OK. But I consider those question-begging statements and so not valid objections to what I’ve been relating.

OK. But I consider those question-begging statements and so not valid objections to what I’ve been relating. — AJJ

You don't understand what question-begging is, really.

It kind of seems like your view is always slanted towards some very stock religious arguments, really. And you see anything outside the scope of that as question-begging.

You don't understand what question-begging is, really. — Terrapin Station

Here’s the definition you get when you Google question-begging fallacy: “begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.”

It seems to me that in essence your arguments take this form:

Premise: You’re wrong.
Conclusion: I’m right.

Where you support the premise simply by stating the conclusion.

It seems to me that in essence your arguments take this form:

Premise: You’re wrong.
Conclusion: I’m right. — AJJ

C'mon, be serious, at least.

I am being serious.

Properties are characteristics of matter and matter's dynamic relations (always-changing structures) with other matter. — Terrapin Station

You said the above in reply to points that weren’t even about properties. It appears to be a simple assertion of what you think intended as a refutation.

You said the above in reply to points that weren’t even about properties. — AJJ

Aside from the fact that anything we talk about in any respect, any changes we talk about, is talk about properties, the specific example at hand was a banana changing color.

And instead of addressing what I said you made what appears to be a simple assertion of what you think intended as a refutation.

This is turning into spam now, so perhaps we should draw a line under this instead of going round the same circle again.

(keep it on the down-low, but it was pretty much spam as soon as you started parsing everything I said as question-begging and everything you said as an explanation, despite it being structured just the same)

Perhaps I’ll just leave you with an example of your exemplary skill in reasoned argument:

Aristotle and Parmenides? No wonder you're in such a mess here. — Terrapin Station

Did you want to get into a huge Aristotle discussion? Maybe we could go line-by-line and argue about every assertion?

Parmenides has it right. The reason change is an illusion is precisely because something else is involved. When a change occurs, the same defines it. The world can only change if two different instances are the same, such there is an alteration of one. Same with person. If I am to change, the new way of being must the same, me, or else fail to be the change in myself at all.

Change is defined through something remaining the same
We might think the change has destroyed the same, but it is an illusion. A change is always a song sung by the same, it's an event performed by something which is the same.

So, if we had a universe with a single particle, say one electron, and then that were replaced by a single proton, would it be the case that the contents of that universe changed? What stayed the same?

The universe stayed the same.

Otherwise, our universe would not have changed at all. We would instead just be talking about some different universe and the status of ours would be going unmentioned (has it even changed? We don't know, since we aren't posing anything about it at this second point).

The universe stayed the same. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The universe isn't an existent aside from the particle in question. We don't have two things at a time--the particle and the universe. We just have one thing at a time.

Agreed. That's how it is the same universe.

If we had another universe, then we would have two things and there would not be the one undergoing change.

The salient point of our disagreement is that I don't believe you are capable of offering a coherent account of what it could mean to say that possibilities are non-actual and yet are concrete facts. If you would rather avoid answering that by trying to deflect the discussion into a side issue then I think we are done. It's always the same pattern with you; when the going gets tough you deflect like crazy, making the whole thing a waste of time.

Agreed. That's how it is the same universe.

If we had another universe, then we would have two things and there would not be the one undergoing change. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm saying that all that exists, period, is a single electron. Then all that exists, period, is a single proton. Was there a change? It wouldn't make any sense to say there wasn't. But there's nothing that stayed the same.

The salient point of our disagreement is that I don't believe you are capable of offering a coherent account of what it could mean to say that possibilities are non-actual and yet are concrete facts. — Janus

Possibilities are simply the fact that the world isn't strongly deterministic.

So we have a particle, A that interacts with particle B, so that B can have immediately consequent states, with nothing else involved, of either C or D. Prior to A's interaction with B, neither C nor D are actual. They're possibilities--namely, the concrete fact of that A will interact with B non-deterministically. After A interacts with B, one possibility will be actualized, the other is no longer possible, but we sometimes talk about it in terms of counterfactual possible worlds.

