There is a change therefore there is a mind

[bahman]

What will actually happen after now will be happening at what will be now then.

Time is always now. Time is only now.

Now, the future is only a prediction, not a time or event.

Now, the past is only a memory, not a time or event.

Even though you hold passionate beliefs that imply all this cannot be true, if you’re sharp enough you can work this out for yourself.

Give it an honest try!

I didn't say that there is a past or future. I said that there was a past and there will be a future.

Let it go. You’re thinking like a layperson. Give it another try, thinking like a philosopher.

I am thinking like a philosopher and physicist at the same time.

[Dimebag]

Ultimately, there is no actual identity, but we assign them such so that we can talk about and describe these systems.

Why would we say that "ultimately there is no actual identity"?

Because subatomic particles come with no actual serial numbers, birth marks, or other differentiating features from which anyone could ever differentiate them amongst each other. As such, they have no identity, bar their histories of interaction, which is observable by the state of the system and the states prior. That is the only identity which exists, which says nothing about the particles themselves other than their histories and their destinies.

[Terrapin Station]

Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y do not coexist since there is a change, they are not simultaneous in another world.

"Simultaneous in another world"??

At any rate, they're not simultaneous because time IS change. So if we're talking about change, we're talking about time, and not something that happens at the same time.

This means that X and Y lay on different points of a variable.

Different points of a variable? What does that refer to? Do you believe that there are real abstracts? I don't.

There is however a duration between X and Y otherwise the system either is simultaneous or change never takes place.

There's time because we just posited that there's a change, and time is identical to change. Time isn't a variable. It's the ontological phenomena of change (including motion).

[Terrapin Station]

Ultimately, there is no actual identity, but we assign them such so that we can talk about and describe these systems.

Why would we say that "ultimately there is no actual identity"?

Because subatomic particles come with no actual serial numbers, birth marks, or other differentiating features from which anyone could ever differentiate them amongst each other. As such, they have no identity, bar their histories of interaction, which is observable by the state of the system and the states prior. That is the only identity which exists, which says nothing about the particles themselves other than their histories and their destinies.

Why would identity hinge on something about us, our observations, how we think about anything?

[bahman]

Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y do not coexist since there is a change, they are not simultaneous in another world.

"Simultaneous in another world"??

At any rate, they're not simultaneous because time IS change. So if we're talking about change, we're talking about time, and not something that happens at the same time.

Time is not change. Time however changes.

This means that X and Y lay on different points of a variable.

Different points of a variable? What does that refer to? Do you believe that there are real abstracts? I don't.

X and Y do not lay at the same point, simultaneous. Therefore, they lay on different points. One variable is enough to allow us to have two points in order to accommodate X and Y respectively on it.

There is however a duration between X and Y otherwise the system either is simultaneous or change never takes place.

There's time because we just posited that there's a change, and time is identical to change. Time isn't a variable. It's the ontological phenomena of change (including motion).

Time is not change. Time is a fundamental variable of any dynamical theory.

[Terrapin Station]

Time is not change. Time however changes.

Okay, how would we figure out if time is change or not?

[bahman]

Time is not change. Time however changes.

Okay, how would we figure out if time is change or not?

We have to agree that what change is. Change to me is the variation in a property of a system. Property like position. Time is not a property of a system but as I argued a fundamental variable that allows change to happen.

[commonsense]

Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y do not coexist since there is a change, they are not simultaneous in another world.

"Simultaneous in another world"??

At any rate, they're not simultaneous because time IS change. So if we're talking about change, we're talking about time, and not something that happens at the same time.

Time is not change. Time however changes.

This means that X and Y lay on different points of a variable.

Different points of a variable? What does that refer to? Do you believe that there are real abstracts? I don't.

X and Y do not lay at the same point, simultaneous. Therefore, they lay on different points. One variable is enough to allow us to have two points in order to accommodate X and Y respectively on it.

There is however a duration between X and Y otherwise the system either is simultaneous or change never takes place.

There's time because we just posited that there's a change, and time is identical to change. Time isn't a variable. It's the ontological phenomena of change (including motion).

Time is not change. Time is a fundamental variable of any dynamical theory.

I’m not familiar with the word “dynamical”. Does it mean dynamic?

[Dimebag]

Why would we say that "ultimately there is no actual identity"?

Because subatomic particles come with no actual serial numbers, birth marks, or other differentiating features from which anyone could ever differentiate them amongst each other. As such, they have no identity, bar their histories of interaction, which is observable by the state of the system and the states prior. That is the only identity which exists, which says nothing about the particles themselves other than their histories and their destinies.

