I am thinking like a philosopher and physicist at the same time.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:58 pmLet it go. You’re thinking like a layperson. Give it another try, thinking like a philosopher.bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:47 pmI didn't say that there is a past or future. I said that there was a past and there will be a future.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:41 pm
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!
There is a change therefore there is a mind
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
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 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:30 pmWhy would we say that "ultimately there is no actual identity"?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
"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.
Different points of a variable? What does that refer to? Do you believe that there are real abstracts? I don't.This means that X and Y lay on different points of a variable.
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).There is however a duration between X and Y otherwise the system either is simultaneous or change never takes place.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
Why would identity hinge on something about us, our observations, how we think about anything?Dimebag wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:25 pmBecause 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 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:30 pmWhy would we say that "ultimately there is no actual identity"?
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
Time is not change. Time however changes.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:08 am"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.
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.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:08 amDifferent points of a variable? What does that refer to? Do you believe that there are real abstracts? I don't.This means that X and Y lay on different points of a variable.
Time is not change. Time is a fundamental variable of any dynamical theory.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:08 amThere'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).There is however a duration between X and Y otherwise the system either is simultaneous or change never takes place.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
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.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:18 amOkay, how would we figure out if time is change or not?
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
I’m not familiar with the word “dynamical”. Does it mean dynamic?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:17 amTime is not change. Time however changes.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:08 am"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.
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.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:08 amDifferent points of a variable? What does that refer to? Do you believe that there are real abstracts? I don't.This means that X and Y lay on different points of a variable.
Time is not change. Time is a fundamental variable of any dynamical theory.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:08 amThere'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).There is however a duration between X and Y otherwise the system either is simultaneous or change never takes place.
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
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 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:10 amWhy would identity hinge on something about us, our observations, how we think about anything?Dimebag wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:25 pmBecause 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 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:30 pm
Why would we say that "ultimately there is no actual identity"?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
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.Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:09 am 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.
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
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
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.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:26 amWe 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.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:18 amOkay, how would we figure out if time is change or not?
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.
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
Yes.commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:45 amI’m not familiar with the word “dynamical”. Does it mean dynamic?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:17 amTime is not change. Time however changes.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:08 am
"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.
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.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:08 am
Different points of a variable? What does that refer to? Do you believe that there are real abstracts? I don't.
Time is not change. Time is a fundamental variable of any dynamical theory.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:08 am
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).
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
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 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 3:48 pmWe 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.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:26 amWe 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.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:18 am
Okay, how would we figure out if time is change or not?
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.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: There is a change therefore there is a mind
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?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:49 pmWhat would be evidence of having time but no change?