This means that the change must occur at a proper time. — MoK

Change occurs when it occurs, no "proper" about it. The "proper" is all in your head, not a part of "physical" at all. Or if you disagree, make clear what "proper" is and how it works.

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

For the fun of it, I asked DeepSeek to evaluate the op argument. I asked, "what's wrong with this logic? then pasted the op into it. It did a remarkable job!

Deepseek:
"The logic presented in your argument contains several issues that undermine its validity. Let's break it down step by step:

1. **Premise 1**: A physical system changes from state \( S_1 \) to state \( S_2 \) at times \( t_1 \) and \( t_2 \), respectively.
2. **Premise 2**: The physical system in state \( S_1 \) has the causal power to cause the physical system to transition to state \( S_2 \).
3. **Premise 3**: The physical system is not aware of the passage of time.
4. **Conclusion 1**: Therefore, the physical system in state \( S_1 \) cannot know the correct instant to cause the transition to state \( S_2 \).
5. **Conclusion 2**: Therefore, the physical system in state \( S_1 \) cannot cause the transition to state \( S_2 \).
6. **Conclusion 3**: Therefore, the change is not possible in the physical system.
7. **Conclusion 4**: Therefore, the physical system cannot be the cause of its own change.

### Issues with the Logic:

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.

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.

3. **Self-Contradiction in Premises**:
- Premise 2 states that the physical system in state \( S_1 \) has the causal power to cause \( S_2 \), but the conclusion denies this by suggesting that the system cannot cause \( S_2 \) because it lacks temporal awareness. This is a contradiction because the initial premise already grants the system causal power.

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.

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.

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.

### Corrected Logic:
- Physical systems change states based on physical laws and initial conditions. The transition from \( S_1 \) to \( S_2 \) occurs because the laws of physics dictate that \( S_1 \) evolves into \( S_2 \) 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.

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."

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

I would agree that there is conservation of energy/matter, but that empirical observation is not proven beyond doubt (see QM).

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.

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

Tim asked “what”. The question seeks a noun, a quantifiable entity one might point at. You answered with an adjective, like “weak” or “evasive”.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

MoK- I posted the AI analysis for your benefit, since you seem to lack an understanding of basic logic.

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

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.

interesting, very unconventional word choice.

I don't think physicalists think chairs know about time.

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?

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.

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.

ok, so who says the Electron quantum field doesn't know anything about time?

, I already addressed your/AI objections — MoK

You posted responses, while denying the obvious errors in your logic. I can only assume you don't understand logic. You made the absurd claim:

(the physical in the state of S1 cannot cause the physical in the state of S2)

Was implied by:

(the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of s2)

That is irrational. Perhaps you're applying some unstated assumptions and you don't realize it.

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.

Sure, it does not know — MoK

how do you know?

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?

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? — MoK

Tim asked what changes.

You answered “physical”. That’s not a clear or precise answer.

Physical what? Changes in what way?

The change occurs at a proper time otherwise we could not observe such a fantastic relation between motion and time. — MoK

Change occurs in time. But “at a proper time” - what does that mean - why introduce “proper”?

This is the crux of the argument you are trying to make and I haven’t seen anyone here who understands the word “proper”.

In your thought experiment, I could perform the act at 1:00 accidentally. I could nail the change right on the “proper” time without knowing I did so. You aren’t explaining how change is not possible without some condition of “knowing the proper” present in the moment of change. Your thought experiment doesn’t clarify.

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.

that all sounds very speculative

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.

that all sounds very speculative — flannel jesus

Not at all!

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.

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.

P3 follows from P2 in my current argument here. — MoK

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.

‐-------------
I'll illustrate the problem a simple argument:

1. All men are human
2. Therefore Socrates is a human

The conclusion does not follow from the pemise. A corrected version is:

1. All men are human
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is a human

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

What do you mean by "fantastic relation"? What relation? What are you talking about?

And :100:

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.

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.