But something has stayed the same: the universe.

There is now a proton instead of an electron. In this change, something has stayed the same: we still only have this singular universe. So the universe has indeed undergone a change. It is now a proton rather than electron. Still the same universe though. This is how we say there is a change.

If it weren't the same universe, the change wouldn't be there at all. We would have one universe which was an electron, and another which was a proton, neither of which replaced the other.

But something has stayed the same: the universe. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No. Again, the universe isn't an existent aside from the particles in question.

I never said otherwise.

Belonging to this universe is just a property of these particles. There isn't a seperate object of universe we might observe and measure.

I never said otherwise, — TheWillowOfDarkness

So that's not something that's staying the same because it's not even something.

Clearly not, we are talking about something.

"Universe" picks out a particular distinction, something is true in virtue of it. To speak of this universe is different then to speak, for example, of our own. In this case, universe is speaking about similarity between the electron and proton, such that they have the relation of change and replacement (as opposed to just talking about any old instance of a proton and electron).

We just aren't talking about a something which is one particular existing thing. In the sense we are speaking now, we might even say this universe is something which does not exist, which is how it stays the same even when existing things (proton>electron) do not at all.

Clearly not, we are talking about something. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Don't confuse our talking about it with what the thought experiment is proposing. We simply have one thing, and then something else.

So you're telling a falsehood then? These particles are not of this universe?

More to the point, this move engaging in a special pleading. How it is that our language about the electron and proton means something, but our language about the universe does not? If it were all just a thought experiment that said nothing, our language of proton and electron would not refer.

Can you give an example from science that deomstrates that particles could behave non-detremistically? For example in respect of chemical reactions, are the different elements not observed to always react the same ways with each other, all other conditions being equal. Take for example Hydrogen and Oxygen.

"Given the energetics presented above, there is a strong thermochemical bias for the production of water over hydrogen peroxide when H2 and O2 are reacted together. For instance, when hydrogen gas is burned in the presence of oxygen, a large amount of energy is released and water is produced as the major product. In cases where the reaction is more controlled, however, such as the consumption of hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel cell, the mechanism and kinetics of the O2 reduction process can complicate issues greatly. For instance, the delivery of the protons and electrons derived from the ionization of hydrogen (see redox half-reaction above) to a molecule of oxygen has to be precisely controlled via a process know as proton-coupled electron transfer in order to ensure that the complete four-electron reduction of O2 dominates. Platinum metal is capable of serving as a catalyst that brandishes exquisite selectivity for the four-electron reduction of oxygen to water, and accordingly lies at the heart of fuel cell design and function. Given that platinum is rare and extremely expensive, current research is aimed at the development of structural and functional models for oxygen activation and reduction to water via proton-coupled electron transfer. Similar strategies are also being exploited to drive the energetically uphill reverse reaction, in which hydrogen is produced from water using solar energy. The success of both these areas of work may ultimately prove crucial to the development and sustainability of a global hydrogen economy."

From here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-combining-hydrog/

So,the article seems to be saying that combining water and hydrogen will produce water unless special conditions are present, in which case Hydrogen Peroxide will be produced.

Can you give any examples from science where it has been shown that two particles interacting could produce different outcomes under the same conditions?

The problem is that the brownness of a yellow banana doesn't exist in any manner prior to it being actual, and saying that it does is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

There are 'real possibilities'. That a banana can turn brown is a real possibility, that it can turn into a fish is not. So that 'domain of possibilities' is real but doesn't refer to existents. (In fact, there's a good argument that this range of probabilities is what the Schrodinger wave equation describes, which is why Heisenberg re-introduced Aristotle's idea of 'potentia' - he said electrons and the like are in a domain between existent and non-existent, i.e. they too exist 'as potentials'.)

A change is always a song sung by the same, it's an event performed by something which is the same. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, it's like transmutation or topological formation; whatever transmutes can return to its previous form. The Eterne remains, always, conserved, as the only permanence, all else being so temporary that it never stays as anything particular even for an instant, for the Eterne transmutes continually.

What else would you have?