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.

Chairs aren't a unit of operational physics. If you want to talk about how physics moves forward in time, you're going to have to talk about things much much much smaller than chairs. — flannel jesus

Then consider an electron.

To which I responded: "Then it was created from nothing". You haven't reconciled this, you just rejected using the term "ex nihilo". The Latin translation is irrelevant. — Relativist

Could we please put the creation ex nihilo aside since it is unrelated to our discussion?

You deny that experiences are physical, so experiences cannot be a material cause. — Relativist

I mentioned in the OP that the Mind experiences physical. No physical, no experience, no causation/creation, no change.

A "material cause " simply means pre-existing material. — Relativist

Sure.

It's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material. — Relativist

I didn't deny that. I illustrated this to you several times. The brain at t0 is required so the Mind can experience it. The Mind then immediately causes/creates the brain at t1.

Do you not understand the difference between material cause and efficient cause? — Relativist

Sure I know the difference. I however don't think that an efficient cause is possible without the Mind.

I don't think physicalists think chairs know about time. — flannel jesus

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?

MoK- I posted the AI analysis for your benefit. — Relativist

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.

Your argument is objectively invalid. I showed that, others have shown it, and now even an AI has shown it. — Relativist

You have not shown anything yet.

You should spend some time studying logic. — Relativist

I don't need it and I don't have time for it.

sorry if you've already answered this before, but "a physical"? What is that? — flannel jesus

Stuff that objectively exists, like a chair, a cup etc.

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. — Relativist

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!

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. — 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.

3. **Self-Contradiction in Premises**:
- Premise 2 states that the physical system in state S1 has the causal power to cause S2, but the conclusion denies this by suggesting that the system cannot cause S2 because it lacks temporal awareness. This is a contradiction because the initial premise already grants the system causal power. — 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.

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. — Relativist

It is off-topic but why does physical operate according to the laws of physics? That is a valid question in philosophy.

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. — Relativist

The Mind is the uncaused cause so no infinite regress.

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. — Relativist

I told you this before. I think that De Broglie–Bohm's interpretation is the correct interpretation because it is paradox-free. So no particles transition between states based on probabilities.

- Physical systems change states based on physical laws and initial conditions. The transition from S1 to S2 occurs because the laws of physics dictate that S1 evolves into 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. — Relativist

It is off-topic but why does physical operate according to the laws of physics?

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." — Relativist

Please see above.

Change occurs when it occurs, no "proper" about it. — tim wood

I am talking about temporal change here so time and its change matters.

The "proper" is all in your head, not a part of "physical" at all. — 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?

Or if you disagree, make clear what "proper" is and how it works. — 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.

And properties don't change. A white object changes to black: white itself doesn't change to black. — tim wood

I consider the position of an object as a property as well. So this property changes when the object moves.

I considered people's input and I am very thankful for it. I changed the argument slightly which is more suitable for further discussion.

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

First, you are confusing the creation ex nihilo with the act of creation that is due to the Mind. I illustrated that several times but you didn't pay any attention to what I said.

So if God creates from nothing, it's ex nihilo. — Relativist

The act of creation ex nihilo is impossible. This is off-topic but I discussed it in this thread.

When mind creates from nothing, it isn't. — Relativist

The act of creation of the physical which is due to the Mind requires experiences of the physical in the former state. No experience so no creation.

This is ludicrous. — Relativist

It seems ludicrous to you because you don't understand it.

This does not address the problem. You said: "The conscious mind owes all its experiences to the subconscious mind". This implies that in both dreaming and awake, the consciousness "only experiences a simulation constructed by the subconscious mind". — Metaphysician Undercover

I should have said: The conscious mind owes most of its experiences to the subconscious mind". This is now an accurate statement.

Now you have simply asserted that in the awake condition the simulation is the result of sensory inputs, thoughts and feelings. But these are things experienced in the consciousness. And, you have in no way answered my question, which was how do you account for this difference. If the conscious mind owes all of its experiences to the subconscious, why, and how, would the subconscious be creating these two very distinct types of experience for the consciousness, the asleep experience, and the awake experience? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know the purpose of dreams. There is however a collaboration between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind and that is necessary. The conscious mind is fast but it has access to its memory which is very limited. The conscious mind works on its memory and can produce a thought for example if that is possible. When the thought is produced as a result of the work of the conscious mind then there is nothing to work on anymore so the conscious mind stays silent unless it receives the new input from the subconscious mind.

