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.

This idea that "the physical" and time are separate is so strange to me. Physical things only are what they are because of their relationship to time. You don't have "physical things" in one box, and then "time" separate. Without time, there are no physical things.

Everything we know of as physical emerges from, presumably, the behaviour of how quantum fields evolve and interact over time. Quantum fields are defined by how they change over time, and how they relate to other quantum fields. 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.

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.

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

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.

What is physics to you? — MoK

Generally speaking (and this is just off the top of the dome so forgive me if it's not quite right), the study of the patterns of how physical things change, and why they change.

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.

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 — MoK

Show me. Modus Ponens: "It can be summarized as "P implies Q. P is true. Therefore, Q must also be true."

Identify the "P implies Q" in your argument, and where you assert P. Here's the relevant portion:


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.

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. — MoK

What is "the relation" and why is it "fantastic"? The world we live in is mediated in and by time. 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.

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

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.

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 — MoK

Modus Ponens has to start with a material implication. This is classically stated as "if A then B". You have no "if .... then ...." in your argument.

agreed. There's no clear modus ponens there. If it is there, he's done a good job of hiding it

I guess what he's saying is:

If the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2.

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.

PS are you comfortable with this wording of "the physical"? Do you know what he means by that? Does he mean everything about the physical state at one time?

I guess what he's saying is:

If the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2, then the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2. — flannel jesus

The problem with filling in the missing premises is that if you then challenge it, he'll respond "I didn't say that".

PS are you comfortable with this wording of "the physical"? Do you know what he means by that? — flannel jesus

No. He tends to be vague a lot. He also uses idiosyncratic definitions without explicitly defining them, and appears to contradict himself. In another active thread, he referred to "mind" creating a brain at a point of time "from nothing," but denied this was creation "ex nihilo" (latin for "from nothing") but also agreed the brain at the prior state was a material cause. So...it's best to pin him down.

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? — MoK

To relate requires a relator, without which there is no relation - which is to say there ain't no relationship. A bear s**ts in the woods, the moon rises over Hong Kong, wonderful? (Haiku?)

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

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.

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.

D1) Consider two states of a physical, S1 to S2, in which the physical exists at time t1 and t2 respectively — MoK

States of a physical what? If you mean a "physical object" then you are implying this same object exists at both points t1 and t2, and thus it has "experienced" (persisted across ) time.

Physical however does not experience time — MoK

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

I really recommend you figure out a different phrase to use than "a physical". Nobody knows what it means, it's not a standard phrase in this context, and there's almost certainly a less ambiguous phrase you can use in its place. Do you mean a physical system? A physical object? A fundamental physical entity? Whichever of those things you mean, you should replace "a physical" with that.

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.

Think of an electron as a physical.

Think of "a physical" as a steaming pile of puke. It's distasteful. You will make your own text more readable to others if you figure out a way that's more in line with what someone fluent in English would say. They wouldn't say "a physical".

If you want "a physical" to mean "a fundamnetal particle", then your own arguments would work better if you said that instead, "a fundamental particle."

Here, i'll show you what that would look like:

D1) Consider two states of a fundamental particle, S1 to S2, in which the particle exists at time t1 and t2 respectively
D2) Now consider a change by which I mean that particle moves from the state S1 at time t1 to the state of S2 at time t2
A) Assume that the particle in the state of S1 has the cause power to cause the physical in the state of S2
P1) The particle however does not experience time
P2) If so, then the particle in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the particle in the state of S2
P3) If so, then the particle in the state of S1 cannot cause the particle in the state of S2
C) So, the particle cannot be the cause of its own change

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. — MoK

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.

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

What is the relator in the case of physical change? — MoK

There isn't one.

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

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 — MoK

P1: Make sense of this please. As it is it's meaningless nonsense.
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?
P3: "If so." Again, not so.
C: Cause? What do you mean by "cause"? And as to the "physical," once and for all identify a "physical" we can talk about - would a baseball be acceptable as a physical?

Or perhaps best, what's your point? What are you driving at?

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.

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

Thanks for changing my argument.

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.