Therefore, the physical in the state of S1 cannot know the correct instant to cause the physical in the state of S2. — MoK

Your physical body itself is the cause for the body change. You are born, you live, and you get old.
Your body caused itself to get old. Correct?

You're welcome mate, i think people will appreciate the added clarity.

Your physical body itself is the cause for the body change. You are born, you live, and you get old. Your body caused itself to get old. Correct? — Corvus

Sure not. That is what I am arguing against it.

Thank you, mate. :up:

Sure not. That is what I am arguing against it. — MoK

You need to explain what causes your body get old. It seems the case that your body causes your body itself to get old.

You need to explain what causes your body get old. it seems the case that you body causes your body itself to get old. — Corvus

I am considering a single change here for sake of simplicity. Please see the OP. This thread is a support for another thread entitled "The Mind is the uncaused cause" which you can find it here. I think that is the Mind that causes a change in the physical.

I am considering a single change here for sake of simplicity. — MoK

For example, what single change are you thinking of or talking about?

I think that is the Mind that causes a change in the physical. — MoK

Again, any examples for the mind causing change in the physical?

For example, what single change are you thinking of or talking about? — Corvus

Please read D1 in the OP and let me know if you have any questions.

Again, any examples for the mind causing change in the physical? — Corvus

Like the motion of an electron.

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. — MoK

2 questions:
1. Is the electron at t1 the SAME electron that exists at t2?
2. Are there intermediate points, between t1 and t2, at which this electron does not exist?

1. Is the electron at t1 the SAME electron that exists at t2? — Relativist

I assume so for the sake of the argument.

2. Are there intermediate points, between t1 and t2, at which this electron does not exist? — Relativist

There are an infinite number of points between any arbitrary points in time.

1. Is the electron at t1 the SAME electron that exists at t2?
— Relativist
I assume so for the sake of the argument. — MoK

That's a false assumption, isn't it?

deleted, posted in error

That's a false assumption, isn't it? — Relativist

Yes, it is a false assumption in contemporary physics. I didn't want to get involved in more detail here since that requires a knowledge of quantum field theory. But here you go as you asked for it: The motion of an electron for example is produced with two field operators, namely the annihilation field operator and the creation field operator. So how does it work? The annihilation field operator first acts on the ground state that contains one electron and destroys the electron so we are left with the vacuum state. The creation field operator then acts on the vacuum state and creates a new electron in another place later. So, a simple electron that is subject to motion in space is not the same one in different stances of time.

Fine. I get it that every physical objects are composed of sets of elementary particles, each of which which is a quantum of a quantum field at a point of time. Now reword your argument to be consistent with this:

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 — MoK

I already included your correction and changed the OP to include all people's suggestions as well. Please find the new form of the argument in the following:

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 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

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. — MoK

Can you tell the difference, distinguish between, between an old baseball and a new baseball? According to you, since baseballs "cannot experience time" and assuming they're all made the same, they should be indistinguishable.

Your D1 and D2 - what is it you imagine they say that is useful or significant? I do not find anything controversial in them.

Consider my thought experiment. — MoK

Such as it is, I have.

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. — MoK

A change is an event in time. How can - on your claims - anything that "cannot experience time" undergo change?

Finally, you ignored my last question:

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

I think an answer from you is here called for. One well-crafted sentence ought to do it.

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 — MoK

The electron at t1 has been annihalated at t2, so this is an impossible scenario.

Can you tell the difference, distinguish between, between an old baseball and a new baseball? — tim wood

Sure I can tell the difference between an old baseball and a new baseball because I have access to psychological time. I however distinguish between psychological time and subjective time, later is what I call time in this thread for the sake of simplicity. Psychological time is the byproduct of brain activity whereas subjective time is experienced and caused by the Mind. Please see the second and third arguments in this thread for further explanation.

According to you, since baseballs "cannot experience time" — tim wood

Yes, baseball cannot experience time or to be more precise subjective time.

and assuming they're all made the same, they should be indistinguishable. — tim wood

The old and new baseball are not the same thing. Please see this post for further explanation.