You are being inconsistent. If the consciousness owes all of its experience to the subconscious, as you claim, then it is inconsistent to say that the conscious mind can create something itself (new thoughts). — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. Please see my first comment and thanks for your comment.

And if we allow that the conscious mind has such a creative capacity, then we need principles to distinguish between what is created by the conscious and what is created by the subconscious. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. The conscious mind has the capacity to create thoughts when the person is awake. The subconscious mind can also create thought and it is intelligent as well but the most of thoughts are created by the conscious mind. The subconscious mind is intelligent because it knows what sort of input the conscious mind requires when the conscious mind focuses on a topic. The subconscious mind can create thoughts as well. It occurred to me on several occasions in my life that I was thinking about something very hard without reaching a conclusion. An idea then just popped up into my conscious mind when I was resting and the idea was very enlightening for what I was thinking. I think that such ideas are created by the subconscious mind.

Without such principles, one could argue, as Cartesian skeptics do, that everything supposedly presented from the subconscious, along with sense data, are a creation of the conscious. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I have discussed the responsibilities of the conscious and subconscious mind to a good extent by now.

I don't understand what you are saying. You explain the circadian rhythm as something completely independent from the senses, yet you claim that being awake is partly due to the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it is both circadian rhythm and senses that are involved when we become awake.

Again, this doesn't address the issue, which is the following. If the subconscious is always active, therefore always providing something for the consciousness, why would it at sometimes provide sense data, and at other times not? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because the conscious mind needs to rest for a period of time, what we call sleeping.

If things are as you say, that the subconscious is always in complete control over what the consciousness receives, and the consciousness has no causal influence over this, then how does the subconscious turn off and on the sense input, when it appears to be the opposite, because it is actually the consciousness which goes to sleep and wakes up? — Metaphysician Undercover

The conscious mind has control over things, such as the creation of thoughts, decisions, etc. when the person is awake.

Since the consciousness is what goes to sleep and wakes up, it appears obvious that the consciousness itself turns off and on the sense data. — Metaphysician Undercover

The conscious mind does not receive any sense data when the person is asleep. It however receives hallucinations so-called dreams when the person is asleep. The situation is different when the person is awake.

Then how would you account for the difference between awake experiences, and dream experiences? — Metaphysician Undercover

The difference is that when a person is awake, his conscious mind experiences a simulation of reality that is the result of sensory inputs -- he also experiences thoughts, feelings, etc., whereas when he is asleep, he only experiences a simulation constructed by the subconscious mind.

If each is the subconscious presenting experience to the conscious, in the exact same way, why is there a difference between the two? — Metaphysician Undercover

The difference between the two is that the conscious mind can only function properly when a person is awake, while the subconscious mind is always active. The conscious mind is also responsible for creating new thoughts based on what it perceives from the subconscious mind. These new thoughts then are registered in the subconscious mind's memory for further analysis in the future.

We can't simply say that the senses are active in one case, and inactive in the other, because we need to account for whatever it is which activates the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct.

The senses do not activate themselves. — Metaphysician Undercover

Becoming awake is partly due to senses (from Google): People wake up at a certain time in the morning primarily due to their "circadian rhythm," which is essentially the body's internal clock located in the brain's hypothalamus, that regulates sleep-wake cycles by releasing hormones like melatonin based on light exposure, causing us to feel sleepy at night and alert in the morning when light hits our eyes; essentially signaling the body to wake up.

Nor does it appear like the subconscious activates the senses, or else they would be activated in dreams. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I mentioned, the subconscious mind is always active otherwise it could not construct dreams.

But in most cases, when a sense is activated (a loud sound for instance), it coincides with waking up. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct.

Why don't you get involved in my threads and try to find flaws in my arguments? I would be happy to know your opinion and criticism. Insulting is not constructive!

Then it was created from nothing, which means ex nihilo. See this. — Relativist

I differentiate between God and the Mind.

I got that. What about it makes it right, or the right time? — tim wood

There is harmony in the physical change. This means that the change must occur at a proper time.

What does right have to do with anything? — tim wood

By right in here I mean proper.

What, exactly, do you imagine is subject to change? — tim wood

Physical.

What, exactly changes? — tim wood

Physical properties.

Yes, I did. I'm done. You seem incapable of having a rational discussion. — Relativist

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.

Prove it. — Relativist

Read OP.

I've shown you at least twice. Read through my posts. — 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.

