How do you word it considering that you understand what I said so far? — MoK

You should word all your statements in a way that doesn't entail contradictions.

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.

What is the thing that you do not understand? — MoK

What is it that YOU don't understand about what I said previously?:

this statement is worded incorrectly:

the brain goes from one state at time t0 to another state at time t1 but the brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1 — MoK


Nothing goes from one state to another, because that entails existing in both states. — Relativist

Your statement "the brain goes from one state at time t0 to another state at time t1" contradicts your view of identity.

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

I already elaborated on what I mean by the motion of the brain from one point to another point. That is all that matters. — MoK

It matters that you make contradictory statements. I've been questioning whether or not you have a coherent account at all. Since you justify it with contradictory statements, it appears that you do not. If you want to rescue your theory, you need to present it with a coherent account (i.e. without contradicting yourself).

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?

Do you agree that you've made contradictory statements?

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.

Then this statement is worded incorrectly:

the brain goes from one state at time t0 to another state at time t1 but the brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1 — MoK

Nothing goes from one state to another, because that entails existing in both states.

You often word your statements in ways that are contrary to your paradigm, as you did here. This creates contradictions, that you never acknowledge. Instead, you criticize me for misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or ignoring something else.

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.

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

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?

the brain goes from one state at time t0 to another state at time t1 but the brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1 — MoK

.

In this statement:
"The brain goes from one state at time t0 to another state at time t1"
"The brain" is a particular that exists at both t0 and t1, but in a different state.

But this statement:
"the brain at time t0 is not the same matter as the brain at time t1"
suggests the brain at t0 is a different particular than the brain at t1.

Which is it? Is it a different particular or the same particular?

If it's the same one, what makes it the same, given that it is made of different matter?

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?

The Mind causes/creates physical. — MoK

The explain what this means:

Yes, the brain continues — MoK

Your so-called "vertical causation" is an "efficient cause", not a material cause, is it not?

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

You said you agreed that

"The brain at t0 is composed of a set of matter arranged in a particular way. Nearly everyone would agree that this material continues to exist at t1, possibly in a different arrangement, and this constitutes the brain at t1."

Did you change your mind?

If the matter composing the brain at t0 is the same matter that composes the brain at t1, then that matter is, by definition, the material cause of the brain at t1. You said you understood what is meant by "material cause", so you should agree. Please confirm.

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".

The brain at time t0 does not cause the brain at t1. — MoK

The brain at t0 is composed of a set of matter arranged in a particular way. Nearly everyone would agree that this material continues to exist at t1, possibly in a different arrangement, and this constitutes the brain at t1.

Do you agree?

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.

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.

Ex nihilo nihil — MoK

You're omitting the last word (the verb) of this traditional statement. The full statement is "ex nihilo nihil fit." This translates to "nothing comes from nothing".

I never brought up that statement. All I did was to try and confirm that you were saying the brain at t1 came "ex nihilo" (=from nothing). You caused confusing by saying the brain at t1 was "created from nothing" but that it was not "created 'ex nihilo'. Which is a contradiction.

So you think the brain at t1 was created ex nihilo/from nothing. But when I said "it's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material", you responded:

I didn't deny that." — MoK

But you DID deny it, because you said the mind at t1 was created from nothing. Seems like another contradiction.

Was (brain at t0) a material cause of (brain at t1) or not?

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.

I have several problems with your account, but you need to
Show that you can have an honest. 2-way exchange, by doing what I asked:

the Mind causes/creates the physical from nothing. — MoK

Click on this website, then enter: from nothing

Then respond with the answer it gives you.

Raskin is very good. So is Pete Buttigieg.

Who in the intelligence community or defence is likely to support him, after the way he’s denigrated them? — Wayfarer

A problem is that most non-Trumpists will fulfill their Constitutional duty. Their only discretion will be to reject an illegal order. Sending troops against protestors has a legal loophole Trump will use: he has discretion to call anything an "insurrection" and use troops (per the Insurrection Act). Consider how he used his discretion to label Mexican cartels "terrorists", so he can bomb them if he wants to.

There are some protests starting to appear but it’s going to take a lot more than protests. The Democrats don’t have a clear leader. — Wayfarer

:100:

Dems need someone who's smart and articulate to regularly put forth an easy to understand narrative (i.e. the truth).

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

the Mind causes/creates the physical from nothing. — MoK

Click on this website, then enter: from nothing

Then respond with the answer it gives you.

. Conversations should start from "what do you want to achieve" — AmadeusD

That sounds reasonable.

So, you can see that this is just a vicious cycle of poo-pooing each other's value set. It will, and could, not get anywhere. — AmadeusD

In practice, it's worse than that. What often gets poo-pooed is a caricature of the other side's position.

It's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material.
— Relativist
I didn't deny that. — MoK

Yes, you did. Here:

If brain at t1 was not created ex nihilo, then it was created FROM something.
— Relativist
It was not created from something. — MoK

, 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.

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.

First, you are confusing the creation ex nihilo with the act of creation that is due to the Mind. I illustrated that several times but you didn't pay any attention to what I said. — MoK

Here's what you said:

It was not created from something. — MoK

To which I responded: "Then it was created from nothing". You haven't reconciled this, you just rejected using the term "ex nihilo". The Latin translation is irrelevant.

The act of creation of the physical which is due to the Mind requires experiences of the physical in the former state. No experience so no creation. — MoK

You deny that experiences are physical, so experiences cannot be a material cause. A "material cause " simply means pre-existing material.

It's ludicrous to deny that brain at t0 is the pre-existing material. But you chose to make that ridiculous claim to rationalize denying that (brain at t0 + other factors) causes (brain at t1).

Do you not understand the difference between material cause and efficient cause?

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."

Then it was created from nothing, which means ex nihilo. See this.
— Relativist
I differentiate between God and the Mind. — MoK

So if God creates from nothing, it's ex nihilo. When mind creates from nothing, it isn't. This is ludicrous.

Militarily Russia isn't winning Ukraine, but Trump is giving Putin the biggest political support ever. — ssu

It's more than political support:

'Game changer': US reportedly threatens to revoke Ukraine's Starlink access over minerals

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

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

It was not created from something. — MoK

Then it was created from nothing, which means ex nihilo. See this.