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.

1. Is the electron at t1 the SAME electron that exists at t2? — Relativist

I assume so for the sake of the argument.

2. Are there intermediate points, between t1 and t2, at which this electron does not exist? — Relativist

There are an infinite number of points between any arbitrary points in time.

I already mentioned it several times. The brain exists at time t0 and it is experienced by the Mind. The Mind then causes the brain at time t1. So by "the brain continues" I mean that the brain goes from one state at time t0 to another state at time t1 but the brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1.

For example, what single change are you thinking of or talking about? — Corvus

Please read D1 in the OP and let me know if you have any questions.

Again, any examples for the mind causing change in the physical? — Corvus

Like the motion of an electron.

Your so-called "vertical causation" is an "efficient cause", not a material cause, is it not? — Relativist

I am not happy to use "efficient cause" here since it requires the existence of a material cause. The Mind causes/creates physical. The Mind however needs the experience of the physical in the former time since it does not have direct access to the physical.

You need to explain what causes your body get old. it seems the case that you body causes your body itself to get old. — Corvus

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.

Thank you, mate. :up:

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? — Corvus

Sure not. That is what I am arguing against it.

How could it be that all memories which a person has could be present to a mind (subconsciously) at the same time? — Metaphysician Undercover

I said that all memories stored in the subconscious mind are present to it at once. If not, then there must be many subconscious minds each knowing a certain memory at once. There are however two problems here which depend on how the memories are stored in the brain: 1) Either the memories are stored in different subconscious minds independently or 2) The memories are stored in different subconscious minds hierarchically, tree likes.

In (1), there are many memories that could be related or unrelated when it comes to a topic that is the subject of focus of the conscious mind. The unrelated memories then must be filtered by another mind otherwise the conscious mind cannot function when it focuses on a specific topic. Even if the memories are related to a topic, the conscious mind needs the most recent memory since it has very limited memory and it is not economical for the conscious mind to work on something that it already worked on so we again need another mind that filters the memories and just delivers the most recent memory to the conscious mind. So in both cases we need a new mind to filter the memories. But the memories are either present to this mind at once or this mind just receives memories one by one. In the first case we achieve my argument, I call this mind the subconscious mind that is conscious of all memories at once. In the second case, this mind has to wait and check all memories one by one to find out what is the proper memory among all memories. This task if not impossible is very time-consuming since this mind receives more and more memories as time passes because we learn new things. The conscious mind however receives the proper memory very quickly therefore the second case cannot be true.

In (2), although the memories are stored hierarchically we still need a mind to go through all the memories that are stored in subconscious minds and look for the proper information that is needed. This approach, (2) however is more economical than (1) but it is time consuming. People read many books and they know the contents of books. When they are asked about something that is related to a passage in a book, they right away remember the proper book and the proper passage. Therefore, there must be a subconscious mind that is aware of the memories at once.

Wouldn't this be amazingly confusing for that subconscious mind? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not at all. We cannot function very quickly at all otherwise. Please see above.

Do you think that the memories are actually "stored" in the subconscious? — Metaphysician Undercover

The memories are mainly stored in a part of the brain, what I call the subconscious mind.

Or is it a subconscious activity which brings the memories to the attention of the conscious mind, and the memory itself is not actually stored anywhere? — Metaphysician Undercover

The process of recalling is a subconscious activity.

There isn't one. — tim wood

There is considering that the physical and time change, and are two separate things.

P1: Make sense of this please. As it is it's meaningless nonsense. — tim wood

The physical exists within time and does not have direct or indirect access to time. Therefore, the physical cannot experience time.

P2: "If so." Actually, not so. What does the occurrence of an event have to do with time, or "the correct" time, or knowing the time? — tim wood

Please read, D1 and D2 here.

P3: "If so." Again, not so. — tim wood

Consider my thought experiment.

C: Cause? What do you mean by "cause"? — 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.

And as to the "physical," once and for all identify a "physical" we can talk about - would a baseball be acceptable as a physical? — tim wood

Yes.

Thanks for changing my argument.

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. — Relativist

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

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.

If matter can produce effect like motion we cannot understand, — Manuel

What is in motion that you cannot understand?

why would we limit nature in supposing that it cannot combine matter such that it can be conscious? — Manuel

I think the main problem is that something cannot be object and subject at the same time. That is why I distinguish between experience and physical as separate things. Whether the Hard Problem of consciousness can be resolved is another issue.