Your evasiveness is frustrating. If brain at t1 was not created ex nihilo, then it was created FROM something. — Relativist

It was not created from something. The Mind has the ability to cause/create physical. The creation ex nihilo however refers to God who created the universe from nothing. I am not talking about God and creation ex nihilo here.

In as much as your terms are not well defined, it's not worth thinking about. — tim wood

What term is not well defined? I would be happy to elaborate.

And n a question about logic, what would the experiment matter? — 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.".

In your OP you mentioned the "right time," what is that? — tim wood

The time that the causation of the physical in the state of S2 is due to.

We're discussing the error in your op that I exposed. Keep up. — Relativist

Where is the error? Could you please show it to me?

Examined as a whole, the universe at t0 is the cause of the universe at t1. Physical throughout. — Relativist

False.

I'm not surprised that you interpreted my comments as an attack, but no one can be an expert on everything. So I'd say it is more like I pointed out that you are human and your misconceptions are understandable. — wonderer1

Yes, no human can be an expert on everything. I however don't think I have any misconceptions about the subject of this thread.

Sure I can wonder, but you demonstrate throughout this thread that you don't have much understanding of phyisical causality. — wonderer1

I do understand physical causality but I think that physical causality (what I call horizontal causality) is false. I discuss this partly in another thread and partly here.

I, on the other hand, am a 62 year old electrical engineer making my living on the basis of my expertise in understanding physical causality. — wonderer1

I am a retired physicist too. :smile:

Can you provide any reason for me to think that your intuitions regarding this topic are better than mine? — wonderer1

Yes, I already mentioned the problems of physicalism in this thread that you ignored. I also have another thread on physical causality.

No, not unless you remove the ambiguity. If I were to do it myself and identify another problem, you could blame it on my misinterpretation. — Relativist

Ok, here is the first premise: P1) Physical and awareness/experience exist and they are subject to change (these changes are because physical and awareness/experience have certain properties).

You didn't answer my question: If not ex nihilo, then what is brain at t1 created FROM? — Relativist

I did. I explained the creation ex nihilo. Did you get it? And the Mind creates MoK's brain at time t1. The Mind has the ability to cause/create but that requires the experience of the physical first.

So you don't have a problem with non-reductive physicalism? — Relativist

I do have problems with non-reductive physicalism as well. I generally have a problem with physicalism which is a sort of monism whether reductive or non-reductive.

I lean toward reductive physicalism. If it could be established that there is actual ontological emergence, I would accept non-reductive physicalism. — Relativist

I don't think that strong emergence is possible at all so I won't buy non-reductive physicalsim.

1. I have to interpret what you mean by “physical is not aware” because that’s not normal English. — Fire Ologist

I am saying that physically cannot experience time.

I assume you are trying to note that rocks are not conscious. I can accept that. — Fire Ologist

I am saying that a rock cannot experience the passage of time.

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. — Fire Ologist

Correct. Humans can experience psychological time but they cannot tell what is the current time.

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. — 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?

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. — Fire Ologist

I agree with Kant.

But your argument doesn’t 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 doesn’t address such things either. — 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.

Bottom line, I have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you want to reword things and explain them more precisely, I can’t 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. — Fire Ologist

3. follows from 2. Please consider my thought experiment.

In 4, you seem to be saying, like Parmenides, that physical change is not possible. — 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.

Are you arguing that change doesn’t happen, or that change in physical things only happens because of influences of non-physical things? — Fire Ologist

I am not denying change. And yes, I think that change in physical happens because of the Mind.

But you need to work on 3 and see if there is a way to get beyond it to 4 or later. — Fire Ologist

Please consider my thought experiment since 4. follows from 3.

I’m trying to show you that I’m taking this seriously and offering specifics that I think need further work. But generally, I don’t think this will be workable. — Fire Ologist

Thanks for your contribution. I think that the argument is sound and valid. I will take you there.

Prove it. — Relativist

Read the OP.

Change entails a cause for that change (per the PSR). — 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!

Apparently you do not understand the difference between logic and argument. — tim wood

I do know the difference.

As to whether I can tell time absent a clock, most, or many, folks can tell time to astonishing accuracy, as with waking up within seconds of an exact time. How, I do not know. But while this does not directly refute your argument, it does render it so imprecise as to be useless. — 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.

As to the logic, e.g., MP is a very specific form of syllogism, and as such is either exactly right or all wrong. Yours is all wrong. — 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?