Why would identity hinge on something about us, our observations, how we think about anything?

I am not saying that. What I was saying is, particles don’t have individual identities, so, to say that particle A must disappear to make room for particle B, which is just the same particle at time t2 and location l+1 just doesn’t make sense. But we do give them identities when we discuss them. But, none of this has anything to do with minds and their necessity for any change to occur in a physical system.

[Terrapin Station]

I am not saying that. What I was saying is, particles don’t have individual identities, so, to say that particle A must disappear to make room for particle B, which is just the same particle at time t2 and location l+1 just doesn’t make sense. But we do give them identities when we discuss them. But, none of this has anything to do with minds and their necessity for any change to occur in a physical system.

The part I bolded, "particles don't have individual identities," is what I don't understand saying, though. When I asked about that, you only talked about US--about our labeling, our identifying, etc. them.

Maybe we're meaning something different by "identity." What it refers to to say that something has identity is that (a) it exists, (b) it's "itself," (c) it's not something else (other than itself), etc. Is that the sense of identity that you're referring to when you say that particles don't have individual identities. I'm figuring that you have some odd ontology of particles in mind where they don't really exist, or where they're some sort of ambiguous collective, or whatever, and I'm wondering exactly what you believe there and why you'd believe it.

[Terrapin Station]

Time is not change. Time however changes.

Okay, how would we figure out if time is change or not?

We have to agree that what change is. Change to me is the variation in a property of a system. Property like position. Time is not a property of a system but as I argued a fundamental variable that allows change to happen.

We could just say that it's any variation or difference in properties or relations period, but not spatial variations or differences (that is, not a difference where A is like F in location x, but like G in location y); rather it's variations or differences where such and such was the case, but such and such is no longer the case, now this and such is the case. In other words, we're talking about properties or relations that obtained but that no longer obtain, different properties or relations obtain instead.

I wouldn't say that we have to be talking about properties or relations of a system, but that's certainly included. (I don't know why we'd limit it to systems.)

On my view, time is a property of systems. It's a property of any change or motion (since time is identical to change or motion on my view). (So again, time isn't only a property of systems, but it's a property of systems, too.)

Now, if we disagree about whether time is identical to change or motion, we need to figure out how to figure out whether "time is identical to change or motion" is correct or whether "time is not identical to change or motion" is correct. Which is the task I set forth for us.

[bahman]

"Simultaneous in another world"??

At any rate, they're not simultaneous because time IS change. So if we're talking about change, we're talking about time, and not something that happens at the same time.

Time is not change. Time however changes.

Different points of a variable? What does that refer to? Do you believe that there are real abstracts? I don't.

X and Y do not lay at the same point, simultaneous. Therefore, they lay on different points. One variable is enough to allow us to have two points in order to accommodate X and Y respectively on it.

There's time because we just posited that there's a change, and time is identical to change. Time isn't a variable. It's the ontological phenomena of change (including motion).

Time is not change. Time is a fundamental variable of any dynamical theory.

I’m not familiar with the word “dynamical”. Does it mean dynamic?

Yes.

[bahman]

Okay, how would we figure out if time is change or not?

We have to agree that what change is. Change to me is the variation in a property of a system. Property like position. Time is not a property of a system but as I argued a fundamental variable that allows change to happen.

We could just say that it's any variation or difference in properties or relations period, but not spatial variations or differences (that is, not a difference where A is like F in location x, but like G in location y); rather it's variations or differences where such and such was the case, but such and such is no longer the case, now this and such is the case. In other words, we're talking about properties or relations that obtained but that no longer obtain, different properties or relations obtain instead.

I wouldn't say that we have to be talking about properties or relations of a system, but that's certainly included. (I don't know why we'd limit it to systems.)

On my view, time is a property of systems. It's a property of any change or motion (since time is identical to change or motion on my view). (So again, time isn't only a property of systems, but it's a property of systems, too.)

Now, if we disagree about whether time is identical to change or motion, we need to figure out how to figure out whether "time is identical to change or motion" is correct or whether "time is not identical to change or motion" is correct. Which is the task I set forth for us.

The system exists at any point in time. No time no change. Change is different from time, therefore. You however can have time but no change.

[Terrapin Station]

The system exists at any point in time. No time no change. Change is different from time, therefore. You however can have time but no change.

What would be evidence of having time but no change?

[bahman]

The system exists at any point in time. No time no change. Change is different from time, therefore. You however can have time but no change.

What would be evidence of having time but no change?

I experience time at any period that I am waiting for something. It must exist so my mind gets affected with. How mind could be affected by something which does not exist?