Anyhow, even if we agree that consciousness results from the arrangement of matter in a specific form, such as the brain, we still have difficulty explaining how conscious phenomena, such as thoughts, feelings, etc., could have causal power. This difficulty is because the physical move is based on the laws of physics so there is no room left for the mental to contribute.

If you take physical to mean whatever physics says, the point needs no discussion, for it is silly to argue. — Manuel

Why is it silly? We know that physics is true.

But if you take physical to mean natural, then the physical is everything there is. The mental is the domain of the physical we know the best. — Manuel

What is mental to you?

As I mentioned, "Yes, the brain continues to exist but this is due to a vertical causation rather than a horizontal one."

Think of an electron as a physical.

States of a physical what? — Relativist

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.

If you mean a "physical object" then you are implying this same object exists at both points t1 and t2, — Relativist

No, it is not the same object and the object exists at time t0 and t1 respectively.

Seems to contradict D1, unless you define "experience time" differently than "persisting across time". — Relativist

By experience here I mean being conscious of time.

If the matter composing the brain at t0 is the same matter that composes the brain at t1, then that matter is, by definition, the material cause of the brain at t1. You said you understood what is meant by "material cause", so you should agree. Please confirm. — Relativist

No, the brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1. I think I was clear when I said that this causation is vertical rather than horizontal.

The brain at t0 is composed of a set of matter arranged in a particular way. Nearly everyone would agree that this material continues to exist at t1, possibly in a different arrangement, and this constitutes the brain at t1.

Do you agree? — Relativist

Yes, the brain continues to exist but this is due to a vertical causation rather than horizontal one.

To relate requires a relator, without which there is no relation - which is to say there ain't no relationship. — tim wood

What is the relator in the case of physical change?

As to things causing change in themselves, you have been nowhere near rigorous enough in your development to make any sense. — tim wood

Then please see the above argument and tell me what is wrong with it.

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.

You're omitting the last word (the verb) of this traditional statement. The full statement is "ex nihilo nihil fit." This translates to "nothing comes from nothing". — Relativist

I did what you asked me!

I never brought up that statement. All I did was to try and confirm that you were saying the brain at t1 came "ex nihilo" (=from nothing). You caused confusing by saying the brain at t1 was "created from nothing" but that it was not "created 'ex nihilo'. Which is a contradiction. — Relativist

As I mentioned several times, the Mind cannot create without experiencing physical. So there is a physical that the Mind experiences at time t0. The Mind however does not have direct access to the physical therefore It must have the ability to create the physical at time t1. This creation is from nothing by this to be very specific I mean that the Mind just creates the physical yet I have to stress that this creation requires the experience of the physical. So, this act of creation from nothing is different from the traditional use of the act of creation from nothing which relates to the act that God performed. What is the difference? In the case of the Mind, the Mind needs to experience physical whereas in the case of God, God does it without any need for experience of physical.

So you think the brain at t1 was created ex nihilo/from nothing. But when I said "it's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material", you responded: — Relativist

Please see above.

Was (brain at t0) a material cause of (brain at t1) or not? — Relativist

The brain at time t0 does not cause the brain at t1.

Now, all you need to do is notice that the conscious mind has some causal power over the subconscious, and we'd be in agreement. From this agreement we could proceed to discuss the effect of this causal power, and the extent of it. Would you agree that what we call "will power" is an example of this causal power. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the conscious mind and the subconscious mind collaborate. For example, without a conscious mind, no new thought is possible but new thought requires a constant exchange of information between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. I think that even completing a sentence is not possible without this collaboration since the conscious mind has a very limited memory so-called working memory.

How do you know that this is not just an automatic type of action, like a computer? Maybe the conscious indicates to the subconscious what to do, and the subconscious does it, like a machine. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that is the case. The subconscious mind is a part of the brain, that part is a neural net, therefore the subconscious mind is intelligent. I also think that all the memories stored in the subconscious mind are present to it at once otherwise we are dealing with a regress when we try to recall something.