Your D1 and D2 - what is it you imagine they say that is useful or significant? — tim wood

They are needed for the rest of the argument.

I do not find anything controversial in them. — tim wood

Cool.

Such as it is, I have. — tim wood

What do you mean? I mean my 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?

A change is an event in time. — tim wood

Correct.

How can - on your claims - anything that "cannot experience time" undergo change? — tim wood

We cannot certainly experience subjective time (what I call time in this tread for the sake of simplicity) since we exist within subjective time. The change is however due to the existence of the Mind. The Mind not only experiences and creates the physical but also experiences and creates the subjective time at the same point. It is due to the existence of the Mind that physical change and temporal change are related. The Mind is however Omnipresent in objective spacetime otherwise It could not experience and cause motion in physical and time. Please see my other thread for more explanation.

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

I am sorry. I missed your questions here. This thread is a support for another thread in which I claim that causation cannot be horizontal but vertical. Here, I am excluding vertical causation. Therefore, we are left with vertical causation by which I mean that there is another entity so-called the Mind that experiences the physical at the state of S1 at time t1 and creates the physical at the state of S2 at time t2 later.

The electron at t1 has been annihalated at t2, so this is an impossible scenario. — Relativist

No, the electron is annihilated at time t1 and is created at time t2 later.

No, the electron is annihilated at time t1 and is created at time t2 later. — MoK

You seem to be saying the electron at t1 and the electron at t2 have the same identity.


But this can't be an enduring identity, because the t2 electron was created at t2. So you need to account for these 2 disconnected objects having the same identity.

You seem to be saying the electron at t1 and the electron at t2 have the same identity.

But this can't be an enduring identity, because the t2 electron was created at t2. So you need to account for these 2 disconnected objects having the same identity. — Relativist

The electron only has the same intrinsic properties, such as mass, spin, and charge at time t1 and t2 but it has different extrinsic properties, such as locations, at time t1 and t2.

You seem to be saying the electron at t1 and the electron at t2 have the same identity.

But this can't be an enduring identity, because the t2 electron was created at t2. So you need to account for these 2 disconnected objects having the same identity.
— Relativist
The electron only has the same intrinsic properties, such as mass, spin, and charge at time t1 and t2 but it has different extrinsic properties, such as locations, at time t1 and t2. — MoK

So do they, or don't they, have the same identity?

So do they, or don't they, have the same identity? — Relativist

They are not the same things.

They are not the same things. — MoK

Then this statement of yours is incoherent:

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 — MoK

Do you want me to include all these discussions in this thread in a single argument?

No, I want you to acknowledge that your statement ("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)" ) is incoherent, because a particular electron DOES NOT EXIST IN 2 DIFFERENT STATES. The statement implies we should:

Consider two states of something that cannot exist in two states.

Ok, I will add a couple of extra paragraphs to make things more clear. And thanks for your contribution.

More paragraphs with contradictory statements can't fix the internal inconsistencies.

Why can't you acknowledge that your statement entailed a contradiction?

Sorry, you're making it up on the fly. And thus this not an honest discussion, but instead an exercise in whatever you can claim to maintain your ideas. The primitive form of the simplest reduction of which is simply, you're wrong, therefore you're wrong. Granted that you're wrong, the reasoning is impeccable. Your particular variation, again reduced, is, "I'm right, therefore I'm right."

Now, a baseball cares nothing for a clock, knows nothing about time, knows nothing about anything. But the baseball does have its internal processes, those of decay and eventual disintegration. And the outward manifestation of these the means by which you may distinguish one from another baseball. These all occur in time, on time, wrt time, and by some standards a measure of time. So to say they "cannot experience time" is simply meaningless nonsense.

Now you may specify that as a condition - a presupposition - of your argument and try to work out any consequences. You can do that. But if you build on those, then you're merely building nonsense on nonsense. And that's why I inquired as to your point. Apparently your point is that "God is always about in the quad." You can believe that if you like, but that's all you can do with it. Anything beyond your affirmation of your belief becomes nonsense, which quickly becomes dishonest if not yielded.

I changed the OP accordingly to include your objections!