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. — Relativist

#3 follows from #2 only. To understand that you need to contemplate my thought experiment which you have never answered!

We disagree that your arguments work. — Fire Ologist

You cannot simply say that my argument does not work. If you think my argument has a problem, let me know where.

You haven't clearly shown anything yet to us. That should give you pause, and send you back to the drawing board. — Fire Ologist

What is the thing you don't understand? We can go from one sentence to another one and I would be happy to explain things that are not clear to you.

fdrake gave you a lot of content to assist with a revision. — Fire Ologist

He didn't ask for a revision. He just asked for definitions of terms used in the OP, which I tried my best to answer.

Seems you are trying to say that change can't occur if only physical things exist. — Fire Ologist

I am saying that physical cannot be the cause of its own change, the title.

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. — Fire Ologist

My argument works. If you think that there is a problem in my argument then please let me know and I would be happy to fix it.

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

The Hard Problem of Consciousness, Epiphenomenalism, etc. They are off-topic so for now let's focus on the current argument.

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). — 180 Proof

My argument has nothing to do with Zeno's paradox.

Maybe something's lost in translation – English isn't your first language? — 180 Proof

I don't think that anything is lost in translation. English is not my first language though. If any sentence is not clear to you, please let me know and I would be happy to elaborate.

The argument makes a mistake of assuming that for a physical system to cause a change in itself, it must know when to do so. — Wayfarer

The physical of course must know when to do cause otherwise physical motion would be incoherent. And that is an important point and it is not a mistake.

Let's focus on a thought experiment: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?

#3 follows from #2 only. — MoK

By what rule of logic? See: https://cse.iitk.ac.in/users/cs365/2012/rulesLogic.html

By what rule of logic? See: https://cse.iitk.ac.in/users/cs365/2012/rulesLogic.html — Relativist

Modus Ponens. Let me give you an example of another argument I developed here with the help of @Arcane Sandwich:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
C1) So, there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
C2) So, the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C3) So, God changes

Modus Ponens. — MoK

Here's your argument:

1. Physical however is not aware of the passage of time.
2. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
3. Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.
4. Therefore, the change is not possible in physical. Therefore, physical cannot be the cause of its own change.

You said:

#3 follows from #2 only. — MoK

Modus ponens has the form:
p=>q
p
Therefore q

In your argument, what is p and what is q?

P is #2. Q is #3. Q follows from P. Please consider my thought experiment to see how Q follows from P.

*sigh* Learn a little more about logic.

To understand that Q follows form P you need to consider the following thought experiment: Suppose I lock you in a room and ask you to perform a task at one o'clock in the afternoon. I however do not provide you with a watch or clock. Could you perform the task at the right time?

P is #2 — MoK

P: the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
Q: Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.

I proved that P does not entail Q:
S1= Rock on a ledge at to
S2= Rock on the ground at t1
Cause: tremor (there is no knowledge involved).

P: the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2.
Q: Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.

I proved that P does not entail Q:
S1= Rock on a ledge at to
S2= Rock on the ground at t1
Cause: tremor (there is no knowledge involved). — Relativist

You are just claiming that change exists. That is not what I am denying. I am claiming that physical cannot be the cause of its own change.

You are just claiming that change exists. That is not what I am denying. I am claiming that physical cannot be the cause of its own change. — MoK

One physical state of affairs (S1) caused another physical state of affairs (S2).

S1 includes the potential energy in the tectonic plates that caused the tremor.

One physical state of affairs (S1) caused another physical state of affairs (S2). — Relativist

We assume this all the time but that is false.

S1 includes the potential energy in the tectonic plates that caused the tremor. — Relativist

That is a mere change and I am not denying it at all.

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

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.

One physical state of affairs (S1) caused another physical state of affairs (S2).
— Relativist
We assume this all the time but that is false. — MoK

Prove it.

S1 includes the potential energy in the tectonic plates that caused the tremor.
— Relativist

That is a mere change and I am not denying it at all. — MoK

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

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.
5.Therefore, physical cannot be the cause of its own change. — MoK

1. I have to interpret what you mean by “physical is not aware” because that’s not normal English. I assume you are trying to note that rocks are not conscious. I can accept that.

2. Therefore, [physical things] in…S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause…S2.
I can accept that, even though some physical things (like human beings) could know.

3. Therefore, the physical in S1 cannot cause S2.

There is no necessity that anything about effects, like S2, be previously known by S1 in order to come to be.

That is what you need to argue before you get to 3.

I have no suggestions for you on how to do this. You are grappling with the appearance of cause and effect in nature, and the appearance that cause and effect is only a form of thought (a knowing agent). Hume showed there is no necessity in nature between cause and effect, and Kant showed we have to think in terms of cause and effect in order to think about change. Maybe they were both misinformed. But your argument 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.

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.

But by 5, you introduce “its own change”. Where did “its own” come from? Does “its own” belong with S2 (the now changed state), or with S1? Or both? And if the physical cannot know, can the physical have an “its own”?

In 4, you seem to be saying, like Parmenides, that physical change is not possible. Are you arguing that change doesn’t happen, or that change in physical things only happens because of influences of non-physical things? I think the latter - so you need to reframe 4, or else your conclusion ends up being that change in physical things is not possible, but change in physical things is possible.

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

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.

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?

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!

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. — MoK

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

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. — MoK

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

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.

It is not. Did you think of my thought experiment? — MoK

In as much as your terms are not well defined, it's not worth thinking about. And n a question about logic, what would the experiment matter? In your OP you mentioned the "right time," what is that?

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.

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

Prove it.

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? — MoK

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

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.

You didn't find any error in my argument — MoK

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

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

I got that. What about it makes it right, or the right time? What does right have to do with anything?

Above you defined "the physical" as just anything at all

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. — MoK

What, exactly, do you imagine is subject to change? What, exactly changes.

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.

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.