You say that the conscious mind's access to memories is limited, and that's obvious from the fact that memory is not perfect, and degrades with time, but I think that this is generally a degradation of the subconscious part. — Metaphysician Undercover

The conscious mind's memory is very limited, so-called the working memory. From Google: "According to current research, the conscious mind's working memory size is generally considered to be around three to five items or "chunks" of information, meaning that you can actively hold and manipulate only a small amount of information in your conscious awareness at any given time." The rest of the memories are stored in the subconscious mind.

This is obvious, in dreams, and that is the point of the op. It is the subconscious which creates those thoughts. And we must call them "thoughts", because they are not memories, but imaginative fictional experiences. But what I was arguing, is that in these instances where the subconscious is "thinking", without being directed by the conscious, the thoughts are very random and not logically consistent. — Metaphysician Undercover

All I can tell is that dream is constructed by the subconscious mind. It could be a supernatural phenomenon as well. Who knows!? Thinking to me, when we are awake is the byproduct of collaboration between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind as I illustrate above.

What is "the relation" and why is it "fantastic"? — tim wood

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.

If change is an event, and I suppose it is, then It occurs at some time - nothing occurs outside of time - and so it appears your "fantastic relation" is nothing more than a trivial, unavoidable, inevitability that is in itself simply the way things are. — 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.

Do you have anything to add to clarify your apparent amazement? — 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?

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.

The translation is Ex nihilo nihil, the Google transition is however Ex nihilo.

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.

Honestly it seems like you've invented a strawman about physics to argue against — flannel jesus

What is physics to you? I am not arguing against physics here.

This idea that "the physical" and time are separate is so strange to me. — flannel jesus

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.

Physical things only are what they are because of their relationship to time. — flannel jesus

No, physical changes are what they are because of the relation in the change in the state of physical and time.

You don't have "physical things" in one box, and then "time" separate. — 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.

Without time, there are no physical things. — flannel jesus

No, without time you just don't have a change in physical.

Everything we know of as physical emerges from, presumably, the behaviour of how quantum fields evolve and interact over time. — flannel jesus

Correct.

Quantum fields are defined by how they change over time, and how they relate to other quantum fields. — flannel jesus

Correct. But the quantum field theory takes time for granted.

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. — 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.

I'm not going to look at a different argument until you acknowledge that:

(the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2)

Does not logically follow from:

(the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of s2)

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. — Relativist

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.

What do you mean by "fantastic relation"? What relation? What are you talking about? — tim wood

I am talking about the relation between the change in the physical and the passage of time.

mmm... that's not very persuasive. You aren't presenting yourself like someone who knows a lot about physics. Maybe you do and it's just really, really subtle. — flannel jesus

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.

Please read this carefully. By the way, what about your analysis of the argument?

You posted responses, while denying the obvious errors in your logic. I can only assume you don't understand logic. — Relativist

There is no error in my argument.

That is irrational. Perhaps you're applying some unstated assumptions and you don't realize it. — 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.

As I mentioned many times, the Mind requires the experience of the physical at one point of time to cause/create the physical later. The Mind does not have access to the physical and only experiences it. Therefore, the Mind causes/creates the physical from nothing.

that all sounds very speculative — flannel jesus

Not at all!

Tim asked what changes.

You answered “physical”. That’s not a clear or precise answer. — Fire Ologist

Physical properties such as location.

Change occurs in time. But “at a proper time” - what does that mean - why introduce “proper”? — Fire Ologist

By proper time I mean the time that the causation is due to.

This is the crux of the argument you are trying to make and I haven’t seen anyone here who understands the word “proper”. — Fire Ologist

See above.

In your thought experiment, I could perform the act at 1:00 accidentally. — 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.

how do you know? — flannel jesus

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.

I would agree that there is conservation of energy/matter, but that empirical observation is not proven beyond doubt (see QM). — Fire Ologist

This is off-topic.

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 it’s obvious, and quite the opposite, it seems false. — Fire Ologist

The change occurs at a proper time otherwise we could not observe such a fantastic relation between motion and time.

Tim asked “what”. The question seeks a noun, a quantifiable entity one might point at. You answered with an adjective, like “weak” or “evasive”. — Fire Ologist

I don't understand what you are talking about. Could you please be more specific?

ok, so who says the Electron quantum field doesn't know anything about time? — flannel jesus

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.