Laws of nature and necessity of mind

[bahman]

Here we argue that any lawful change requires a mind. To show this consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two states of the system which are parameterized by some parameters, like falling an apple that is parameterized by the distance from the ground). By lawful change, we mean that X and Y are related and this relation can be formulated. The system cannot be in two states of X and Y at the same point in time since those states are simultaneous and there is no change, therefore Y has to come after X. This means that the system has to vanish from the state of X in order to allow the system to exist in the state of Y. But there is nothing when the system vanishes and the system in the state of Y cannot pop up from nothing in a lawful change (this is shown in the following). Therefore, there must exist a mind with the ability to experience X and cause Y. The mind has to have the ability to experience otherwise the system in the state of Y cannot be possibly related to X (in other words the information about the system in the state of X is needed in order to cause the system in the state of Y). Mind obviously has to have the ability to cause the system in the state of Y otherwise there will be nothing afterward. Therefore, we proved the claim.

Buy why cannot the system in the state of Y pop up from nothing? Because nothing is indifferent and even if something can pop up of nothing that thing could be anything but very unlikely the system in the state of Y.

[Impenitent]

are you saying the mindless act illegally?

can the mindless be held responsible for that which they do?



the best pop ups are weasels

-Imp

[bahman]

are you saying the mindless act illegally?

can the mindless be held responsible for that which they do?



the best pop ups are weasels

-Imp

I am saying that mindless lawful change does not exist. And only rational beings, like humans, can be held responsible for their actions.