Physical cannot be the cause of its own change

MoK

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?

DifferentiatingEgg

Consider physics... then your argument physically falls apart...

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:

if a thing can occur in an atomic fact the possibility of that atomic fact must already be prejudged in the thing. — Wittgenstein, Tractatus 2.012

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.

unenlightened

No arrangement of words, howsoever cunning, can oblige the world to be thus and not so. Words have to follow the world as servants and let the world dictate to them. Only then do they begin to be meaningful. All else is fiction, nonsense, confusion, or magical thinking.

fdrake

You have 604 unclear terms in your OP.

a physical, — MoK

A physical what?

the physical in the state of S1 — MoK

The physical what?

Physical however is not aware of the passage of time. — 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.

MoK

Consider physics... then your argument physically falls apart... — DifferentiatingEgg

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!

More or less you're trying to make a hilariously bad argument that God is everything. — DifferentiatingEgg

I am not talking about God here.

Rather than cluttering TPF with feverdream thoughts that don't logically proceed the next. — DifferentiatingEgg

My arguments follow logically. If you think otherwise please find a flaw in my argument here.

I also love how you're suggesting that physical can KNOW, cause some how it's got a mind of its own... — DifferentiatingEgg

What is the mind to you here?

which destroys your own prior argument... "the mind is the uncaused cause..." even here you admit I was right... — 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.

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. — DifferentiatingEgg

I didn't say that physical has no properties.

Thus the potential for change is already prejudged within the physical body... — DifferentiatingEgg

I am not declining that physical has no potential but arguing that change is not possible within physicalism.

But, considering I can't even understand where you're coming from, these are simply my objections to your truths. — 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.

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. — DifferentiatingEgg

You seem trying to refute my argument without having a valid objection.

I had assumed I understood where you were coming from. — DifferentiatingEgg

I think otherwise. You seem to not understand what I am arguing here.

MoK

No arrangement of words, howsoever cunning, can oblige the world to be thus and not so. Words have to follow the world as servants and let the world dictate to them. Only then do they begin to be meaningful. All else is fiction, nonsense, confusion, or magical thinking. — unenlightened

Do you have any objection to my argument? I would be happy to hear them.

Relativist

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. — MoK

Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation.

DifferentiatingEgg

↪MoK

You seem to not understand what I am arguing here. — MoK

That's exactly what I said...

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.

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 come from. — DifferentiatingEgg

My knowledge comes from the terrestrial world... your perspective is too alien form that though, so I can't really perceive it.

MoK

A physical what? — fdrake

I mean the stuff like objects, a cup, a chair, etc. for example.

The physical what? — fdrake

The stuff that is subject to change and discussion.

But they are indexible by distinct time points t1 and t2 by the presumption. — 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.

Which means awareness, whatever you mean by it, is distinct from influence and indexicality. — fdrake

By awareness, I mean the ability to experience, in this case, the ability to experience the change in time.

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. — fdrake

s1@t1 to s2@t2 denotes a change. I am however arguing that this change is not possible if you endorse physicalism.

What does it mean for "a physical" to be "aware" or "not aware" of the passage of time? — 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.

Also the passage? Passing? — fdrake

By the passage of time I mean that time is subject to change.

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. — fdrake

Yes, time is real to me without it change in physical is not possible.

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... — 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.

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. — 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.

MoK

Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation. — Relativist

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.

Fire Ologist

the physical does not experience the change in time therefore it cannot know the proper time, t2, to which the causation is due to. — MoK

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.

MoK

My knowledge comes from the terrestrial world... your perspective is too alien form that though, so I can't really perceive it. — DifferentiatingEgg

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.

Relativist

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. — MoK

Non-sequitur. You simply re-asserted that knowledge is necessary. A law of nature necessitates an effect. Causation is temporal.

MoK

So you are assuming “the experience the change in time” is both not physical, and is necessary to cause changes in the physical. — Fire Ologist

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.

What causes changes in time in the first place? — Fire Ologist

What I call the Mind. Please see my second argument in this thread.

And why does a physical thing need to “know the proper time” to facilitate change? — 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?

Substance dualism is not proven yet. — 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.

DifferentiatingEgg

↪MoK

I'd have to adopt your "manuals of translations" which at too vastly different than my own to be compatible. We have different world transfiguring mirrors is all. Consider this... you know how two mirrors create the infinite reflection? Any point of consciousness occurs between two reflecting surfaces... the next gradation over is only slightly out of sight, it's only marginally shifted. Images from a point n gradations away become smaller and smaller and more and more out of perspective the greater n becomes. We may have started close together in mind at birth but we went our seperate ways early on.

MoK

Non-sequitur. You simply re-asserted that knowledge is necessary. — Relativist

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?

A law of nature necessitates an effect. — 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.

Causation is temporal. — Relativist

Correct but that is not possible within physicalism.

MoK

↪DifferentiatingEgg

That is alright.

DifferentiatingEgg

↪MoK

It is, so I apologize for being rude while not actually understanding where you're coming from. I had assumed we were closer in perspectives.

Relativist

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? — MoK

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.

MoK

It is, so I apologize for being rude while not actually understanding where you're coming from. I had assumed we were closer in perspectives. — DifferentiatingEgg

No problem, mate.

MoK

You gave an example that INVOLVES application of knowledge. — Relativist

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?

Relativist

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? — MoK

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:

Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation. — Relativist
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. — MoK

MoK

First you need to acknowledge that Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation. — Relativist

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?

Relativist

↪MoK

You said:

Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation. — Relativist
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. — 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.

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. — Relativist

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?

Relativist

↪MoK

Knowledge is not a necessary condition for causation.
— Relativist
It is necessary since a change indicates a going from one state at one point in time to another state later. — MoK

I then gave this example:

A rock dislodged from a high ledge, by a tremor, will fall to the bottom is strict accord with the gravitational law. — Relativist

Prove there is a dependency on knowledge for the rock to fall, and land when it does.

MoK

↪Relativist

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.

Relativist

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 — MoK

It's an invalid argument! Here it is, with your statements numbered:

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.

#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.

Fire Ologist

MoK,

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.

My argument clearly shows that physicalism is false therefore one has to endorse substance dualism which explains reality well. — 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.

Physicalism is false like it or not because I have several arguments against it. — MoK

Make those arguments again. Revise them. Define terms more carefully and clearly for us.

180 Proof

Assume that the physical in the state of S1 has the caus[al] 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. — MoK

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?

Wayfarer

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. — MoK

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 don’t require knowledge or awareness to function—they follow natural laws and causal mechanisms.

Hint: try using AI to sharpen up your arguments. Not to write but to review and proof.

Physical cannot be the cause of its own change

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions